|
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and
Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five
years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were
built with public money and that the engineering drawings of
public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1
Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted
the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground
Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings'
blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would
not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey. 2
Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed
architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public
through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings
included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World
Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the
North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the
other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However,
since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it
is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings
shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South
Tower.
The drawings contain a wealth of detail about
the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members
such as the core columns.
Most of the drawings can be viewed in this
multiresolution browser.
This 66th floor core plan included in the
detailed architectural drawings shows that most of the core
columns retained their full outside dimensions well above the
midpoints of the Towers. Of the sixteen columns bounding the
long faces of the core, thirteen have outside dimensions of
approximately 54 by 22 inches in this 66th floor section. In
late 2008 a second set of blueprints became public. This set,
which can be viewed by this multiresolution browser, details the
electrical architecture of the Twin Towers.
Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers'
Construction
Portion of photograph in the collection of the
Skyscraper Museum The detailed architectural drawings make clear
what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that
the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran
most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns
with smaller cross-sections.
Based on construction photographs exhibited in
the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering
News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that,
low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the
long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22
inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained
these dimensions through about the 66th floor.
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 FEMA's
Study nor NIST's 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.
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature
of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA
Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.
FEMA's Building Performance Study
Figure 2-2 of of FEMA's Building Performance
Study, labeled "Representative structural framing plan, upper
floors", is one of five illustrations in the report that depict
core columns. Each of these illustrations depicts the core
columns at their minimum dimensions, and none depict them at
their typical dimensions. In May of 2005, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) released its Building Performance
Study, of which Chapter 2, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", was devoted to
explaining the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. It advances the
"truss theory" or "pancake theory", in which the supposed
failure of floor-truss-to-column connections is the initiating
event in a series of chain reactions ending in total collapse.
Added commentary in our archived copy exposes many deceptive
techniques employed in the article. 3
Key elements of FEMA's theory depend on
misrepresentations of the Towers' construction made possible by
their vague descriptions. For example, to explain other collapse
of the core their Study states:
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. Contrary to the
FEMA's hedged assertion that the core columns were freestanding,
construction photographs clearly show that large horizontal
beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional
matrix of steel.
FEMA's report seems crafted to hide the
structural significance of the core columns, if not their very
existence. Examples of features of the Report that minimize or
conceal the core structures include:
Figure D-13 from FEMA's Study, bearing the
caption "WTC 1 or WTC 2 core column (C-74)", is the only
photograph in the Study that shows an identified core column The
absence of any illustrations showing core columns of typical
dimensions The repeated use of the term "service core" to
describe the cores, and avoidance of terminology describing
their structural role The use of illustrations that imply the
cores didn't exist, such as Figure 2-20 The only photograph of a
core column in the Report (Figure D-13) being of an atypical
column of very small dimensions The inclusion of only floor
plans that show core columns of very small dimensions with no
clarification that the core columns that ran most of the Towers'
heights were of much larger dimensions NIST's Final Report on
the Twin Towers
In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of
the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the
World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was
extremely vague in a number of respects, including any
description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains
very little information about the core columns, the following
being one of the only passages describing them:
Figure 3-3 From NIST's Final Report
drastically misrepresents the dimensions of the core columns on
the 78th through the 83rd floors. The 47 columns in this
rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42
ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The
four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total
gravity load on the core columns. The passage implies that only
the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen
columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same
dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
Illustrations in the Report depict the core
columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the
same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader
around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to
highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of
its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those
esimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed,
compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South
Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns
were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a
glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to
explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse"
almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much
smaller fires?
World Trade Center Master Plan
This illustration from 'Multi-Storey Buildings
in Steel' shows a structural system that matches the drawings in
the MASTER PLAN. Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel Prior to the
release of the detailed architectural drawings, 9-11 Research
published the MASTER PLAN, dated December 16, 1963. The MASTER
PLAN does not show structural details such as column dimensions,
and shows an arrangement of core columns that was later changed.
The obsolete core column arrangement indicated in the MASTER
PLAN has been reproduced in other publications such as the book
'Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel'. 4 |
2.
World Trade Center Tower A Architectural Drawings |
|
3.
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for
Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC
High-Rises on 9/11, June '09 |
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence
for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC
High-Rises on 9/11 More than 700 architects and engineers have
joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports
Gregg Roberts and Staff The facts are in. The evidence is
conclusive. These experts lay it all out. For Some, the Doubts
Began Early Something is wrong with this picture, thought
Nathan Lomba, as he watched replays of the Twin Tower collapses
on television on September 11, 2001. A licensed structural
engineer trained in buildings responses to stress, Lomba saw
more on the screen than you or I. He puzzled, How did the
structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage
was clearly not symmetrical? Lomba was hardly alone in his
discomfort. Most structural engineers were surprised when the
towers fell.1 In 2006, San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard
Gage, AIA, began raising technical questions among his
professional colleagues about the destruction of the Twin Towers
and 47-story WTC Building 7. Those who take time to look at the
facts overwhelm-ingly agree that vital questions remain
unanswered, Gage has found. Today more than 29 structural
engineers, experts in what can and cannot bring down buildings,
have joined almost 700 other Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth in signing the petition demanding a new investigation.2
They mainly kept their misgivings to themselves, though, as
Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
BBC, the History Channel and government agencies such as FEMA
and NIST offered varying and often imaginative theories to
explain how fires brought the towers down. They cite a variety
of concerns about the collapses and the inadequacies of
official reports. Many, like Lomba, find the unnatural symmetry
of all three collapses suspicious. The rapidity of collapse
acknowledged by the government as essentially free-fall
acceleration was troubling, too. Some note that the fires were
weak; others ask how the tilting upper section of WTC 2
straightened itself. Everywhere you look, pieces of the puzzle
dont fit what weve been told. New evidence mounting over the
years only validated initial discomfort: eyewitness testimony of
explosions, unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and
chemical evidence of steel-cutting incendiaries all omitted
from government reports. Many engineers attack implausibilities
in the Baant pile driver model, the 2002 FEMA report and the
2005 NIST report, and also slipshod and dishonest methodology.
Finally, the collapse of WTC 7, not hit by any airplane,
mystified others. The repeated postponement of the governments
report seemed to add fuel to the fire. Artificial Symmetry The
symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a structural engineer in
Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed
Professional Engineer in Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the
collapses totality and uniformity and the fact that the mass
of debris remained centered on the building core all the way
down. The towers should have fallen with increasing
eccentricity as the collapse progressed, writes Howard
Pasternack, P.E. These systematic collapses required that many
structural connections not only fail nearly simultaneously,
but also in sequential order, wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E., who
designs bridges in Northern California. Thats impossible from
asymmetrical impact loading and ... small, short-duration
fires. 2 Anders Bjφrkman William Rice The engineers find it
difficult to believe the governments claim scattered fires
brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened
steel would show large deflection, asymmetric and local
failure, and slow progress, David Scott told colleagues at the
Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. Its a gradual
process, agreesAnders Bjφrkman, and cannot be simultaneous
everywhere. A Swedish naval architect working in France,
Bjφrkman maintains that failures will always be local and
topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.
William Rice, P.E., a Vermont structural engineer, expects
fire-induced failures to be tilting, erratic and twisting.
while Ronald Brookman, S.E., a licensed structural engineer from
Novato, California, figures on a partial collapse to the side.
Symmetrical collapse requires simultaneous failure of all
supporting columns, notes Charles Pegelow. How could all 47
core columns fail at the same instant? Pegelow has performed
design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings. His
opinion: Fires could not do that. Impossible Collapse
Acceleration The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) characterized the Twin Towers collapse as essentially
in free fall (Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1).3 Brookman wrote
asking NIST investigators why debris fell with little or no
resistance from the intact structure below. Rice questions how
each tower inexplicably collapsed upon itself, crushing all 287
massive columns on each floor while maintaining near-freefall
speed] as if the 80,000 tons of supporting structural steel
framework underneath didnt exist.4 Falling objects should take
the path of least resistance, notes Pasternack, while official
explanations claim that Tower debris took the path of greatest
resistance through the strong, cross-braced core structure all
the way to the ground. The Twin Towers were overbuilt to prevent
office workers from getting seasick on windy days, says Kollar.
Theres so much redundancy.... The building has to be stiff
enough so it doesnt sway. Perimeter columns designed to endure
hurricanes, Scott says, were loaded only to about 10% of their
ultimate capacity in the gentle breeze on 9/11.5 Gravity was a
negligible part of the loading, says Kollar, citing a claim by
the Towers engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson
that even with all the columns on one side cut, and several
around the two corners, the Tower would still withstand 100
mile-per-hour winds.6 The rapid breakup of this robust structure
appears to defy the laws of physics, engineers say. Forty-five
years of structural design experience inform the view of Claude
Briscoe, P.E., that the governments collapse theories seem to
defy the laws of mechanics, conservation of energy, and known
structural failure behavior. In the official story, the kinetic
energy of the falling debris would have been largely absorbed by
the energy required to dismember the structure, bending and
twisting steel components, and pulverizing 220 acres of concrete
floors. To accomplish all this while achieving a nearly
free-fall-speed collapse is simply not physically possible,
says Mason. There is not sufficient energy available.... For
this massively strong structure to just crumble away at
near-free-fall speed would have required immense amounts of
explosive energy. Weak Fires Vs. Explosive Events Though four
official accounts blame fire for the destruction of all three
World Trade Center towers, the fires do not appear to have been
particularly severe. NIST states that the jet fuel burned off in
just ten minutes.7 They also acknowledged that office furniture
burns for only 15 to 20 minutes in any one area before its
consumed,8 Scott points out. Theres ample evidence that the
steel temperatures got nowhere close to the 600+ degrees
Centigrade 1,200 Ron Brookman Charles Pegelow 3 degrees
Fahrenheit] required to cause failure. We saw no raging
infernos on TV, David Huebner, P.E., points out. Sooty smoke
and dull red flames, Scott says, indicate cool fires ...
fuel-starved fires. Firemen at the 78th-floor impact zone
reported only two small fires, Scott adds, not the
1000-degree-Centigrade inferno government officials claim. New
York Fire Department (FDNY) personnel, trained to assess fires
structural hazards, had no reason to expect total collapse,
Brookman writes. Scott notes that several steel-framed towers
have burned longer, hotter and much more intensely without
collapse. As engineers we know what fire can do to steel and
what it cant. Over 100 recorded witnesses reported hearing
and seeing multiple explosions, Rice wrote.9 Brookman cites
numerous eyewitness accounts, including the FDNY oral
histories, of secondary explosions ... well below the impact
floors. His letter to Congressional representatives describes
explosive clouds of dust and debris moving horizontally and
vertically. Brookman added: That does not look anything like a
heat-induced, gravitational collapse mechanism. Rice notes that
perimeter columns weighing several tons each were ejected
laterally up to 600] feet. His conclusion: Not possible
without explosives. Angular Momentum Arrested As the South
Tower began to fail, the top 25 stories tipped as a unit, photos
show. The tilting block doesnt look right, Brookman said. It
should continue to rotate and fall to the ground. Edward Knesl
and Lomba say the same thing. The failure mode of such tall
structures should have been a fall over to the side (Knesl)
and a toppling of the upper floors to one side ... not a
concentric, vertical collapse (Lomba). It looked like an
explosive event, Brookman said. The upper section] began
tilting toward the damage zone, and then suddenly dropped
straight down and disintegrated in the process. Building 7s
Mystifying Implosion Baffling as the Towers collapses were,
even more perplexing was the destruction of World Trade Center
Building 7. Unprecedented, says Rice. Unexplainable, says
Huebner. No plane hit this building, points out Graham Inman,
a chartered engineer in London. Few Americans have given any
thought to the thirdWorld Trade Center high-rise destroyed on
September 11th, since it was not repeatedly televised. Kamal
Obeid, S.E., ponders it. A localized failure in a steel-framed
building like WTC 7 cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a
house of cards without a simultaneous and patterned loss of
several of its columns at key locations within the building.
Videos show simultaneous failure of all columns, wrote Inman,
rather than the expected] phased approach, in which undamaged
columns would show resistance sequentially. Though the building
housed offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the
Department of Defense, among others, Rice notes, the 9/11
Commission left WTC 7s collapse out of its report. FEMAs 2002
inquiry blamed WTC 7s collapse on fires, though it admits that
its best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
Rice notes that the media have basically kept the collapse of
WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. The Phantom Pile
Driver Two days after 9/11, Dr. Zdeněk Baant offered a
rationale for the most catastrophic structural failure in
history. Seven years later, his thesis10 still underlies
official claims that total collapses were inevitable. Baants
mathematical model of the The South Towers top tilted 22
degrees, then disappeared straight down into the rubble cloud.
Zdeněk Baant Kamal Obeid WTC 7 came down in full free-fall for
2-1/4 seconds and very near free-fall overall. 4 upper floors
transformation into a pile driver block free-falling one story
to hammer the entire tower into scrap metal and powder involves
very misty allegations actually inventions, says Bjφrkman.
His opinion derives from thirty-five years in ship surveying and
construction, design of tankers and seagoing ferries, and
practical observations of steel vessels after collisions. Never
before, Bjφrkman notes, has a smaller object (the light-weight,
upper, actually non-rigid, flexible steel structure consisting
of many smaller parts) destroyed the bigger and stronger other
object (the complex steel structure below) only with the
assistance of gravity. Bjφrkman scoffs at Baants mythical
free-falling top block bringing 287 columns hammering down in
perfect array on the 287 columns below. Steel bends and mashes
in Bjφrkmans salty world, and it is not certain that the
hammer even hits the nail. Real-life columns miss, lodge in
horizontal structures, and punch holes in floors, creating
energy-absorbing frictions, deformed steel, local failures, and
a soft collision (not impact!) that tangles damaged floors in
a shuffled array and stops well short of total collapse.
Videos show that Baants alleged pile driver disintegrates
within 3.5 seconds after the roof starts to fall.... before
global collapse starts! Bjφrkman challenges Dr. Baant and his
followers to produce a timetable, analysis, and explanation
consistent with the video evidence. And tell us ... what
happened to the upper block! Molten Iron Flowing Like Lava
Steel starts melting at 2700° F, almost 1000° hotter than jet
fuel fires, notes Pegelow. Why did the NIST investigation not
consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage? he asks. FDNY
Captain Philip Ruvolo reported seeing in the basements molten
steel ... like you were in a foundry, like lava.11 Even Leslie
Robertson, one of the design engineers of the World Trade Center
and a supporter of the official collapse story, reportedly
acknowledged on October 5, 2001 that twenty-one days after the
attack, molten steel was still running.12 Richard Garlock, a
structural engineer in Robertsons firm, said Going below....
the debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.13 Dr.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, another supporter of the official story
and the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel,
told PBS, I saw melting of girders in the]World Trade
Center.14 Jet fuel cant melt steel, but thermite
explosives/incendiaries can ... create temperatures in excess of
4000 degrees Fahrenheit... writes Rice, instantly
melting/severing short segments of steel columns and beams.
Chemical evidence of thermite found in the powdered debris by
physicist Dr. Steven Jones15 is cited by Rice, by Obeid, and by
Clark Townsend. Brookman challenges NIST to explain tiny
iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust, which appear to be
solidified droplets of once-molten iron.16 Crucial Evidence
Survives Discredited 2002 FEMA Report The FEMA 403 report17 was
incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst, says structural
engineer <name redacted by request> of New Jersey, noting that a
metallurgical study in its Appendix C.2 found evidence of a
severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel ... with
subsequent intergranular melting forming a sulfur-rich liquid
that severely weaken ed] the structural steel. FEMA scientists
later state in Appendix C.6 that no clear explanation for the
source of the sulfur has been identified. <redacted> finds that
unacceptable. The report has uncovered an unexplainable
phenomenon within the context of the official story] that may
have led to the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings, he writes,
and has stated that further study is needed, but FEMA has not
Other Engineers Agree Not all the structural engineers who have
signed the petition at AE911Truth.org are quoted in this
article. But all of them support a new investigation, primarily
because of the evidence of controlled demolition presented on
our website. Capt. Philip Ruvolo Dr. Steven Jones 5 proceeded
with further research. Evidence was not just ignored; it was
destroyed. Firemen rioted at Ground Zero,18 protesting the
desecration of the dead in a hasty scoop and dump clean-up of
the structural steel debris. The destruction of the crime scene
evidence is inexcusable, Huebner writes. Scott laments the
masses of vital forensic evidence lost, and Bill Manning,
Editor in Chief of Fire Engineering magazine, called FEMAs
investigation a half-baked farce.19 Steel components were
stamped with identification numbers that would have aided their
reassembly for study, but that reassembly never took place.
Brookman asks, Why was the steel ... not thoroughly examined by
fire-safety and structural experts before being shipped to Asia
for recycling? Pegelow charges that FEMA hampered and
distorted the investigation, citing Dr. Abolhassan
Astaneh-Asls complaints in 2002 to the House Committee on
Science that FEMA held back essential engineering drawings and
videotapes and photographs. Such flawed methodology was
accompanied by inadequate theories that cannot explain the loss
of the cores, Scott points out. He says FEMAs notion that
floor connections all failed simultaneously at the outer wall
and at the core is not too plausible. Bill Genitsaris,
structural engineer and builder based in Melbourne, believes
that a pancake-style collapse should have left supporting
columns standing. Such a collapse would have left at least
dozens of shattered floors in the building footprint below. Only
very small floor sections were found, and not many of them.
Deceptive presentation further damaged FEMAs credibility. Tom
Lackey, who designs bridges for the Vermont Agency of
Transportation, cites the Minneapolis Bridge collapse study as
the kind of analysis and straightforward explanation the WTC
needs. FEMAs reports stack up poorly. Some of its graphics
omit the cores altogether, says Scott, and some depict columns
half as wide and twice as far apart as they actually were. Scott
decries attempts to distort important technical information.
The Australians use more colorful terminology: Mason says we
have been taken for suckers; Genitsaris says weve been stooged.
Truncated and Fudged Computer Model Undermines NIST Report
(2005) NISTs $20 million report is generally believed, by those
who havent read its 10,000 pages, to explain how fires and
plane impacts destroyed the WTC. The report not only fails to
explain why and how the towers completely collapsed, Brookman
points out, but it states that the collapse became inevitable
without any further explanation. He asks why NIST considered
conservation of energy and momentum principles only up to the
moment prior to collapse. NIST stopped its computerized models
before the onset of collapse, Scott complains. No work was
done to calculate what happened during the failure. Why are we
content with this? Ron Brookman adds: The complete collapse
mechanism ... cannot be omitted for brevity in any
comprehensive analysis. NISTs claim that a kinetic attack
exceeded the buildings reserve strength is not supported by any
calculations or by any evidence whatsoever or any serious
structural analysis, states Anders Bjφrkman. While NIST fails
to show essential work on central issues, its numerous volumes
are packed with distracting trivia. Huebner, whose twenty-five
years of A Note About 9/11 Debunkers It could be hoped that
the comments from the structural engineers quoted in this
article would silence the debunkers who dismissed our
arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us.
That was never true to begin with. After AE911Truth was formed
and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers
predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any
engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as
tall buildings. Since the 29 engineers interviewed for this
article do in fact possess that knowledge, the goalposts will no
doubt just be moved again. This kind of behavior should make
clear the nature of the game that is being played. One word for
it is sophistry. NISTs Report on the Twin Towers WTC steel
sample after hot corrosion attack. FEMA, Appendix C 6 structural
engineering experience includes forensic investigation of
structural collapses, compares NISTs effort to a college paper
where you just keep adding stuffing] to make the paper longer.
Lots of pages of nothing! Definitely trying to cover up
something. Brookman asked NIST investigators to explain the
complete pulverization of building materials and contents and
visibly explosive clouds of dust, ash, and debris. He received
no reply. I believe in the laws of physics, wrote Brookman,
and rely on them every day. NISTs reports seem to require
multiple leaps of faith in highly improbable events, wrote
Pasternack. Computer models using NISTs best estimates of
temperature and damage could not even generate a collapse, Scott
points out. Theyd simply adjust the input until the desired
outcome is achieved. NIST probably overestimated core column
damage, Scott believes, almost certainly overestimated steel
temperatures, and definitely overestimated damage to fire
protection. So important an inquiry should rely on logical
deduction, reason and first-principle analysis, Scott says,
not circular reasoning and adjusting models to get agreement
with a preconceived explanation. 47-Story Building 7s
Near-Freefall Collapse Defies NIST Report (2008) "Weve had
trouble getting a handle on building No. 7, NISTs Dr. Shyam
Sunder acknowledged to New York Magazine over two years ago.
David Topete, S.E., asks why no other nearby buildings collapsed
when some were much more severely damaged by fire and Twin Tower
debris. NISTs recent report blames one buckling column, number
79, for WTC 7s global and near-symmetrical collapse, yet
characterizes WTC 7s fires as normal office fires which only
burn twenty minutes in any given location before moving on.
Obeid rejects the suggestion that one failing column could pull
adjacent columns down. It is not possible for a local failure
within the lower structure to spread horizontally, he wrote
recently. Such a failure would cause a break-away ... instead
of pulling the structure with it. Even if NISTs horizontal
progression were somehow triggered, Obeid says, the building
would not have collapsed so neatly and symmetrically. All core
columns have to be severed at the same time to make such a
collapse. Disturbing Questions That Must Be Answered To
preserve Americas unprecedented freedoms, Clayton Simmons
says, we must pursue the truth. He is troubled by my
professions involvement in this apparent cover-up and the
medias refusal to address important questions. Scott too
expresses wonder that structural engineers response has been
amazingly muted, even uninterested. Rice found that
politicians also lacked interest. Many people remain willfully
ignorant, writes Genitsaris. They believe that 9/11 does not
affect their lives ... regardless of the fact that our freedoms
are being taken from us. Perhaps few are questioning, Brookman
says, because its painful to look directly at the events and
consider the implications. William Acri, P.E., believes that
the engineers oath to hold public safety above all else
demands that they raise questions. If three modern steel
high-rises really underwent total progressive collapse in less
than two hours of fire, merely because of the fires and some
damage to the fireproofing, we need to understand WHY! Scott
writes. If WTC 7 failed from a localized fire event, Inman asks,
why didnt the owners and insurers sue the designers? Either
the building design was criminally faulty, or other causes not
related to the structural design or fire brought down WTC 7, he
says. Why Should Science-Based Forensic Evidence Be Taboo? From
all across America, and from Australia, Canada, the UK, and
France, the structural engineers we spoke with for this article
join more than 675 other Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
in calling for a new investigation into the catastrophic
destruction of the threeWorld Trade Center high-rises on
September 11. The implications of the controlled David Topete 7
demolition hypothesis as outlined on the AE911Truth.org website
are staggering, says founding member Richard Gage, AIA. We
therefore invite all Americans to examine the science-based
forensic evidence very carefully and come to their own
conclusions. Lombas conclusion, drawn from his initial
perceptions and validated by subsequent developments, is clear:
Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the hypothesis
that the fire protection was damaged and the fires somehow
weakened the steel frames, that still does not explain the
relatively concentric nature of the failures. Scott challenges
his fellow structural engineers: The building performance on
9/11 matched controlled demolition. It does not match
fire-induced collapse. We have the expertise to discern this. Do
we have the courage to broadcast it? References 1http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html
2http://www.ae911truth.org/ 3http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
4http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
5 How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story
Buildings,Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964. 6 James Glanz
and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World
Trade Center ( New York: Times Books, 2003) 7http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807
8 http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf, p. 183.
9http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
10http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/Baant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
11http://la.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=9840845
12 http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf 13http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
14 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
15http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
16http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
17 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf. 18 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/45256_zero03.shtml
19http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225
8 All the structural engineers below have signed the AE911Truth
petition. Not all of them were interviewed for this article.
Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio William W. Acri
P.Eng. Lic: 143016 BASc Toronto, ON Canada Construction
Engineer, and Structural Consultant, in Toronto, Alberta, and
BC. I have used explosives on many road projects. Antonio Arthay
P.E., Lic: 57912, M.S., Structural Engineering, Illinois; West
Palm Beach, FL Licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of
experience in building design. Anders Bjφrkman Naval architect &
Marine engineer *M.Sc. Beausoleil, Alpes Maritime France 40
years of steel structural design, operations, damage analysis
and repairs (of ships) but the principles are same for other
structures, e.g. towers Jim Bomford P. Eng., B.A.Sc.
Engineering, UBC, Cowichan Bay, BC Canada A civil engineer and
former structural engineer practising in the Province of BC for
thirty five years. Claude Robert Briscoe P.E. Lic: Civil
Engineer C17546 -- California BS Engineering, UCLA Santa Rosa,
CA 45+ years in civil and structural engineering design and
construction with project work in bridges, buildings,
foundations, earth retaining structures, roads, highways, and
various commercial, industrial and public works facilities.
Ronald H. Brookman Structural Engineer Lic: Structural Engineer
3653 CA Civil Engineer 44654 CA, B.S. & M.S. Engineering, U.C.
Davis Novato, CA Mr. Brookman is a licensed structural engineer
in the state of California. He obtained B.S. Civil Engineering
(1984) and M.S. Structural Engineering (1986) degrees from the
University of California at Davis, and has over 21 years
experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and
rehabilitation of buildings in northern California. Frank J.
Cullinan P.E. Civil Engineer Lic: C 50794 CA B.S. Civil
Engineering Trinidad, CA My expertise is in structure
construction of bridges and to a lesser extent demolition of
bridges. 9 Name Credentials / Education / Location Bio Erwin De
Jong MSc Mechanical and Structural Engineering, Master, The
Hague, Zuid Holland The Netherlands Master degree Mechanical
Engineering obtained at University of Twente (Netherlands)
Currently occupied in offshore (steel structure) and aerospace
engineering. <name redacted by request> <redacted> <redacted>
Rick Fowlkes P.E. Lic: 13162 AZ/ 35889 CA BSCE & MBA Mesa, AZ
Registered professional engineer - Arizona Structural - PE;
California - Civil-P.E. President of Fowlkes Enterprises, Inc.
since 1983 in Mesa, AZ. Republican Party candidate for Arizona
State Corporation Commissioner. Bill Genitsaris Consulting
Structural Engineer & Builder BA Engineering, Uni. of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC Australia Consulting Engineer with over 20
years experience in Civil and Structural Engineering. Worked in
the fields of structural engineering design, construction,
demolition, investigation of building movements and disputes.
Worked for many years as a senior consulting structural engineer
in the residential and commercial fields. In those years,
provided professional services from engineering design advise
for new and existing buildings, construction and demolition
advice/procedural recommendations, to remedial works
recommendations for buildings which are cracking/moving
. David
G. Huebner P.E. Lic: 6201036077 MI Professional Engineer BSCE
Auburn Hills, MI Since graduating college in 1982, I have worked
in the structural engineering field. In 2000, I started my own
consulting business as a structural engineer. I have experience
with wood, concrete, and steel design as well as some forensic
experience investigating collapses of structures. I also have
experience as a paid on call fire/rescue worker. Edward E. Knesl
P.E., S.E. Lic: C 22102 AZ, S 22172 AZ M.S. Engineering Phoenix,
AZ Full Master Degree study of Civil and Structural Engineering.
Thirty five years of experience domestic and overseas in
commercial and transportation projects : - Structural Design and
Analysis - Construction Administration and Management - Plan
Review - Special Inspection 10 Name Credentials / Education /
Location Bio Dennis J. Kollar P.E., Structural Engineer Lic:
34422-6 Professional Engineer exp 2008 B.S. + Graduate
Coursework West Bend, WI I began my career in the 1980's as a
Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions
in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil
Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993
with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years
experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+
Years experience in the structural design of residential,
commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel,
concrete, masonry and timber. Thomas H. Lackey P.E. Engineer Lic:
018-0005701 VT B.S.C.E., UVM 1985 Stowe, VT I began my career as
a Geodetic Surveyor in the US Army in Germany from 1979-1982. I
studied Civil Engineering at and graduated from the University
of Vermont with a BSCE from 1982-1985. I practiced as an EIT in
Alaska, New Hampshire and Vermont primarily in land development
from 1985-1989. I passed my P.E. exam and became licensed in
Vermont in 1989. I joined the Vermont Agency of Transportation
in 1989 where I have worked in the Structures Section since
1995. Nathan S. Lomba P.E., S.E., M.ASCE; 4132 C/S ID, C43284
CA; B.S.C.E., U. of Colorado; Eureka, CA Consulting
civil/structural engineer with over 22 years in private practice
(39 years total). Experience ranges from custom residential to
heavy industrial structures. Some major project involvements
include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million
project for the US Air Force; structural design engineer for a
41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a
550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Idaho PE, 1980 Idaho SE,
1990 California PE, 1987 BSCE, 1976, University of Colorado,
Denver/Boulder, CO Professional Affiliations: Member, American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Member, American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Charter member, Structural Engineering
Instititute (SEI) Professional member, American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) Paul W. Mason Structural Engineer;
Engineers Australia Member #34040 (Also Association of
Professional Engineers, Scientists & Managers, Australia, member
# 222349); Melbourne, VIC Australia 33 years experience
designing, constructing and maintaining major structures for
state government agency. 11 Name Credentials / Education /
Location Bio Travis McCoy Design Engineer, BS Civil Engineering,
Cincinnati, OH I received my BS in Civil and Environmental
Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 2007. I am
currently working on my MS in Structural Engineering at the
University of Cincinnati as well as working for a local
structural engineering consulting firm. Dr. Robert T. Mote PhD,
Structural Engineer, Lic: APEGGA, B.Eng (Hons), Calgary, AB
Canada +20 years experience in structural design. Special
interest in dynamic and explosion behaviour of structural
elements and foundations. Arthur Nelson P.E. Lic: MA PE 32785
M.Sc., Structural Eng, Northeastern Seekonk, MA Structural
engineer since 1986. Involved in design of hundreds of steel
structures though none have been involved in airplane
collisions. Kamal S. Obeid SE, PE Lic: Structural Engineer 2826
CA, Civil Engineer 35214 MSCE, UC Berkeley, Fremont, CA
Consulting structural engineer specializing in building and
other structures design and retrofit. California SE 1985
California PE 1982 MSCE 1980, UC Berkeley BSCE 1978, University
of Texas, Austin Howard Pasternack B.A.Sc., P.Eng. Lic: 90261421
B.A.Sc. Civil Eng., U. of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada B.A.Sc.
Civil Engineering (specializing in Structural Engineering) 1986
Graduate work at U. of Alberta to 1989 Design, Analysis and
Inspection of Structures: Anrep Associates to 1990 Design,
Analysis and Inspection of Structures: Morrison Hershfield to
1993. Design, Analysis and Inspection of Structures: CanDesign
Engineering Services 1993-present. 12 Name Credentials /
Education / Location Bio Charles N. Pegelow PE, Civil Engineer.
lic Calif CE 26344 exp 2008 Houston, TX (none provided) William
Rice P.E. Lic: 018-0002991 VT MS Civil Engineering, Cornell
Univ. Randolph Center, VT I earned my BSCE degree from the
University of Massachusetts with a major in structures and later
an MS degree in civil engineering from Cornell University. After
graduation from UMass, I was employed in the field by two of the
nations largest building construction companies, first the
Austin Company (a design/build firm) and later the George A.
Fuller Construction Company. The construction of one of the
Austin Company building projects was the basis of my master's
thesis. I also taught building design and construction related
courses to civil engineering and architectural students at
Vermont Technical College for twenty years. Jιrτme Royer
Engineer, Mechanical Engineering, Paris France Degree in
mechanical/structural engineering and degree in engineering for
high energy physics experiments. Alaa Rustom Structural and
Geotechnical Civil Engineer, BSC Structural and Geotechnical
Civil En Ottawa, ON Canada With over a year's experience in
the structural field, I am a new graduate of structural and
geotechnical Civil Engineering. I have just graduated from the
University of Ottawa, and pronounced an Obligated Engineer by
ward 12 on an obligation to work with the highest quality of
workmanship in my field. David Scott AMICE, CEng, MIStructE Beng
Auchterarder, Perthshire Great Britain Consulting Structural
Engineer, with 20 years experience of building design and
founding director of a structural and architectural design
practice in Perthshire, Scotland. 13 Name Credentials /
Education / Location Bio Clayton J. Simmons P.E., Associate
Engineer Lic: 72749 (CE) CA B.S.C.E., Brigham Young University,
Santa Rosa, CA Mr. Simmons studied at Brigham Young University,
graduating with degrees in Russian and Civil & Environmental
Engineering with an emphasis in structures. He had the unique
privilege of being one of Dr. Steven Jones' physics students
prior to 9/11, learning from him the principles of conservation
of energy and momentum. Following his formal training, he
returned to his native Santa Rosa, California and has worked for
the past three years in the engineering profession, analyzing
and designing water-based infrastructure and residential
structures. David Topete S.E. Lic: S4793 CA C59280 CA B.S. Civil
Engineering, Santa Clara U San Francisco, CA After working as a
Junior Engineer, I returned to pursue a Master's degree (just
short). I have been a designer throughout my career, mainly
residential, commercial and light manufacturing facilities.
Clark W. Townsend Civil Engineer Lic: C47921 CA BSCE CSU-Fort
Collins, Colorado Sacramento, CA I received a BS in Civil
Engineering from a four year accredited university in 1986. I
became a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of California in
1991. I have worked in several fields of civil engineering
including structural |
4.
Republic Magazine Evidence for the Explosive
Demolition of World Trade Center, Building 7 on 9/11, Sept '09 |
700 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
PRESENT Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade
Center, Building 7 on 9/11 Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and
David Chandler 24 core columns - removed within a fraction of a
second by !re?
NIST initially
denied the fact of free-fall in its final draft report released
in August 2008. In the technical briefing that followed, NISTs
lead investigator, Shyam Sunder explained, A free-fall time
would be an object that has no structural components below it.
He claimed that WTC7 took 40% longer than free-fall time to
collapse, and that is not at all unusual because there was
structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.
And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take
place and everything was not instantaneous. However, physics
instructor and AE911Truth associate David Chandler had used
network television videos to carefully measure the acceleration
of the building during its fall and shown conclusively that a
significant period of free-fall was an indisputable fact. He
publicly challenged NISTs claims at the technical briefing.
Along with several others, he filed formal requests for
corrections during the public response period. In its final
report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it
couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed
to address how free-fall could be compatible with its
fire-induced progressive collapse analysis. For the observed
straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns
and beams, had to be forcibly removed and more than 400
structural steel connections had to fail per second, evenly all
across each of the eight floors involved. These failures had to
occur ahead of the collapsing section NOT caused by it
because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in
its path without slowing its own fall. Yet NISTs admission of
the fact of free-fall, together with Shyam Sunders
acknowledgment of the simple meaning of that fact, led to no
reconsideration of its fire-induced, single-column-initiated,
progressive collapse hypothesis. Moreover, in what looks like an
attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the
question of free-fall was omitted from the list of changes in
its final report. Symmetry The overall building mass fell
uniformly and with almost perfect symmetry through what should
have been the path of greatest resistance 40,000 tons of
structural steel. This requires a precisely timed patterned
removal of critical columns which office fires, a gradual
organic process, is not capable of. Only a carefully engineered
implosion could cause this 47-story building to collapse in on
itself and land mostly within its own footprint. After all,
demolition companies are paid large sums to accomplish this
feat, and only a few can do it with tall buildings. Also, the
destruction was complete. The building had been built especially
strong so that alternate floors could be removed in case a
tenant needed an extra tall space. Yet its forty-seven stories
were reduced, in less than seven seconds, to about four stories
of debris like a house of cards with the virtually complete
dismemberment of the steel skeleton, including both braced and
welded moment-resisting (bendresistant) frames. Did the Dog Eat
Their Homework? NIST Withheld Crucial Evidence Had officials
taken all the relevant evidence into account and provided a
superficially coherent explanation, it would at least make sense
to entertain the idea that, 1) fire might have acted in ways
that it had never acted before, 2) modern structural steel might
have acted in ways that it had never acted before, and 3) that
this all just happened to occur on a day when terrorists did
something they had never done before. Yet, officials have not
taken all the relevant evidence into account and they have not
provided even a superficially coherent explanation. A High
Temperature Corrosion Attack and Molten Iron/Steel: Undeniable
Evidence of Thermitic Incendiaries Prior to the NIST
investigation, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
had conducted a preliminary, cursory, underfunded investigation
and produced a Building Performance Assessment Report. In
Appendix C of that report, FEMA described steel samples from
Building 7 that had undergone a high temperature corrosion
attack that had turned a heavy steel flange into Swiss
cheese. They found evidence of a severe high temperature
corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and
sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting
. FEMAs
metallographic analysis showed that the steel had not only
melted but some of it had even evaporated. A liquid eutectic
mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed
during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.... No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
The New York Times called this perhaps the deepest mystery
uncovered in the investigation. What did NIST say about this
mystery described by FEMA? They did not mention it. Neither jet
fuel nor office fires can reach anywhere close to steels
melting point, much less its boiling point, even if those
critical temperatures had been lowered by the presence of free
sulfur. So what could have caused this high temperature
corrosion attack? Thermite is a mixture of powdered iron oxide
and elemental aluminum which, when ignited, Free-fall
acceleration through 40,000 tons of structural steel? WTC 7: In
free-fall acceleration - for 8 stories Total dismemberment of
steel structure fell like a house of cards
reacts violently at 4000-4500° F. well above irons melting
point of 2800° F, producing aluminum oxide and molten iron in a
very dangerous, volcaniceruption- like display. When free sulfur
is added to the mixture, the iron melts at a lower temperature.
Thermite with sulfur added is called thermate. Structural steel
in contact with ignited thermate also melts at a lower
temperature. Contrary to what NIST and others have claimed, the
sulfur could not have come from gypsum wallboard in which it is
an inert, chemically locked ingredient. (FEMA metallurgists
would have proposed that explanation themselves if it were
within the realm of possibility.) Still, additional evidence of
molten iron and/or steel abounds for all three high-rises.
Photos and numerous credible witnesses (including first
responders and structural engineers) confirm the existence of
several tons of molten metal under the debris pile described
by some fire fighters as flowing like lava. Photos clearly
reveal molten metal dripping out of the material held in the
jaws of crab claw excavators. Video taken of the South Tower
shortly before it came down shows a spout of molten metal
spewing from near the impact hole, brightly glowing
orange-yellow in daylight, unlike molten aluminum which appears
silvery under these conditions. It could only be molten iron or
steel. John Gross, lead engineer for NIST, publicly denied the
existence of molten metal despite the abundant evidence. Shyam
Sunder of NIST later acknowledged it but could not offer a
rational explanation for it. NISTs afterthought Answers to
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage attributes the spouts
color to mixing of office contents with the aluminum a
hypothetical phenomenon that physicist Steven Jones and
independently a NASA engineer have been unable to reproduce in
two laboratory experiments. Given the stakes, one might expect
NIST to have used some of the 20 million dollars allocated to
the WTC study to show us not just speculate that this
miraculous mixing of light, fluffy office materials with heavier
aluminum makes a poured stream of impure aluminum appear, in
bright sunlight, like the orange molten metal seen in the South
Tower videos. Hot Spots With Extreme Temperatures Measured by
USGS/NASA USGS used NASA thermal imaging of the surface of the
WTC rubble pile to document hot spots with extreme temperatures
of almost 1,400°F. These temperatures, too, are hotter than most
office fires produce. And there were no fires on the surface of
the WTC7 pile following the collapses. The detected surface
temperatures indicate much higher temperatures deep in the pile,
which persisted for several weeks despite the continuous
spraying of millions of gallons of water onto Ground Zero so
much water that one worker described the result as a giant
lake. Thermite contains its own source of oxygen and burns just
as well under water. Molten Iron Droplets in the WTC Dust
Chemical and micrographic analysis of the dust that blanketed
Lower Manhattan after the destruction of each of the Twin Towers
revealed the presence of iron-rich microspheres. These
microspheres were found in separately collected samples of the
dust both near and far from Ground Zero, some of it collected
before cleanup operations had begun. Their shape indicates that
they were previously molten fragments that were pulled into
spherical form by surface tension into droplets which solidified
before hitting the ground. They are direct evidence that
temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron were present
during the buildings destruction. These microspheres could not
have been produced by friction or any other known process during
the Towers collapses. Furthermore, they lack the chromium
present in structural steel and contain manganese, an ingredient
of potassium permanganate, a common thermite additive.
Aluminothermic Nanocomposites Unignited Nanothermite in the
WTC Dust An even more definitive discovery arose during a
scientific examination of the dust: red-gray chips. An
international team of chemists, physicists, and others confirmed
that the chemical makeup of the red layer O"ce !res dont do
this to steel O"ce !res are not hot enough to create the molten
metal seen by dozens of witness Jet fuel and o"ce !res cant
create molten iron Impossible temperatures on the surface of
Ground Zero a week after the collapses Billions of previously
molten iron spheres found in all WTC dust samples Demolition of
Building 7
of these chips,
their granular structure, and thermal behavior, were all
consistent with those of advanced thermitic explosives. Particle
sizes of less than a tenth of a micron in the red layer classify
this material as nanothermite. The significance of the extremely
small particle sizes is that the surface area is much greater
for a given volume of the components, so chemical reactions are
greatly accelerated. The team published its findings in The Open
Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009. Members of the team had
earlier asked that NIST test the dust for evidence of
explosives. NIST repeatedly refused to do so, even though such
testing is called for by NFPA 921, the National Fire Protection
Association guideline for fire and explosion investigations
throughout the United States. NIST did not see fit to even
discuss the issue of thermite or explosives in its formal
reports. In its FAQ, referring narrowly to tests for ordinary
thermite and thermate, they explained that such tests would not
necessarily have been conclusive because The metal compounds
also would have been present in the construction materials
making up the WTC towers
This is technically correct, and NFPA
921 does emphasize the need to make inferences cautiously:
Presence of remains from the oxidizers does not in itself
constitute an intentionally set fire. (section 22.2.4, 2008
edition). However, NFPA 921 does not provide any justification
for not performing tests, especially when there is evidence of
high temperature accelerants (HTAs), such as melted steel
(22.4.1) The guidelines refer to thermite specifically:
Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such
accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or
chemically identifiable. Moreover, the team of scientists who
did look at the dust found an exotic, highly engineered form of
thermite, known as nanothermite, or superthermite. It doesnt
just melt steel; it explodes. It can be chemically tuned to do
so with less noise than conventional explosives. And it cannot
be confused even by overworked government engineers with
structural steel, rust, primer paint, aluminum cladding, or
other construction materials. It contains ultra fine grain
particles of aluminum and iron oxide, 1000 times smaller than a
human hair, intimately intermixed and embedded in a matrix of
organic material. When it is heated slowly to about 430° C it
goes off thermally, producing molten iron in spheroids
reminiscent of those found in the dust. Clearly the reaction,
triggered at only 430° C, releases enough energy to raise the
temperature beyond the melting point of iron (1538° C.). Look
Whos Here Nanothermite could not have been made in a cave in
Afghanistan. It was developed in the 1990s in US national
laboratories, and is produced by only a few defense contractors.
Some of those same contractors contributed personnel to the NIST
investigation of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Very
highly placed personnel, in fact, in positions of leadership at
NIST: Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and
materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President
George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of
defense, former director of DARPAs office of materials science,
and former executive at TRW. Of course, DOD and DARPA are both
leaders in the production and use of nanothermites
. And
military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long
collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of
energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants,
like nanogelled explosive materials
. TRW Aeronautics also made
fireproof composites and high performance elastomer
formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels
Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NISTs advisory committee,
and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics,
is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the
ignition of porous energetic materials
. Nano-thermites are
porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams research
partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where
nano-energetics are the focus
. Some of Williams other
colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David
J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials. (Kevin
Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites,
July 2, 2008, Journal of 9/11 Studies,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/
Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf) How did people with such expertise
miss all the features of controlled demolition, and the
nanothermite in the dust? For them to avoid even discussing the
possibility in their 11,500 pages of final reports, and to
wave it away with a few sentences on their website, is an
outrage to science, at a minimum. What About the Twin Towers?
The collapses of the WTC Twin Towers represent the worst
structural failures in modern history. The official story
suggests that the jetliner impacts and resulting fires weakened
the structure, resulting in a gravitational collapse. The
evidence, most of which was omitted from the NIST report,
supports a different conclusion one that points squarely to a
unique type of controlled demolition. A future Republic Magazine
article will reveal the surreal details of this additional
evidence in the explosive behavior of the building: 1. Rapid
onset of destruction Hundreds of Red/Grey chips of Unignited
thermite in every WTC Dust sample Nano-thermite particle sizes
are 1,000 times smaller than a human hair. This material is not
made in a cave in Afghanistan South Tower: A very explosive
event
Before the Stimulus Wipes You Out Buy Gold Now Gold Silver
Numismatic Coins ~ Family Owned and Operated ~ ~ Fast
Confidential Delivery ~ ~ No Computer Records Kept ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Call 800-225-3126 2925 Newmarket, Suite 107 Bellingham, WA 98226
~ ~ PACIFIC RIM TRADING 2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of
light heard and seen by over a hundred first responders before
collapse 3. Continuous acceleration of the building mass
straight down through the path of what was greatest resistance
4. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 feet at 50 mph
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete 6. Massive
volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 7. 1,200 foot
diameter of improbably equal debris distribution 8. Isolated
explosive ejections 20-60 stories below demolition waves 9.
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame 10. No
stack of floors found at the base of either tower If powerful
insiders had the foreknowledge and technology to rig Building 7
long in advance of the jetliner impacts, the same is true for
the Twin Towers. Every American must face his own conscience
squarely when confronted with the gruesome evidence of the
destruction of these high-rises on 9/11 especially considering
the resulting death of over a million people in the wars that
followed, and the loss of many of our precious freedoms through
extremely rapid legislation. When you are ready to take action
here are a few ideas: a) Educate yourself and others. Send the
AE911Truth.org link to every architect and engineer that you can
find and everyone else that you know. b) Support AE911Truth.org.
Sign the petition, volunteer, and become a sustaining donor. c)
Write your local news media and congressional representatives
and send them the DVD 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. d) Demand a
new, independent investigation. Until the truth about 9/11 is
exposed, we are at grave risk for the next 9/11. Act soon, for
we have been told by Dick Cheney, members of Congress, and the
media that it will be far worse than the first. Demolition of
Building 7
|
5.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe, 2009 |
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31 7 1874-4125/09 2009 Bentham Open Open Access Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven
E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel
Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R.
Larsen3 1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen,
Denmark 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT,
84606, USA 49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN
47401, USA 5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all
the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of
these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all
four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident
about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower,
two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
properties of these chips were analyzed using optical
microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains
approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while
aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that
elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are
intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC
device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at
approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature
for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are
clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these
peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found
to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive
spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis,
World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres,
Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites,
Nano-thermite. INTRODUCTION The destruction of three skyscrapers
(WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic
catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and
families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also
provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical
changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other
reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of
grave importance. A great deal of effort has been put forth by
various government- sponsored and -funded investigations, which
led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA 1] and NIST
2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well
*Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of
Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100,
Denmark; Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: [email protected],
(SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel:
801-735-5885; E-mail: [email protected] publicized but are
no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to
the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the
events of that day 3-10]. A number of these studies have
appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical
material, and on available photographs and video footage, as
sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the
method of destruction of the three skyscrapers. The collapses of
the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their
completeness, their near free-fall speed 11] their striking
radial symmetry 1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of
fine toxic dust 13] that was generated. In order to better
understand these features of the destruction, the authors
initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven
Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and
a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was
suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer
inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.
Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an
attempt to ascertain their compo8 The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. sition and properties. The
authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC
dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or
very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained
these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies
discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the
RJ Lee Company 14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 15],
McGee et al. 13] and Lioy et al. 16] Some of these studies
confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also
peculiar 5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in
this study have apparently not been discussed in previously
published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was
collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up
operations 17]. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1. Provenance of the
Samples Analyzed for this Report In a paper presented first
online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World
Trade Center destruction 6], a general request was issued for
samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a
careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support
the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel
caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total
destruction of the WTC buildings. It was learned that a number
of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which
spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people
sent portions of their samples to members of this research
group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected
on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain
red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by
private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the
tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for
analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust
for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust.
A map showing the locations where the four samples were
collected is presented as Fig. (1). Fig. (1). Map showing
collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with
respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near
location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2:
Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson
St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org;
copyright terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/2.0/).
Active
Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 21 A conventional quantitative analysis
routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case
of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen
content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial
elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in
other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in
spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids
were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other
iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which
contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion
section). That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly
energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 °C, 2)
iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been
sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C for iron and iron
oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in
which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant
elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic
reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. The
evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the
WTC dust is compelling. 5. Flame/Ignition Tests The DSC used in
our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the
energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a
small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were
either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) Fig. (21). Spheroid
found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the
corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be considered
indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin
carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron
beam. 22 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2
Harrit et al. or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint
samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was
immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was
not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the
World Trade Center dust. The first WTC red/gray chip so tested
was approximately 1mm 1mm. After a few seconds of heating,
the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the
hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense
light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high
temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive
endproduct of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip
of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_sl ow.mov
In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered
and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23).
Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes
shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension
of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes. However, the
evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a
thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is
observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C.
DISCUSSION All of the dust samples that were inspected were
found to contain red/gray chips. The chips are characterized by
a red layer in which XEDS analysis identifies carbon, oxygen,
aluminum, silicon, and iron, and a gray layer in which mainly
iron and oxygen are found. The ratios of these ele- Fig. (22).
Applying a small torch to a minute red chip (left), followed a
few seconds later by ejection of material, producing a
horizontal orange streak running toward the operators hand
(right). (Frames from video of this flame/ignition test). Fig.
(23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition
test of red/gray chip from sample 1; some of the porous red
material remains; both can be seen in the corresponding SEM
image (right).
Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open
Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 23 ments appear to be
similar especially when this analysis is performed on a clean
cross-section of the layers. The BSE imaging also shows the
consistency of the red layers by revealing the size and
morphology of the particles that are contained in the bulk of
the layers. The results clearly show the similarities of the
red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four
sites. There are a number of questions raised by our results. 1.
How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC
Destruction? In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay
the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a
1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and
concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction
of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the
separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips
in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being
analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers
produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult
to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in
the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in
these samplings. 2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature? Our
observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very
finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear
migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other
elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide
must be present. In the product collected after DSC ignition, we
found spheres which were not initially present. Many of these
spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the
post-ignition debris. Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that
the red/gray chips react vigorously at a temperature below the
melting point of aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation)
point of ultrafine grain (UFG) aluminum in air 18]. These
observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form
pyrotechnics or explosives 19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction
with iron oxide: 2Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), H =
853.5 kJ/mole. Commercially available thermite behaves as an
incendiary when ignited 6], but when the ingredients are
ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this
nano-thermite reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is
sometimes referred to as super-thermite 20, 22]. We would
like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known
super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the
products following ignition, but there are many forms of this
high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future
study. Meanwhile, we compare with products of commercially
available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we
have observed that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part
of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered.
These particles tend to become spherical due to surface tension
and, being small, are rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall
through the air, thus their spherical shape is preserved. To
facilitate comparisons between the products of red/gray chip
ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we juxtapose the
respective images and XEDS spectra. We observe that the
spheroidal residues from ignition of red chips (Figs. 25, 26)
possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical
XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite
(Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red
chips are indeed a form of thermite. Images of spheroids XEDS
spectra of spheroids Fig. (24). Spheres formed during ignition
of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS
spectrum. 24
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al.
Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in
DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres
with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the
post-ignition residue). Fig. (26). Residue of red chip subjected
to flame test; XEDS spectrum of left-most microsphere. Fig.
(27). Spheres extracted from WTC dust. Fig. (28). XEDS spectrum
from a sphere found in the WTC dust.
30 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009,
Volume 2 Harrit et al. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank
Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio, Jody Intermont, Janette
MacKinlay, and Steve White for dust samples acquired soon after
the WTC 9/11 catastrophe. We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile,
David Allan, Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe,
David Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for
elucidating discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John
Parulis for gathering samples of residues from reacted
commercial thermite. REFERENCES 1] Federal Emergency Management
Authority, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data
collection, preliminary observations and recommendations, May
2002, Figure 1-7, Schematic depiction of areas of collapse
debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented
damage, pp. 1-9. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from
partial mirrored version:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
2] Sunder S, Grosshandler W, Lew HS, et al. Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. National
Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD 2005.
3] Gourley JR, McIlvaine B, Jones SE, Ryan K, Gage R. Appeal
filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction. J
9/11 Studies 2007; 17:1-16. Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: |
6.
Thermite: The Smoking Gun, Sept '09 |
THERMITE:The Smoking Gun If you are new to
the volumes of research that have been compiled on the crimes of
9/11, it will quickly become apparent which parties have made an
honest and unbiased attempt to discover the truth about what
happened that fateful day and which parties have sought to cover
up or ignore evidence damning to the governments official
account. The discovery by an international cadre of scientists
of molten iron, pulverized concrete, residual particles from
thermitic reactions, and small bi-layered chips in the dust from
the area around Ground Zero, should compel the uncorrupted and
inquiring mind to follow the scientific method to re-evaluate
the presently accepted official theories. An unemotional and
unbiased search for the truth would require science, logic, and
factual evidence. A systematic approach to researching the
matter would strictly adhere to the scientific method. By
Michael Schmidt
Heat material
that most likely caused the demolition of the buildings. In
fact, Underwriters Laboratory whistleblower Kevin Ryan wrote a
paper entitled The Top Ten connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites detailing the extent to which NIST should have
been well-acquainted with and likely to study nano-thermites. We
can conclude, then, that NIST intentionally did not test for
explosive residue, though such testing would have been the
prudent and necessary thing to do. Not only that, but since NIST
had previously been studying the very particles found in WTC
dust by researchers from around the world, it follows that NIST
would be interested in these results. Former BYU physics
professor Steven E. Jones was one of the original non-federally
funded researchers to investigate 9/11 by following the
scientific method. His findings were released in his first paper
on the subject of the destruction at the WTC, Why Indeed Did
the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? which can be found in
the June 2006 issue of The Journal of 9/11 Studies.10 In this
paper, Jones identifies 13 compelling pieces of evidence that
support an investigation into controlled demolition, including
the presence of pools of and flowing molten metal, extremely
high temperatures that could not be present if the governments
official explanation were true, the manner in which towers 1, 2,
and 7 collapsed (into their own footprint), and eyewitness
reports of flashes, dust from the bottom of the towers before
they collapsed, and explosive charges going off on the day. Dr.
Jones presents the evidence in a manner that makes it clear that
he used the scientific process, particularly to prove the
circumstances that must have been present surrounding the molten
metal. In the May 2007 issue of The Journal of 9/11 Studies
Dr. Jones released a paper titled, Revisiting 9/11/2001
Applying the Scientific Method. This paper further stressed the
drastic need for scientific investigation with the announced
discovery that iron-aluminum rich spheres are seen in both the
WTC dust and in spherules produced in thermite-control
reactions.xi This discovered residue of possible thermitic
materials demanded independent confirmation and attention from
others in the scientific field. In an attempt to foster a more
collaborative research partnership, Dr. Jones, along with four
other leading 9/11 scientific researchers, made an attempt to
reach out to NIST through their peer-reviewed paper, Fourteen
Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade
Center Destruction.11 NIST ignored this attempt. Continuing his
9/11 research, Steven Jones was joined in his effort to
investigate the spherical thermitic residue as well as the
unknown red/ gray chips later found in the dust and debris from
Ground Zero. Steven Jones, with lead author Niels Harrit and
seven other international scientific researchers, released the
peer-reviewed paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in
Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, which
concluded that a thermitic material was in fact present in the
dust of WTC 1, 2, & 7.12 The researchers conclude that, b]ased
on these observations
the red layer of the red/gray chips
in
the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material,
incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic
pyrotechnic or explosive material. If the towers did indeed
collapse in the manner in which the government stated in their
reports, there is no reason these chips should contain unreacted
thermitic material. It would not have been present at all. The
fact that it is present should tell NIST that controlled
demolition should absolutely have been a point of research in
their studies. Scientific research continues using new testing
methods to acquire new knowledge, correct and integrate previous
knowledge, which support the hypothesis that thermitic materials
were involved in the demolition of all three WTC buildings.
Independent researchers and activists from all over the world
and average Americans from all walks of life will continue in
their efforts to obtain an independent investigation to finally
get to the bottom of what really happened on September 11, 2001.
Government-funded entities, on the other hand, will continue
with their own efforts to suppress such knowledge. Who do you
trust? Michael Schmidt holds a Bachelor of Science in
Engineering from University of Illinois - Urbana/ Champaign, 5+
years engineering and construction management experience,
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition signatory. 1
Scientific Method. Princeton WordNet Search 3.0. July 2009 2
Scientific Method. Wikipedia. July 2009 <http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>. |
7.
World Trade Center Tower A Electrical
|
|
8.
Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust Jim Hoffman
|
Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues And
Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In
Debris From the Twin Towers
by Jim Hoffman Version 1.00, April 3, 2009
Version 1.01, April 9, 2009 Version 1.02, October 23, 2009
Version 1.03, December 7, 2009 Introduction
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material
Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical
signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues
found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper
and related research is intended to summarize those findings for
the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short
introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then
outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples,
and finally explore the significance of these findings.
Contents
Introduction Contents Aluminothermics 101
Composition Reaction Rate Energy Density and Power Density
Energetic Nanocomposites Aluminothermics at the WTC
Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids Unignited
Aluminothermics: Bi-Layered Chips Provenance of the Samples
Physical Structure of the Chips Chemical Composition of the
Chips Thermal Behavior of the Chips Ignition Residue Analysis
Conclusions Discussion FAQ: Controlled Demolition With
Aluminothermics How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the
Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using
High-Explosive Cutter Charges? Why Weren't Demolition Charges
Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires? How
Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin
Towers Without Tenants Noticing? Glossary of Analytical Methods
References Aluminothermics 101
Image from AmazingRust.com of a simple
thermite reaction involving iron oxide and aluminum. This video
shows thermite melting through a car. Aluminothermic reactions
are a class of energy-releasing oxidation-reduction chemical
reactions in which elemental aluminum reduces a compound,
typically by stealing the oxygen from a metal oxide.
Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take
seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy
as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with
accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar
to conventional high explosives.
Backers of the official account of 9/11,
including NIST officials, have dismissed evidence that
aluminothermics were used to destroy the World Trade Center
skyscrapers, claiming that thermite's slow reaction rate makes
it an unsuitable tool for demolishing buildings. Despite
repeated requests by scientists and researchers to address the
potential role of advanced aluminothermic composites with high
explosive power, officials have refused to acknowledge such
materials.
Composition
2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe The canonical
thermite reaction is simple, lacks the aromatic hydrocarbons and
nitrogen found in conventional high explosives, and is highly
exothermic. The most familiar aluminothermic material is
thermite, a mixture of a powdered metallic fuel such as
aluminum, and a powdered oxide of another metal such as iron or
copper. The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen
from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal).
Because oxygen atoms bind more tightly to
aluminum atoms than to iron or copper atoms, the reaction
releases large amounts of energy and is described as highly
exothermic. Whereas primitive thermite preparations release most
of their energy as heat, modern preparations, such as found in
munitions employed by the US military in recent decades, produce
a targeted mix of heat and pressure through an accelerated but
controlled reaction rate and the addition of pressure-generating
compounds such as hydrocarbons.
ABOVE: Relationship of particle size to
reaction rate in thermites BELOW: General relationship of
reaction rate to the form of energy released in compositions
that have the capacity to be high explosives Reaction Rate
The reaction rate of a thermitic material
determines how quickly its aluminum atoms find oxidizer
molecules to react with, and therefore how quickly the energy is
released. Whereas the energy density of an explosive is
determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by
its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material,
is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the
reaction rate increases with the fineness of the metal and oxide
powders and the uniformity with which they are mixed.
Because the particle sizes of the reactants
must be very small to attain rapid reaction rates, such
thermites are often referred to as nano-thermites. Such nano- or
"super-thermites" typically have particle diameters on the order
of a few hundred nanometers, requiring their synthesis by
special methods. The reaction rate in turn determines the
destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of
conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car's
engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite
explosive will blow the car apart.
Nano-thermite composite explosives typically
embed the metal and oxide particles within a matrix containing
compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and silicon. These
additional elements generate high gas pressures upon exposure to
the thermite reaction, which may be instrumental in imparting
high-explosive properties to such materials.
Energy Density and Power Density
material energy density by mass: MJ/KG by
volume: MJ/L aluminothermic incendiaries Thermite (Al + Fe2O3)
4.13 18.40 Copper Thermite (Al + CuO) 4.00 20.90 nitro-aromatic
explosives TNT (Trinitrotoluene) 4.61 6.92 In terms of energy
density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly
less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much
energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic
preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end
appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. 1]
2]
Because thermites have historically had much
lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they
are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives -- a
classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of
aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack. Despite the
fact that high-tech aluminothermics have existed and been used
by the military since the mid-1990s or earlier, methods of
identifying explosive residues at crime scenes are frequently
limited to analysis of nitro-aromatic explosives. 3]
Energetic Nanocomposites
The term 'nano-thermite' applied to the
unignited thermitic material discovered in World Trade Center
dust is potentially misleading because it doesn't capture the
complexity and sophistication of this material or its known
analogs. Perhaps a better term is energetic nanocomposites, a
class of materials that has been used by the military for some
time in applications spanning propellants, armor-piercing
munitions, and reactive armor. In their diverse roles, energetic
nanocomposites fulfill a range of requirements including: "high
density, good mechanical properties, low sensitiveness, good
stability, low cost, ease of manufacturing, and environmental
acceptability." 4] To achieve these requirements, scientists
developing advanced aluminothermic materials have learned to
embed the fine powders in a carbon- and silicon-rich matrix.
Kevin Ryan explains:
The mixing of ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum
and UFG metal oxides] is accomplished by adding these reactants
to a liquid solution where they form what are called "sols", and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive
combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The
resulting "sol-gel" is then dried to form a porous reactive
material that can be ignited in a number of ways. 5]
Graphic from a DTIC (Defense Technical
Information Center) Review publication on advanced energetic
materials. Energetic materials such as aluminothermic sol-gels
have been an active area of research in the US national labs
since the mid-1990s or earlier, including under the auspices of
NIST itself -- a fact documented by Kevin Ryan in his
extensively footnoted article The Top Ten Connections Between
NIST and Nano-Thermites. Also called "metastable intermolecular
composites", "nano-structured energetic materials", or just
"nanoenergetics", these materials have been the subject of
numerous conferences, research papers, and patents in the past
two decades. 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] It's also not difficult
to find recent published papers on methods of reliably igniting
such materials with minute low-power devices described as MEMS
(microelectromechanical systems) and manufactured much like
conventional integrated circuits. 12] 13] 14] 15] 16] 17]
18] It requires little imagination to grasp how such techniques
could be exploited to implement a covert, all-wireless
controlled demolition.
Aluminothermics at the WTC
The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in
the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the
use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the
skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of
explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin
Towers.
Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind
of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material
Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by
the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the
USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is
difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of
iron and aluminum in the dust -- each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1
percent of the dust samples by weight -- also appears anomalous,
although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined.
Aluminothermic Residues: Iron-Rich Spheroids
Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust
consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two
scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS
and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the
World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the
attack. 19]
Two images of iron-rich spheroids from the
USGS Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust. 20]
Illustration from a damage assessment report prepared for
Deutsche Bank, the owners of a skyscraper severely damaged by
projectiles from the South Tower. The report was commissioned,
in part, to determine the nature and extent of contamination of
the building, which is slated for demolition. Although it may be
overlooked, the significance of these nearly microscopic
iron-rich droplets is not difficult to grasp. Molten iron is one
of the two principal products of the thermite reaction, the
other being aluminum oxide, which tends to dissipate as an
aerosol. The molten iron condenses and solidifies into particles
whose size is a function of the thermite's reaction rate.
Fast-acting super-thermites produce tiny droplets that become
very nearly spherical due to surface tension.
The inescapable fact is that these spheroidal
droplets in the WTC dust look exactly like the products of the
combustion of nano-thermite explosives, and their discovery in
consistently substantial concentrations in diverse samples of
dust from the day of the attack weighs heavily against theories
that they were generated by something other than the Twin
Towers' destruction. Elemental analysis of these droplets
described below would show that they are dead ringers for known
aluminothermic residues.
In a 2007 paper, Steven Jones described the
importance of the iron-rich microspheres. 21]
Dr. Steven E. Jones describing molten metal
seen at Ground Zero. As usual, we search for possible prosaic
explanations for these metallic spherules in the WTC dust. The
most obvious possible source is the melting of large quantities
of steel in the buildings followed somehow by formation of tiny
droplets of molten steel. As discussed above, however, steel
melts at about 1538ΊC (2800ΊF) and the temperatures in the
buildings were no where near sic] hot enough to melt steel, and
certainly not in large quantities required for the amounts seen
in the dust (and pouring out of the South Tower before
collapse). Furthermore, we have looked at the chemical
compositions of a number of iron-rich spherules as well as that
of steel, and the compositions are not the same at all. It
should not be surprising, however, as we analyze more spherules
to find some that are steel-like in composition, assuming that
thermite cutter-charges were in fact used to cut through steel.
We should then find both steel- and thermite-residue spherules.
Could these droplets be due to molten aluminum
alloy (from the jets) striking rusty steel and/or other office
materials to somehow generate the iron-rich spheres? We
performed experiments with molten aluminum poured onto rusty
steel, then onto crushed gypsum and concrete (on the rusty
steel) and observed no formation of iron-rich droplets at all
nor any sign of vigorous chemical reactions. After addressing
arguments that the iron-rich droplets could have been produced
by the rubble pile or clean-up operation -- the dust samples
were collected too early and were too distant from the site to
have been thus contaminated -- Jones makes a rough estimate of
the total quantities of reactants involved in the attack based
on the fraction of the dust comprising the iron-rich spheres.
One can estimate the implied amount of
thermite needed to generate so many iron-rich spheres in the WTC
dust. In a sample of 32.1 grams of WTC dust, I observed with the
unaided eye two metallic-looking spheres, in addition to the
micron-sized spherules collected using a magnet. The mm-size
spheres proved to be iron-aluminum rich. The mass of these two
larger spheres (0.012g) found in this sample can be used to
provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in
the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%. If the mass of the WTC dust was
about 30,000 tons, then the iron-rich spherule content would be
of the order of ten tons. This is a very rough estimate based on
one small sample, and is only provided to give an idea of the
amount of thermite-type reactants and products which may be
involved here. An investigation well beyond the scope of this
paper would look for purchases of aluminum and iron-oxide
powders (and sulfur) in multi-ton-quantities prior to 9/11/2001.
A paper published a year earlier than Active Thermitic Material
Discovered showed that metal-rich spheroids in WTC dust had
iron-to-oxygen ratios indicating abundant elemental iron, such
as found in thermite residues. It also pointed out several other
features of WTC remains that indicated exposure to temperatures
far above what could be produced by fires burning jet fuel and
office contents, including: iron-rich and silicate spherules,
volatilized lead, a molybdenum spherule, and materials with a
"Swiss-cheese appearance". 22] Molybdenum has a very high
melting point of 2617ΊC.
Unignited Aluminothermics: Bi-Layered Chips
If finding aluminothermic residues in the form
of spheroidal micro-droplets was like finding fired bullets at a
crime scene, then the discoveries presented in Active Thermitic
Material Discovered are like finding the gun loaded with several
rounds of unspent ammunition that match the fired bullets.
Fig. 2 from Active Thermitic Material
Discovered showing chips from the four different dust samples.
Map of Lower Manhattan showing locations of
the four samples (blue points) and the Twin Towers (red points).
First described by Steven Jones in late 2007, distinctive chips
found in the dust samples had red and gray layers, were weakly
attracted to a magnet, and were composed mostly of iron, oxygen,
aluminum, silicon, and carbon. Jones and his colleagues
subsequently subjected the chips to detailed analysis using
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive
spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry
(DSC), and published their results in the Open Chemical Physics
Journal.
Provenance of the Samples
The paper's findings are based primarily on
the analysis of particles derived from four separate samples of
dust generated by the destruction of the Twin Towers, samples
whose provenance the paper describes in detail. Each of the
samples was collected by a different individual who has
described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing
their sample. Each individual collected dust that had settled
directly after the fall of one of the Twin Towers, with the one
exception, Janette MacKinlay, who collected dust when allowed to
re-enter her apartment a week after it was carpeted with
shovel-fulls of dust and debris from the South Tower.
Physical Structure of the Chips
Chips having distinctive and similar physical
features were found in all four of the dust samples, ranging in
length from from about 0.2 to 3 mm. Each chip has stratified
layers of two types: a red layer and a lighter gray layer, where
each layer is between roughly 10 and 100 microns in thickness.
Despite their small size, the chips are readily visible in the
samples because of their flat shapes, distinctive color, and
layered structure. The chips are tough despite being as thin as
eggshells.
Portions of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5: Two scanning
electron microscope images of bi-layered chips. Magnification
reveals that the gray layers are composed of an opaque
homogeneous material, whereas the red layers have small
particles embedded in a matrix of slightly translucent material.
Fig. 9, showing a highly magnified view of the
red layer. Note the hexagonal plate-like particles, and the
smaller faceted particles, both lighter in color than the porous
matrix. At magnification of 50,000 the structure of the two
types of particles is clear: small bright particles having a
faceted shape and measuring about 100 nm in diameter, and larger
particles having a flat and often hexagonal shape and measuring
about 1000 nm across and 40 nm thick.
The particles are held in place and in close
proximity to each other by the porous matrix. Soaking the chips
in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, caused
the red layer to swell while remaining intact.
Up to this point, I have reviewed only
characteristics of the chips revealed by macro- and micro-scopic
visual examination, but already the implications are stunning:
the chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types
of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape
and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix
which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material. The student
of energetic materials will appreciate that this description
matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant
particles are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a
substrate.
Chemical Composition of the Chips
Chemical analysis of the chips relied
primarily on performing elemental analysis of the materials and
their components using XEDS, and making inferences about the
materials' molecular composition based on the distributions of
elements in different structures. The paper first examines the
gray and red layers, and then zooms in on the components of the
red layers.
XEDS spectra of red and gray layers shows a
remarkable similarity across the different samples.
Fig. 7: "XEDS spectra obtained from the gray
layers from each of the four WTC dust samples ..." Fig. 6: "XEDS
spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC
dust samples ..." Whereas the gray layers contain mostly iron
and oxygen, the red layers have abundant aluminum as well, and
the three elements are in the ratio approximating that of Fe2O3
+ Al thermite. Thus, the red layers could be active thermitic
material, depending on their molecular composition. If active,
the material will have much of its aluminum in a metallic state,
unbound to oxygen or silicon.
The authors show that the aluminum is indeed
mostly in a pure metallic form, and that much of the oxygen is
bound to the iron. They ultimately show this conclusively
through elemental analysis of the components of the red layers:
the thin hexagonal plates, faceted grains, and embedding matrix
revealed by microscopic inspection.
Performing accurate elemental analysis of the
red layer components would require some ingenuity. Because the
XEDS machine steers an electron beam over a sample's surface to
gather information about its elemental composition, it can be
used to generate maps of the abundance of different elements
over the surface of the sample. However, the particles in the
red layer are slightly smaller than what can be resolved by
XEDS.
Fig. 10, showing the BSE image and
accompanying XEDS maps for Fe, Al, O, Si, and C of a portion of
an untreated red layer. Nonetheless, considering the XEDS maps
in conjunction with the much higher-resolution SEM images of the
corresponding portions of the sample makes clear that the
faceted grains are abundant in iron and oxygen and the thin
plates are abundant in aluminum. Also, although the distribution
of particles in the matrix is precisely homogeneous overall,
there are local clumps of grains and of plates, and when the
electron beam is focused on these clumps the XEDS detector
registers higher concentrations of the constituents of iron
oxide and of elemental aluminum, respectively.
To obtain more precise measurements of the
elemental compositions of the red layer components using XEDS,
those components somehow had to be separated, so that the
electron beam could be focused entirely on one component at a
time. Perhaps the porous matrix could be dissolved, allowing the
particles to be separated by centrifuging. Or better -- as the
investigators discovered serendipitously in an earlier
experiment to see if the chips dissolved in the paint-dissolving
solvent methyl ethyl keytone (MEK) -- the matrix could be
expanded by a factor of five while leaving the layer intact,
allowing in-situ examination. When the chips were soaked in MEK
with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up
but remained intact and attached to their respective gray
layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate.
Because of these structural changes produced by the MEK soaking,
it was possible to make much more accurate XEDS measurements of
the elemental compositions of the red layers' components.
Fig. 15, showing the BSE image and
accompanying XEDS maps of Fe, Al, O, Si, and C for a red-layer
sample soaked in MEK. XEDS maps of a soaked red layers show
correlations much more clearly than the untreated material. In
particular, oxygen is highly correlated, individually, to iron,
silicon, and carbon. Aluminum is inversely correlated to the
other elements.
Even more striking are the XEDS spectra found
by zooming in on areas having high concentrations of particular
elements. The three graphs below show the results of focusing
the electron beam on areas with: first, high silicon; second,
high aluminum; and third, high iron. The area of high silicon is
composed almost entirely of silicon and oxygen, the area of high
aluminum has aluminum far out of proportion with the other
elements, and the area of high iron is rich in oxygen, where the
oxygen and iron atoms are in the same 3-to-2 ratio as in the
thermite oxidizer Fe2O3.
A collage of Figs. 16, 17, and 18, whose
captions read, in the order of the back- to front-most graphs:
"XEDS spectrum from a silicon-rich region on the porous red
matrix of the MEK-treated red material" "XEDS spectrum obtained
at 10 kV from a probe of the region of high aluminum
concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip", and "XEDS spectrum
obtained from a probe of the region of high iron concentration
on the MEK-soaked red chip acquired with a 15 kV beam",
respectively. The authors draw the obvious conclusions from
their elemental analysis of components of the red layers: the
aluminum-rich particles are mostly elemental aluminum, with the
relatively small quantities of oxygen being accounted for by an
oxide layer on the particles' surfaces; the iron-rich particles
are primarily oxygen and iron, probably in the form of the
oxidizer Fe2O3 which matches the observed 3:2 ratio of oxygen to
iron atoms; and the matrix is composed almost entirely of
silicon, oxygen, and carbon, where most of the carbon was washed
away by the MEK. The matrix also may contain hydrogen, which is
not detected by XEDS analysis.
Given the data in Active Thermitic Material
Discovered I summarize the composition of the chips as follows:
gray layer: a hard homogeneous ceramic
composition: iron and oxygen red layer: an engineered
nano-composite substance, comprising: matrix: a nano-structured
semi-transparent porous material composition: silicon, oxygen,
and carbon particles: homogeneously embedded in the matrix and
consisting of: thin predominantly hexagonal plates dimensions:
~40nm thickness, ~1000nm diameter composition: mostly aluminum,
with small amounts of carbon and oxygen rhombic faceted grains
dimensions: ~100nm diameter composition: mostly iron and oxygen,
probably as Fe2O3, with small amounts of silicon, sulfur, and
carbon Thermal Behavior of the Chips
The structural and chemical analysis of the
chips shows that, in every relevant aspect, they fit the
description of an engineered thermitic nanocomposite. This
prompts the obvious question: do the chips have the thermal
characteristics of an explosive aluminothermic material?
Although it might be difficult or impossible
to measure the explosive power of the chips, given their minute
size, it is possible to measure their exothermic behavior and
thereby calculate their energy density using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC), a device that gradually increases
the temperature of a sample and records the amount of heat it
absorbs or emits as a function of temperature.
Fig. 19 compares the DSC traces of a chip from
each of the four samples. A DSC trace is an approximate graph of
energy density with respect to temperature, the height of the
trace indicating the rate at which the sample's material absorbs
or emits thermal energy. DSC traces of energetic materials such
as incendiaries and explosives have a characteristic shape that
remains near zero up to a certain temperature range -- the
ignition temperature -- and thereafter spikes sharply upward.
The energy density of the material can be estimated by
calculating the area under the curve.
Chips from each of the four samples, when
subjected to thermal analysis using the DSC, clearly show the
exothermic behavior of an energetic material. As seen in Fig.
19, the heights of the graphs vary significantly from one chip
to the next. The authors attribute this variation to the fact
that the chips had different ratios of active red material to
inert gray material.
Based on the DSC analysis, the authors
estimate the energy density of the four chips at 1.5, 3, 6, and
7.5 kJ/g, respectively. This compares with a maximum yield from
conventional thermite of slightly less than 4 kJ/g. In a final
section of the paper underscoring the need for further research
into the red-gray chips, the authors suggest a possible
explanation for the exceptional energy content of the red-layer
material: perhaps elements in the porous matrix, such as oxygen,
carbon, and hydrogen, contribute to the reaction.
Fig. 29, labeled "DSC trace of sample 1 (blue
line) compared with DSC of xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite
(from Tillotson et al. 28]). Both DSC traces show completion of
reaction at temperatures below 560ΊC". A comparison of DSC
traces of the red-gray chips to a published DSC trace from an
xerogel/nano-thermite energetic nanocomposite shows the chips to
be more energetic and to have a lower ignition temperature.
Ignition Residue Analysis
Because DSC processing causes the chips to
ignite, the investigators studied the residues and found, not
surprisingly, minute iron-rich spheroids, as well as
silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected to XEDS analysis, the
iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen, as
expected in an aluminothermic residue.
The paper contains the following micrographs
and corresponding XEDS spectra of spheroids from three different
sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite,
residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips, and World Trade
Center dust.
Fig. 24: "Spheres formed during ignition of
commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XDS spectrum"
Fig. 25: "Spheres formed during ignition of
red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum
..."
Fig. 27 and 28: "Spheres extracted from WTC
dust" and "XEDS spectrum from a sphere found in the WTC dust"
Conclusions
I hope that my review of Active Thermitic
Material Discovered, being summary and somewhat interpretive,
will serve as encouragement to read the paper itself, which, as
scientific papers go, is remarkably accessible. The paper's
conclusions -- a clear and cogent summary of the results -- are
reproduced here in their entirety:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips
in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade
Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods
to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature
of these chips, especially of their red component. The red
material is most interesting and has the following
characteristics:
It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum,
iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other
potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as
potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. 4,6] The primary
elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in
particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and
detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing. On treatment with
methyl-ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components was
observed. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to
be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material. Iron oxide
appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the
aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the
iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized
as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and
oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red
material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way.
Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas
elemental iron was not. From the presence of elemental aluminum
and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains
the ingredients of thermite. As measured using DSC, the material
ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430ΊC, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an
independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The
low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide
grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not
conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above
900ΊC) but very likely a form of super-thermite. After igniting
several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter
run to 700ΊC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids
in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction
had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been
molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron
was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the
oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature
reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips,
namely, the thermite reaction. The spheroids produced by the DSC
tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O,
Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the
original red material. This chemical signature strikingly
matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by
igniting commercial thermite, and of many of the micro-spheres
found in the WTC dust. 5] The presence of an organic substance
in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations
in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
make them explosive. The nature of this organic material in
these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is
likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy
release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical
maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction. Discussion
The implications of the discovery of unspent
aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade
Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for
there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except
to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with
the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a
result of the jetliner impacts and fires.
The discovery of active thermitic materials
adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of
the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of
that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to
implement those demolitions.
That discovery also undermines the oft-heard
claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was
never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any
official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any
kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed
to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by
scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating
explosives and incendiaries .
I expect that collapse theory defenders will
dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same
way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that
the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other
explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics
in the WTC Towers. "Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich
spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete,
ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather
than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered
chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum
in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of
uniform shape?
As the work of explaining away the direct
evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably
see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against
controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable
obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient
such workability arguments are:
That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin
Towers was too prone to exposure. That setting up the
demolitions to start from the Towers' crash zones was
technically unfeasible. That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of
controlled demolition. These arguments have taken on the
appearance of straw men with their continued repetition --
including by NIST itself -- after being publicly shown to be
based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition
addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and
others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the
existence of explosive variants of thermite.
FAQ: Controlled Demolition With
Aluminothermics
With the publication of Active Thermitic
Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible
scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics
of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments
described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for
the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials
available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most
frequently-heard questions about the implementation of
controlled demolition of the Twin Towers -- answers that
thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions
using aluminothermics was not feasible.
Following are the three arguments listed above
re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which
is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active
Thermitic Material Discovered.
How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish
the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using
High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature
on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be
engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional
high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much
greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar
to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are
entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might
be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses
no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting
Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic
pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto
steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork,
and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed
throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary
coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's
take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only
when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film
high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial
failure zone outward.
Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by
the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of
the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash
fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the
Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the
crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to
the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South
Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in
contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high
ignition temperature -- above 900ΊC. Thus, thermitic
incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been
designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they
could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the
very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by
specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in
response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by
the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition
sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature
ignitions of pyrotechnics.
How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been
Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the
equipment as normal building components, so that not even the
workers installing the components are aware of the concealed
pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting
Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity
of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic
pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork,
and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.
Glossary of Analytical Methods
An electron microscope equipped with an EDAX
GENESIS 2000 X-Ray Microanalysis System.
EDS spectrum of a yellow paint sample, from
ModernMicroscopy.com. EDS spectra allow the easy identification
of the most abundant elements in a sample, while requiring some
analysis to estimate relative quantities. BSE: Backscattered
Electron imaging A method of SEM imaging based on the detection
of scattering of the electron beam.
DSC: Differential Scanning Calorimetry A
technique that determines the difference in the amount of heat
required to increase the temperature of an experimental sample
and reference. A differential scanning calorimeter outputs a DSC
trace which shows the relationship of heat flux to temperature,
and thereby exothermic or endothermic behavior of the sample.
23]
SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy A type of
electron microscopy in which a beam of high-energy electrons
scans the surface to a sample to image its structure or
composition.
XEDS: X-ray Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy A
technique for determining the elemental composition of a sample
using an instrument that analyzes the spectrum of emitted X-rays
from a sample as a beam of high energy electrons is directed
onto its surface. 24]
A single workstation may provide integrated
BSE and XEDS capabilities using SEM equipment fitted with
specialized BSE and XEDS detectors, where software controls the
electron beam, sample positioning, and detector parameters.
References
1. Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better
Explosives, llnl.gov, cached] 2. Daniel Tappmeyer studies how
nanoparticles can be used for quick ― but controlled ― energy
release, undergradresearch.missouri.edu, cached] 3. Analysis of
Trace Residues of Explosive Materials by Time-of-Flight LC/MS,
www.chem.agilent.com, 3/16/2005 cached] 4. Advanced Energetic
Materials: New Energetic Materials, National Academic Press,
cached] 5. The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites, 7/2/2008 6. Reactive Projectiles Comprised of
Metastable Intermolecular Composites, lanl.gov, cached] 7.
Energy dense explosives, USPTO.gov, cached] 8. Inorganic metal
oxide/organic polymer nanocomposites and method thereof,
USPTO.gov, cached] 9. Nano-scale energetic materials
fabrication, characterization and molecular modeling, European
Materials Research Society, cached] 10. Formation of
Nanostructured Energetic Materials via Modified Sol-Gel
Synthesis, mrs.org, cached] 11. Metastable intermolecular
composite, en.wikipedia.org, cached] 12. On-Chip Initiation and
Burn Rate Measurements of Thermite Energetic Reactions, mrs.org,
cached] 13. Unique Porous Copper Structure Enables New
Generation Of Military ..., sciencedaily.com, 14. Integrated
thin film explosive micro-detonator, www.dodtechmatch.com/, 15.
Military eyes MEMS weapons detonators that could be fabbed on IC
lines, pennwellblogs.com, 16. MEMS microdetonator/initiator
apparatus for a MEMS fuze, USPTO.gov, 17. In-plane MEMS thermal
actuator and associated fabrication methods, USPTO.gov, 18.
Method and system for making integrated solid-state fire-sets
and detonators, USPTO.gov, 19. Damage Assessment 130 Liberty
Street Property, RJ LeeGroup, Inc., 12/2003 cached] 20.
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, pubs.usgs.gov,
cached] 21. Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific
Method, JournalOf911Studies.com, 22. Extremely high temperatures
during the World Trade Center destruction,
JournalOf911Studies.com, 23. Differential Scanning Calorimeters,
tainstruments.com, cached] 24. Energy Dispersive X-ray
Spectroscopy (EDAX), AmazingRust.com,
|
9.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others |
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2,
7-31 7 1874-4125/09 2009 Bentham Open Open Access Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven
E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel
Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R.
Larsen3 1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen,
Denmark 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT,
84606, USA 49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN
47401, USA 5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all
the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of
these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all
four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident
about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower,
two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
properties of these chips were analyzed using optical
microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains
approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while
aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that
elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are
intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC
device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at
approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature
for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are
clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these
peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found
to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive
spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis,
World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres,
Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites,
Nano-thermite. INTRODUCTION The destruction of three skyscrapers
(WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic
catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and
families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also
provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical
changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other
reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of
grave importance. A great deal of effort has been put forth by
various government- sponsored and -funded investigations, which
led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA 1] and NIST
2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well
*Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of
Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100,
Denmark; Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: [email protected],
(SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel:
801-735-5885; E-mail: [email protected] publicized but are
no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to
the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the
events of that day 3-10]. A number of these studies have
appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical
material, and on available photographs and video footage, as
sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the
method of destruction of the three skyscrapers. The collapses of
the three tallest WTC buildings were remarkable for their
completeness, their near free-fall speed 11] their striking
radial symmetry 1, 12] and the surprisingly large volume of
fine toxic dust 13] that was generated. In order to better
understand these features of the destruction, the authors
initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven
Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and
a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was
suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer
inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.
Further testing was then performed on the red/gray chips in an
attempt to ascertain their compo8 The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. sition and properties. The
authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC
dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or
very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained
these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies
discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the
RJ Lee Company 14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 15],
McGee et al. 13] and Lioy et al. 16] Some of these studies
confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also
peculiar 5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in
this study have apparently not been discussed in previously
published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was
collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up
operations 17]. MATERIALS AND METHODS 1. Provenance of the
Samples Analyzed for this Report In a paper presented first
online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World
Trade Center destruction 6], a general request was issued for
samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a
careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support
the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel
caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total
destruction of the WTC buildings. It was learned that a number
of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which
spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people
sent portions of their samples to members of this research
group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected
on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain
red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by
private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the
tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for
analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust
for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust.
A map showing the locations where the four samples were
collected is presented as Fig. (1). Fig. (1). Map showing
collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with
respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near
location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2:
Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson
St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org;
copyright terms at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-sa/2.0/).
Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 9 The
earliest-collected sample NewsFollowUp.com came from Mr. Frank
Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony 17], was on
the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time the
second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He saw the
tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick dust which
settled throughout the area. He swept a handful of the dust from
a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the end of the bridge,
about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower. He then
went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom Breidenbach, carrying the dust
in his hand, and the two of them discussed the dust and decided
to save it in a plastic bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a
portion of this dust to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has
also recorded his testimony about the collection of this dust
sample on videotape 17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample
was collected about ten minutes after the second tower
collapsed. It was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the
steelcutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7, which
fell hours later. On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White
of New York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th
floor of 1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He
found a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded
laundry near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount of
dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the room
and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and, on
2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.
Another sample was collected from the apartment building at 16
Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm on 9/12/2001.
Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to Dr.
Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008 for analysis. Intermont
sent a signed affidavit with each sample verifying that he had
personally collected the (nowsplit) sample; he wrote: This
dust, which came from the collapsed World Trade Center Towers,
was collected from my loft at the corner of Reade Street and
Hudson Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission to use my
name in connection to this evidence. Signed 31 January 2008 in
the presence of a witness who also signed his name]. On the
morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay was in her
fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New
York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South
Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused
windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her
apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around
her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for
entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to
re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There
was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it
into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an
art piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms. MacKinlay at
her new location, and in the company of several witnesses
collected a second sample of the WTC dust directly from her
large plastic bag where the dust was stored. She has also sent
samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and Kevin Ryan. Results
from their studies form part of this report. Another dust sample
was collected by an individual from a window sill of a building
on Potter Street in NYC. He has not given permission for his
name to be disclosed, therefore his material is not included in
this study. That sample, however, contained red/gray chips of
the same general composition as the samples described here. 2.
Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination For clarification, the
dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette
MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank
Delassio, or the Delassio/ Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2;
the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and
the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The
red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the
dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used
to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips
are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their
distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly
10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC
dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly
from collectors to various scientists (including some not on
this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in
the dust from the World Trade Center destruction. An FEI
XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to perform
secondary-electron (SE) imaging and backscattered electron (BSE)
imaging. The SE imaging was used to look at the surface
topography and porosity of the red/gray chips, while the BSE
imaging was used to distinguish variations in average atomic
number, Z. The microscope was also equipped with an EDAX X-ray
energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) system. The XEDS system
uses a silicon detector (SiLi) with resolution better than 135
eV. The spectrum resolution was set to 10 eV per channel.
Operating conditions for the acquired XEDS spectra were 20 keV
beam energy (unless otherwise specified) and 40-120 second
acquisition time (livetime). XEDS maps were acquired using the
same system at a beam energy of 10 keV. For general surface
analysis in the SEM, dust samples were mounted to carbon
conductive tabs. The samples were left unwashed and uncoated
unless otherwise specified. In order to more closely observe the
characteristics of the red and gray layers, and to eliminate the
possibility of surface contamination from other dust particles,
several red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples
were fractured. The clean, cross-section surfaces were then
studied by BSE imaging and XEDS. 10 The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Some samples were also
tested in a differential scanning calorimeter (Netzsch DSC 404C)
to measure heat flow into or out of the red/gray chips. The DSC
tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per
minute up to a temperature of 700 °C. During heating, the
samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to
flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating. The plots
were generated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points
per °C or 200 points per minute. The equipment was calibrated to
display the data in watts per gram. The plots were set to
display positive heat flow out of the sample such that
exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and
endothermic behavior a trough. The dust samples were also
examined by visible-light microscopy (VLM) through a Nikon
Epiphot 200 stereomicroscope, an Olympus BX60 stereomicroscope
and a Nikon Labophot microscope and camera. RESULTS 1.
Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips Red/gray chips were found
in all of the dust samples collected. An analysis of the chips
was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to
determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.
Fig. (2) displays photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each
of the four WTC dust samples. Note the scale marker in each
image as they were acquired at different magnifications. At
approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of
the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was
approximately 0.7 mg. All of the chips used in the study had a
gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. The
inset image in Fig. (2d) shows the chip in cross section, which
reveals the gray layer. The gray layer is also partially visible
in Fig. (2b). Similarities between the samples are already
evident from these photographs. Fig. (3) shows three images for
comparison of views of the same set of chips using different
methods. Fig. (3a) is a VLM photomicrograph of a group of
particles, which shows the red material and in some cases the
adhering gray material. Fig. (3b, c) are, respectively, a
secondary electron (SE) image and a backscattered electron (BSE)
image of the same group of particles, using a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) without a conductive coating over the sample.
It can be seen in the SE image that the red layer of the
particles has very bright regions caused by a slight
accumulation of charge under the electron beam, owing to the
relatively poor conductivity of the red layer (see Discussion
section). The BSE image shows the red layer darker than the gray
layer, Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples
1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d)
respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which
reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an
aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in
the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Active Thermitic
Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
2009, Volume 2 11 indicating that the red layer is composed of
material that has a relatively lower average atomic number than
the gray layer. A higher-magnification BSE image of the corner
of one of the chips, shown in Fig. (4), allows for closer
examination of the difference in grayscale intensity of the two
layers and confirms the higher average atomic number of the gray
layer. The red material also shows specks and other
heterogeneities, in marked contrast to the smooth gray layer.
Newly fractured cross sections of red/gray chips from the four
different dust samples are shown by BSE imaging in Fig. (5).
These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray
chips studied from the dust samples. The BSE images illustrate
the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small
bright particles or grains characterized by a high average
atomic number. The size and presence of the particles was found
to be consistent throughout the layers, but the concentration of
the particles was found to vary locally, as can be seen from the
images. Fig. (3). A series of images of the same group of
particles extracted by magnet from sample 2. The color
photomicrograph in (a), obtained by VLM, locates and identifies
the red/gray particles. An SE image (b) acquired by SEM gives a
better indication of size and shape of the particles, and a BSE
image (c) shows, by grayscale intensity, the difference in
average atomic number between the red layer, gray layer and
other dust particles. Fig. (4). Higher magnification BSE image
of one of the chips in previous image. The red layer appears
darker and is on top of the gray layer.
! "
# 12 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009,
Volume 2 Harrit et al. X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy
(XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross
sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and
representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four
spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are
consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content
including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures
found in the red layers are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each
showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe)
and oxygen (O), and a significant carbon (C) peak as well. At
still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer
illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples.
BSE images of small but representative portions of each
red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8). The results
indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity
(brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted
appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with
plate-like particles that have intermediate BSE intensity and
are approximately 40 nm thick and up to about 1 micron across.
Furthermore, by comparing the BSE image in Fig. (8a) to the SE
image in Fig. (9), it can be seen that all of the particles are
embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE
intensity. XEDS maps of the cross-section surface of the red
layer were acquired at a beam energy of 10 kV. The acquisition
area of the maps is shown by the BSE image in Fig. (10a). The
XEDS maps, several of which are shown in Fig. (10b-f), indicate
by color, the degree to which the particular element is present
at or near the surface from point to point across the area. The
results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE
intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The
plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to
be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d)
also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the
location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from
these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both.
The carbon map appears less definitive, that is, it does not
appear to be associated with a particular particle or group of
particles, but rather with the matrix material. In order to
learn more from these findings, a focused electron beam was
placed directly onto the different particles, and the XEDS data
were collected. By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like
particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The
spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired Fig. (5). BSE images of
cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 shown in
(a)-(d) respectively. The cross sections from sample 2 (b) and 4
(d) also show the adhering gray layer. 78 7%8 7#8 78
18 The Open
Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. oxygen
may not accompany it commensurately. To confirm and to quantify
these observations, XEDS spectra (subsequent plots) were
acquired from specific regions of high Si, Al and Fe
concentrations. Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in
silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and
very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted
the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some
migration and separation of the components. This is a
significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon
are not bound chemically. The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was
acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of
aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was
found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen
present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the
aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present
to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer
of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to
find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the
very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine
particles. Fig. (15). (a) BSE image and (b)-(f) accompanying
XEDS maps from the red layer of the chip which was soaked in
methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours. The maps for (b) Fe, (c) Al,
(d) O, (e) Si, and (f) C are shown. Active Thermitic Material
Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009,
Volume 2 19 Fig. (16). XEDS spectrum from a silicon-rich region
on the porous red matrix of the MEK-treated red material. Fig.
(17). XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the region
of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip. Next
a region of particularly high iron concentration was analyzed,
yielding the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig. (18). Fig. (18). XEDS
spectrum obtained from a probe of the region of high iron
concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip, acquired with a 15 kV
beam. Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration
with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK
solvent (Fig. 15), and in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is
found relative to iron. Based on quantification of the XEDS
spectra, and after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace
elements, it is found that the Fe:O ratio for the spectrum in
Fig. (18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is
oxidized and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that
Fe2O3, or perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present.
To check the quantification method, tests were performed with
the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the
elementalquantification was found to yield consistent and
repeatable results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made
eight 50- second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found
consistency for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1
sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected.
The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the
obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite.
However, before concluding that the red material found in the
WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For
example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive
calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be
argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the
material may not really be thermitic. 3. Thermal Analysis using
Differential Scanning Calorimetry Red/gray chips were subjected
to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The
data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from
different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The
energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating
with respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be
approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in
peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since
the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the
DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer
was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably
does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies
greatly in mass from chip to chip. 4. Observation of Iron-Rich
Sphere Formation Upon Ignition of Chips in a Differential
Scanning Calorimeter In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous
material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed.
Many of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical
microscope, and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20). The abundant iron-rich
spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were
observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating. Spheres
rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high
temperatures, well above the 700 °C temperature reached in the
DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide
5]. Such high temperatures indicate that a chemical reaction
occurred. Using back-scattered electron (BSE) imaging, spheres
were selected in the post-DSC residue which appeared to be rich
in iron. An example is shown in Fig. (21) along with the
corresponding XEDS spectrum for this sphere. - ) 0
6 : 9 < = > ; / )0
20 The
Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. Fig.
(19). Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) traces for four
red/gray chip samples found in World Trade Center dust
collections. Fig. (20). Photomicrographs of residues from
red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic
spheres and also the translucent spheres. Each blue scale-marker
represents 50 microns.
Active
Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 21 A conventional quantitative analysis
routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case
of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen
content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial
elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in
other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in
spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids
were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other
iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which
contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion
section). That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1) highly
energetic reactions occurring at approximately 430 °C, 2)
iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been
sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C for iron and iron
oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in
which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant
elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic
reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide. The
evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the
WTC dust is compelling. 5. Flame/Ignition Tests The DSC used in
our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the
energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a
small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were
either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) Fig. (21). Spheroid
found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the
corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be considered
indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin
carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron
beam. 22 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2
Harrit et al. or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint
samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was
immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was
not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the
World Trade Center dust. The first WTC red/gray chip so tested
was approximately 1mm 1mm. After a few seconds of heating,
the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the
hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense
light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high
temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive
endproduct of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip
of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_sl ow.mov
In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered
and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23).
Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes
shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension
of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes. However, the
evidence obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a
thermitic reaction actually occurs as in that case ignition is
observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C.
DISCUSSION All of the dust samples that were inspected were
found to contain red/gray chips. The chips are characterized by
a red layer in which XEDS analysis identifies carbon, oxygen,
aluminum, silicon, and iron, and a gray layer in which mainly
iron and oxygen are found. The ratios of these ele- Fig. (22).
Applying a small torch to a minute red chip (left), followed a
few seconds later by ejection of material, producing a
horizontal orange streak running toward the operators hand
(right). (Frames from video of this flame/ignition test). Fig.
(23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition
test of red/gray chip from sample 1; some of the porous red
material remains; both can be seen in the corresponding SEM
image (right).
Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open
Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 23 ments appear to be
similar especially when this analysis is performed on a clean
cross-section of the layers. The BSE imaging also shows the
consistency of the red layers by revealing the size and
morphology of the particles that are contained in the bulk of
the layers. The results clearly show the similarities of the
red/gray chips from the different dust samples from all four
sites. There are a number of questions raised by our results. 1.
How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC
Destruction? In the sample provided by collector J. MacKinlay
the fraction of red/gray chips was roughly estimated. Fifteen
small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a
1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and
concrete fragments had been removed by hand. Thus the fraction
of red/gray chips was approximately 0.1% by weight in the
separated dust Another sampling showed 69 small red/gray chips
in a 4.9 g sample of separated dust. Further samples are being
analyzed to refine this estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers
produced enormous clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult
to ascertain; but clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in
the WTC dust must be substantial given the fraction observed in
these samplings. 2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature? Our
observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very
finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear
migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other
elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide
must be present. In the product collected after DSC ignition, we
found spheres which were not initially present. Many of these
spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the
post-ignition debris. Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that
the red/gray chips react vigorously at a temperature below the
melting point of aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation)
point of ultrafine grain (UFG) aluminum in air 18]. These
observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form
pyrotechnics or explosives 19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction
with iron oxide: 2Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), H =
853.5 kJ/mole. Commercially available thermite behaves as an
incendiary when ignited 6], but when the ingredients are
ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this
nano-thermite reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is
sometimes referred to as super-thermite 20, 22]. We would
like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known
super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the
products following ignition, but there are many forms of this
high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future
study. Meanwhile, we compare with products of commercially
available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we
have observed that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part
of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered.
These particles tend to become spherical due to surface tension
and, being small, are rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall
through the air, thus their spherical shape is preserved. To
facilitate comparisons between the products of red/gray chip
ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we juxtapose the
respective images and XEDS spectra. We observe that the
spheroidal residues from ignition of red chips (Figs. 25, 26)
possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical
XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite
(Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red
chips are indeed a form of thermite. Images of spheroids XEDS
spectra of spheroids Fig. (24). Spheres formed during ignition
of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS
spectrum. 24
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al.
Fig. (25). Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in
DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres
with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the
post-ignition residue). Fig. (26). Residue of red chip subjected
to flame test; XEDS spectrum of left-most microsphere. Fig.
(27). Spheres extracted from WTC dust. Fig. (28). XEDS spectrum
from a sphere found in the WTC dust. - ) 0 ) 6 :
9 < = > ; 3
! "# $ %$ #!
Active
Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 25 In addition to the red/gray chips,
many small spheres have been found by our group in the WTC dust.
These contain the same elements as the residue of thermite, as
noted in a previous paper 5]. We show spheres found in the WTC
dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from such a
sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare these results
with those found for ignition of commercial thermite and for
ignition of red/gray chips (above). 3. Could the Red Material Be
Unreacted Super- Thermite? We have noted that ordinary
thermite acts as an incendiary when ignited. However, when the
ingredients are ultrafine- grain and are intimately mixed, the
mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively 20]. Thus, there
is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic
nanocomposite or super-thermite, composed of aluminum and iron
oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or
less, often along with silicon and carbon 19-28]. Reaction
rates between nanosize aluminum and metal oxides can be
significantly greater than those observed with traditional
micron-size thermite powders. Reactions occurring between metal
and metal oxide powders are accompanied by the generation of
high temperatures (>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing
of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result in energy release
rate by two orders of magnitude higher than similar mixtures
consisting of micron size reactants 22]. The red layer of the
red/gray chips is most interesting in that it contains aluminum,
iron and oxygen components which are intimately mixed at a scale
of approximately 100 nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare a
DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace
obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)). Ordinary
thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or
above) and gives a significantly broader trace than
super-thermite 21]. All these data suggest that the thermitic
material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not
ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt to specify the
particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned
about the red material and especially about the nature of the
organic material it contains. 4. Did the Technology to Make
Highly Exothermic Nanocomposites Exist Prior to 9/11/2001? We
find the answer in a report by Gash et al. dated April 2000,
seventeen months before the tragedy: Nanostructured composites
are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the
component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or
thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm.
Energetic nanocomposites are a class of material that have both
a fuel and oxidizer component intimately mixed and where at
least one of the component phases meets the size definition. A
sol-gel derived pyrotechnic is an example of an energetic
nanocomposite, in which metal-oxide nanoparticles react with
metals or other fuels in very exothermic reactions. The fuel
resides within the pores of the solid matrix while the oxidizer
comprises at least a portion of the skeletal ma- Fig. (29). DSC
trace of sample 1 (blue line) compared with DSC of xerogel
Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite (from Tillotson et al. 28]). Both
DSC traces show completion of reaction at temperatures below 560
°C.
# $ ! "
%% % #&&' 26 The Open Chemical
Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. trix. As an
example, energetic nanocomposites of FexOy and metallic aluminum
are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and
can be readily ignited 19]. We gather that the technology to
make materials remarkably fitting the characterization of the
red chips was available by April 2000. In the same report, the
scientists noted that polymers can be added to the
nanocomposite: This sol-gel method allows for the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous
sol, just before gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed
and energetic nanocomposite upon gelation. Al metal (as a fine
powder, ~6μm diameter) was added to some FexOy gel syntheses
just before gelation to produce FexOy /Al(s) pyrotechnic
nanocomposites
. These nanocomposites were subsequently
processed to make both a xerogel and aerogel of the material
.
The pyrotechnic nanocomposite can be ignited using a propane
torch 19]. Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch
and they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the
required ingredients are present aluminum, iron, oxygen,
silicon, and carbon and they are incorporated in such a way
that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material
when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which
characterize this energetic material. We have performed these
same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that
polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK
and the subsequent swelling which we observed 29]. A report on
an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working
on such explosives at that time: The 221st National Meeting of
the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San
Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications of
Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions was titled nanoenergetics
.
This session provided a good representation of the breadth of
work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10 years old.
At
this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE
and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at
exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have
potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced
explosives
. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients
for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due
to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy
release and impulse management 20]. The feature of impulse
management may be significant. It is possible that formulations
may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to
achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise
level. 5. Can Super-Thermite be Handled Safely? The April 2000
report by Gash et al. states: The nature of the wet
nanocomposites also affords an additional degree of safety. In
our hands, the wet pyrotechnic nanocomposites cannot be ignited
until the drying process is complete. This property should allow
the production of a large quantity of the pyrotechnics that can
be stored safely for some time and dried shortly before its use
19]. Safe handling of the malleable sol-gel material allows
easy coating of surfaces (such as steel), which the same group,
in a subsequent report, says they have achieved. The sol-gel
process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to
dipcoat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe2O3/Al/Viton
coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent
film. We have prepared fine powders, pressed pellets, cast
monoliths, and thin films of the hybrid inorganic/ organic
energetic nanocomposite 25]. Thus, the energetic nano-composite
can be sprayed or even painted onto surfaces, effectively
forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we
found in the WTC dust conform to their description of thin
films of hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite.
Indeed, the descriptive terms energetic coating and nice
adherent film fit very well with our observations of the
red-chips which survived the WTC destruction. We cannot
determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the
chips resulted from the application method or the manner of
reaction. While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the
quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with
may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with
something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive.
Clapsaddle et al. further noted in their report: These results
indicate that under ambient conditions the hybrid
inorganic/organic energetic composite is very stable to impact,
is spark insensitive, and only very slightly friction sensitive.
As noted in the Experimental section of this report, in our
hands wet hybrid nanocomposites are safe to handle and difficult
to thermal sic] ignite. However, once dry the material burns
very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant
amounts of gaseous species 24]. The organic component
contributes to the rapid gas evolution and explosive nature of
these energetic superthermites when dry 24]. Super-thermite
electric matches have been developed at Los Alamos National
Laboratory for which applications include triggering explosives
for ... demolition 30]. It is indeed possible that such
matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric
pulse, could contain material Active Thermitic Material Found in
WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 27
similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust. With
regard to the safety of super-thermite matches, the Los Alamos
announcement notes: Unfortunately, conventional electric
matches use lead containing compounds that are extremely
sensitive to impact, friction, static, and heat stimuli, thereby
making them dangerous to handle. In addition, these compounds
produce toxic smoke. The Super-Thermite electric matches produce
no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist
friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the
composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition. They can be
designed to create various thermal-initiating outputssimple
sparks, hot slag, droplets, or flamesdepending on the needs of
different applications 30]. 6. What is the Energy Release of
Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives? A graph in
an article on nanostructured energetic materials 21] shows that
the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds
that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in
demolitions (see Fig. (30)). It is striking that some of the
red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary
thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical
maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g 27]. We suggest that the
organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also
highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive
pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an
incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic
ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a
pyrotechnic or explosive 6, 24]. As this test was done in air
it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may
have come from air oxidation of the organic component. 7. Could
the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint? We measured the
resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering
to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare
with ordinary paints, using the formula: Specific resistivity =
RA / L where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area
(m2); L = thickness (m). Given the small size of the red chip,
about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough
value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of
magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are
typically over 1010 ohm-m 31]. Another test, described above,
involved subjection of red chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent
for tens of hours, with agitation. The red material did swell
but did not dissolve, and a hard silicon-rich matrix remained
after this procedure. On the other hand, paint samples in the
same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant
dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent. Further,
we have shown that the red material contains both elemental
aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of thermite, in
interesting configuration and intimate mixing in the surviving
chips (see Results, section 1). The species are small (e.g., the
iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across) in a matrix
including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite. Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures
even now, several years after the 9/11 tragedy, as shown by the
bright flash observed and the pro- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Energy (kJ) HMX TNT TATB Al/Fe2O3 WTC Chip 1 WTC Chip 2 WTC Chip
3 WTC Chip 4 Energy by volume (kJ/cc) Energy by mass (kJ/g) Fig.
(30). Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and
TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, 21] and energy release
by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as
measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. 28 The Open
Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 Harrit et al. duction
of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in Fig. (20)
above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release
of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite.
Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time,
shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. (29). The
post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres in which the iron
exceeds the oxygen content, implying that at least some of the
iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction. If a paint were
devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it
would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive
regulatory approval for building use. To merit consideration,
any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match
the characteristics we have described would have to be
accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the
proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses. 8. What
Future Studies are Contemplated? We observe that the total
energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the
theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility
is that the organic material in the red layer is itself
energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in
the organic component of the red material would promote
understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated
from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite
variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be
in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and
related studies are urged to identify the organic material. We
have observed that some chips have additional elements such as
potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and
why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An
example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along
with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What
is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple
layers, as seen in Fig. (32). Fig. (31). Photomicrograph of a
red/gray chip found in sample 3, showing multiple layers and an
unusual light-gray layer between the red layers. The red-mesoporous
material is on the left in this view, with the touching
dark-gray layer next and a lighter-gray material on the right as
seen in a photograph of the same chip (right hand image in Fig.
(32)). The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS
spectrum shown in Fig. (33) in which iron is not seen, while the
outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those
displayed in Fig. (6). Thus, the middle-layer gray material
contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains
hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray
inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type
of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another,
iron-rich material. One might speculate that the red thermitic
material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The
cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a
heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that
unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin
layers, remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further
experiments. Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured
on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot.
This chip had been treated in MEK solvent so that the red layer
has expanded and porosity is evident.
Active Thermitic Material Found in
WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2 29
Fig. (33). XEDS spectrum for gray layer which touches the red
layer of the chip shown above. No red/gray chips having the
characteristics delineated here were found in dust generated by
controlled demolition using conventional explosives and methods,
for the Stardust Resort & Casino in Las Vegas (demolished 13
March 2007) and the Key Bank in Salt Lake City (demolished 18
August 2007). Of course, we do not assume that the destruction
of the WTC skyscrapers occurred conventionally. The red material
does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a
bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of
the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast
explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a
cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high
explosives, as in super-thermite matches 30]. Having observed
unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that
other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or
explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has
admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues 11].
CONCLUSIONS We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in
significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade
Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods
to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature
of these chips, especially of their red component. The red
material is most interesting and has the following
characteristics: 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen,
silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive
elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead,
barium and copper. 2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C)
are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to
hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate
mixing. 3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some
segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became
sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the
pre-ignition material. 4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains
roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin
platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles
qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or
super-thermite. 5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are
present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in
all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide
was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron
was not. 6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron
oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the
ingredients of thermite. 7. As measured using DSC, the material
ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely
an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The
low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide
grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not
conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900
°C) but very likely a form of super-thermite. 8. After igniting
several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous
iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that
a very hightemperature reaction had occurred, since the
iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these
shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since
the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We
conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction
has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test
have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in
carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This
chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of
the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also
matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the
WTC dust 5]. 10. The carbon content of the red material
indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be
expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce
high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.
The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further
exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic
material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in
DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
thermite reaction. Based on these observations, we conclude that
the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the
WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.
30 The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009,
Volume 2 Harrit et al. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank
Tom Breidenbach, Frank Delessio, Jody Intermont, Janette
MacKinlay, and Steve White for dust samples acquired soon after
the WTC 9/11 catastrophe. We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile,
David Allan, Branton Campbell, Wes Lifferth, Crockett Grabbe,
David Ray Griffin, Mike Berger, Frank Carmen, Richard Gage,
Shane Geiger, Justin Keogh, Janice Matthews, John Parulis,
Phillipe Rivera, Allan South and Jared Stocksmith for
elucidating discussions and encouragement. Thanks to John
Parulis for gathering samples of residues from reacted
commercial thermite. REFERENCES 1] Federal Emergency Management
Authority, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data
collection, preliminary observations and recommendations, May
2002, Figure 1-7, Schematic depiction of areas of collapse
debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented
damage, pp. 1-9. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from
partial mirrored version:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch1.htm
2] Sunder S, Grosshandler W, Lew HS, et al. Final report on the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. National
Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD 2005.
3] Gourley JR, McIlvaine B, Jones SE, Ryan K, Gage R. Appeal
filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction. J
9/11 Studies 2007; 17:1-16. Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf
4] Ryan KR, Gourley JR, Jones SE. Environmental anomalies at
the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials.
Environmentalist 2009; 29(1): 56-63. Accessed February 7,
2009]. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
5] Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, et al. Extremely high
temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction. J 9/11
Studies 2008; 19: 1-11. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available
from:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf 6]
Jones SE. Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?
J 9/11 Studies 2006; 3: 1-47. Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
7] Roberts G, Jones V. Robertson: a physicist and a structural
engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade
Center. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 10: 1-37. Accessed February 7,
2008]. Available from:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-
RobertsonTranscript.pdf 8] Jones SE. Revisiting 9/11 applying
the scientific method. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 11: 55-82. Accessed
February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
9] Legge F, Szamboti T. 9/11 and the twin towers: sudden
collapse initiation was impossible. J 9/11 Studies 2007; 18:
1-3. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
10] Gourley J. Discussion of mechanics of progressive
collapse: learning from World Trade Center and building
demolitions by Baant ZP, Mathieu V. J Eng Mech 2008; 134(10):
915-16. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000134000010000915000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
11] Jones SE, Legge FM, Ryan KR, Szamboti AF, Gourley JR.
Fourteen points of agreement with official government reports on
the World Trade Center destruction. Open Civil Eng J 2008; 2:
35-40. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
12] Hoffman J. The Demolition-Like symmetry of the Twin Towers
falls. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html
13] McGee JK, Chen LC, Cohen MD, et al. Chemical analysis of
world trade center fine particulate matter for use in
toxicologic assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2003; 111:
972-80. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
14] Lee RJ Group. WTC dust signature report, composition and
morphology. December 2003. Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WT
C%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf
15] Lowers HA, Meeker GP. Particle atlas of World Trade Center
dust. September 2005; Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available
from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html 16]
Lioy PJ, Weisel CP, Millette JR, et al. Characterization of the
dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in lower manhattan after the collapse of the WTC 11.
September 2001. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110(7): 703-14.
Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html
17] Delessio F, Breidenbach T. Videotaped testimonies at
Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA, December 2007. Accessed February 7,
2009]. Available from: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250
, start at timestamp 34:54. 18] Sun J, Pantoya ML, Simon SL.
Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of
aluminum nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO3.
Thermochim Acta 2006; 444(2): 117-27. Accessed February 7,
2009]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4JRVFRD-
2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb52f0f9dbc4
aa13bc6fc39e223afa2f 19] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM,
Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a
beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. Accessed February 7,
2009]. Available from: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=15007525
20] Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of
national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. Accessed
February 7, 2009]. Available from:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf 21] Gash AE, Satcher JH,
Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials
with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800: 55-66.
Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115856&action=detail
22] Puszynski JA. Reactivity of nanosized Aluminum with metal
oxides and water vapor. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800:
AA6.4.1. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115976&action=detail
23] Puszynski JA, Swiatkiewicz JJ. Research Topic:
Investigation of Ignition Characteristics of Heterogeneous
Strongly Exothermic Reactions. Department of Chemical and
Biological Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology, Current Projects. Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://ret.sdsmt.edu/projectdescr.htm 24]
Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and
characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic
materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004. Accessed February 7,
2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115879&action=detail
25] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Satcher JH. Energetic nanocomposites
with sol-gel chemistry: Synthesis, safety, and characterization.
LLNL UCRL-JC- 146739, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Livermore, Ca; 2002. Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available
from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf Active
Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust The Open Chemical Physics
Journal, 2009, Volume 2 31 26] Zhao L, Clapsaddle BJ, Satcher
JH, Jr, Schaefer DW, Shea KJ. Integrated chemical systems: the
simultaneous formation of hybrid nanocomposites of iron oxide
and organo silsesquioxanes. Chem Mater 2005; 17(6): 1358-66.
Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/cmatex/2005/17/i06/abs/cm048231i.html
27] Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Prentice D, et al. Formulation and
performance of novel energetic nanocomposites and gas generators
prepared by solgel methods. LLNL UCRL-PROC210871, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; March 2005;
Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf
28] Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH,
Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel
methodologies. J Non- Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345. Accessed
February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TXM-435KKJV-
2G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=96168ef14a
007c2cc1dee1667b0d1b2f 29] Bandyopadhyay A, de Sarkar M,
Bhowmick AK. Polymer-filler interactions in sol-gel derived
polymer/silica hybrid nanocomposites. J Polym Sci Part B. Polym
Phys 2005; 43(17): 2399-412. Accessed August 4, 2008].
Available from:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110572549/abstract
30] R&D Awards. super-thermite electric matches. Accessed
February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite_Electric_Matches_2003.pdf
31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment
for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6):
381-8. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/1280440604.html
Received: August 12, 2008 Revised: February 10, 2009 Accepted:
February 13, 2009 © Harrit et al.; Licensee Bentham Open. This
is an open access article licensed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http: //creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/
3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work
is properly cited.
|
10
Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint
By Niels H. Harrit, May 2009 |
WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT
Niels Harrit, May 09 It has been suggested, that the red/grey
chips discovered in the dust from the WTC collapse catastrophe1
could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint)
applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares
the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two
materials based on the description of the protective paint in
the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips. CHEMICAL
COMPOSITION OF THE PRIMER PAINT The primer paint applied to the
steel beams of WTC is described and characterized in NIST NCSTAR
1-3C appendix D.2 The primer paint is red/orange and was
originally applied in order to protect the steel against
corrosion. Examples of typical beams are shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2. Figure 1. M2-C2M (WTC 1, Col.130, Fl 98) from NCSTAR
1-3C appendix D2. 2 Figure 2. Perimeter columns in WTC towers.
From NIST. The color is due to the pigments in the paint. Iron
oxide is red and zinc chromate (zinc yellow) is well -
bright lemon yellow (Figure 3). Figure 3. Composition of primer
paint from NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2. 3 Since the vehicle is
obviously fluid, the values for the ingredients in it must refer
to the paint before application in percentage by weight. Even
though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the
content of this component can be obtained from the Material
Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is
reproduced in Figure 4: Figure 4 Extract from Material Safety
Data Sheet for Tnemec pigment.3 Talc is magnesium silicate
hydroxide, Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. The content of calcium silicates and
aluminates is inexact and the relative contribution of
aluminates is not specified. Since the Tnemec pigment
contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint, the content of these
two ingredients and the solvent in the wet primer paint was:
Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 7 10 % Calcium silicates or aluminates 2
3.3 % Mineral spirits: 7.6 % After application, the paint was
baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients
evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the
Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) 40 %. If we subtract
these from the composition percentages given above, we get a
rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint. 4 That
is, by dividing by 0.6 we get the following values for the
pertinent ingredients of the hardened paint (dismissing the
trivial elements iron, silicon, carbon and oxygen): Component
Composition in wet paint Composition in dry paint Zinc chromate
(ZnCrO4) 20.3 % 34 % Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) 7 10 % 12 17 %
Calcium silicates or aluminates 2 3.3 % 3.3 5.5 % Table 1.
Pertinent components of primer paint corrected for solvent
evaporation. COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY
CHIPS The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was
obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS)
in the SEM mode.1 Before measurement, the chips were broken
(with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a
fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was
obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four
independently collected samples, showed signals from either
zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above
the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in
which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these
three elements could be expected from the primer paint according
to Table 1. 5 Figure 5. SEM XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) spectra
from fresh surfaces of red phase of red/gray chips. Left: Figure
7 in Harrit et al.1, showing the four different samples
investigated. Right: The same spectrum as in frame (a) with
intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded. Minute
signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur,
calcium, chromium and strontium. In one experiment the chips
were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not
for good reasons be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this
chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the
presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips
had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they
are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very
well could have been from the primer paint(!). 6 Figure 6. SEM
XEDS (beam energy 20 keV) from unbroken chip before soaking in
MEK. The calcium and sulfur are likely to originate from
contamination with wallboard material (gypsum, calcium sulfate).
The signals from zinc and chromium could be from a surface
contamination with primer paint. Magnesium was never observed,
which is another element characteristic of the primer paint
(Table 1). It should also be noticed, that the only possible
source of aluminum in the primer paint is the rather vague
reference to calcium silicates or aluminates in 3.3 5.5 %
presence. Without attempting any quantitative estimates (not a
trivial matter in XEDS), it is still very hard to accept this
component as the source of the bright-and-clear signals for
aluminum from the red phase of the red/gray chips. THERMAL
STABILITY OF PRIMER PAINT NIST was interested in the thermal
response of the primer paint since examination of the condition
on the recovered steel beams could be indicative of the
temperatures they had been exposed to. NIST carried out
temperature studies on selected beams and made the following
observations.2 The paint is unaffected to temperatures up to 250
C (Figure 7a). At higher temperatures the paint starts showing
mud-cracks as they can be seen in Figure 7b (left). This
fracture is due to the different expansion coefficients of the
steel and the paint. It gets worse at 650 C (Figure 7, right) at
which temperature black scales (layers) begin to form 7
between the paint and the steel (Figure 8). NIST took the
samples beyond 800 C at which temperature the scale formation
and peeling off of the paint from the steel was prevailing. One
may hypothesize that formation of the black scales is due to
charring of the organic binder. Figure 7. Left: Primer paint on
exterior WTC column at temperatures below 250 C (panel a) and
beyond (panel b). Right: Exposure of primer paint on steel to
650 C for 1 hr 8 Figure 8. From NCSTAR 1-3C appendix D2 showing
formation of a black layer under the primer paint at
temperatures beyond 650 C. Notice, that the primer paint being
basically a ceramic material is chemically stable at
temperatures up to 800 C. COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF
RED/GRAY CHIPS In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray
chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 C.
The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 C,
since the residues from molten iron are clearly seen in the
optical microscope (Figure 9). Figure 9. Optical microscope
picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument.1
CONCLUSION The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray
chips are inconsistent. The red/gray chips cannot be the primer
paint as it is characterized by NIST. 9 REFERENCES (1) Harrit,
N.; Farrer, J.; Jones, S. E.; Ryan, K.; Legge, F.; Farnsworth,
D.; Roberts, G.; Gourley, J.; Larsen, B. Active Thermitic
Material Discovered in Dust From the 9/11 World Trade Center
Catastrophe. The Chemical Physics Open Journal 2009, 2, 7-31.
(2) NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf
(3) http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf |
11,
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for
energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones |
|
12.
Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst |
Mysteries of the Twin Towers A Survey of
Available Evidence On the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Towers R. Herbst; BAAE, ME Rev. 12.0 February 2009 The WTC
Complex 1] Thanks to Eric Hufschmid, Dave McGowan, and the
webmaster of serendipity.li for explicit permission in the
posting of images. Thanks to Sami Yli-Karjanmaa for corrections
to the text in discussing his 9/11 activism. Special thanks to
Connie Eichenlaub for help in text editing up through version
11. Background According to media reports, American Airlines
Boeing 767 Flight 11 crashed between floors 94 and 98 of the
North Tower at 8:46 a.m. The North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
According to media reports, United Airlines Boeing 767 Flight
175 crashed between floors 78 and 85 of the South Tower at 9:03
a.m. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. Crash and collapse
times are based on seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory in Palisades, New York. US Department of State times
were essentially identical, except time of collapse of the South
Tower was given as 10:05 a.m., rather than 9:59 a.m. According
to the State Department, 92 people were on board Flight 11, and
64 people were on board Flight 175. 2] Architect Minoru
Yamasaki was commissioned to design the World Trade Center with
the New York firm of Emery Roth and Sons. Structural engineers
John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling,
Helle and Jackson (WSH&J), the Seattle based World Class
structural engineering Firm of Record, worked on the project.
This firm is responsible for the structural design of many major
modern structures, including Columbia Center in Seattle. 3]
Some sources have suggested the new tubular design of the WTC
Towers made them structurally suspect 4]. Others have suggested
the WTC towers were otherwise vulnerable. 5] However, their
tubular design creates a very strong and resilient structure,
and continues to be very successful. 6] The horrific collapse
of 1 and 2 World Trade Center, the Twin Towers, was the key
event of the attacks which has provided the Bush administration
almost limitless power to do as it pleases, merely by invoking
the phrase "Remember 9/11". That power was solidified by the
passage of S.J. Resolution 23 on September 14, 2001, authorizing
the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001. 7] We now have perpetual
war, wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, the Unitary
Executive, the Military Tribunal Act (which effectively creates
an American dictatorship), billions in profits for the military
industries, and world-wide angst. So, why did the towers
collapse? By now, six years later, we should have a definitive
answer, but we do not. We have the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) study, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Building Performance Assessment (FEMA BPA), the Silverstein
reports, the 9/11 Commission Report; the National Institute of
Standards & Technology (NIST) reports, the so called Purdue
Study, and ARUP commentary. Although these reports vary in
details, and in some cases contradict one another, what we
finally have is the Official Story, quoted verbatim by the US
media: the impact of commercial aircraft and the ensuing fire
caused by aircraft fuel led to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the
North and South World Trade Center Towers, on September 11,
2001. The truth of the Official Story has never been proven but
has been implicitly assumed by all of the Official
investigation reports. David Ray Griffins book The 9/11
Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions discusses this
concept as applied to the 9/11 Commission Report. 8] This paper
does not presume to know what happened on 9/11. It merely
collects and organizes available information. Although some
analysis is provided, it is up to the reader to decide what it
means. Section 8 provides a brief list of relevant questions.
(Please note that a lot of information is provided in the end
notes, which appear in a separate file. Also note that
mainstream articles are disappearing from internet archives, so
links to original articles may not work. This is especially true
for the New York Times. In these cases, links to copies of the
articles are provided wherever possible. ) Similar studies on
9/11 aircraft may be available at
http://seattle911visibilityproject.org/911_aircraft.htm Contents
at a glance: 1.0 The Case for Controlled Demolition 1.1 First
experts suggest explosives were used. 1.2 Explosives Considered
1.2.1 Problems with the Dust 1.2.2 North Tower Antenna and
upper block 1.2.3 Symmetrical, quickly, completely 1.2.4
Sliced Steel 1.2.5 Squibs 1.2.6 Ejected material 1.2.7 Molten
metal in the Basements for weeks 1.2.8 Surface Hot Spots 1.2.9
Vaporized Steel 1.2.10 Massive Destruction 1.2.11 Afterglow
1.2.12 Vaporized Humans? 2.0 Eye and Ear Witness Reports 2.1
Suppression of Photographic Evidence? 2.2. Reports of
explosions. 2.2.1 Reports of explosions prior to aircraft impact
and/or emanating from lower floors 2.2.2 Reports of explosions
probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse. 2.2.3
Unexpected Damage on the 22nd floor, lobby, and basement of N.
Tower probably after aircraft impact but prior to collapse 2.2.4
Reports of explosions and tower swaying at the time of collapse.
2.3 Reports of explosions by members of the NYC Fire Department
2.3.1 Attempt to Discredit NYFD? 2.3.2 Statements going directly
to the media 2.3.3 Real time audiotapes of communication between
rescue services during the attacks 2.3.4 Interviews and Oral
Histories taken after the attacks 3.0 How does the seismic data
fit in? 3.1 The Earthquakes 3.2 Is the seismic record consistent
with NIST conclusions? 3.3 Seismic activity at time of aircraft
impact 4.0 WTC Security 4.1 Insurance 4.2 Damage to FBI Offices
4.3 Anomalies leading up to the Day 4.4 Security firms 4.5 A
note on Urban Renewal of the Twin Towers 5.0 History and its
Revision 5.1 The History of Fire Induced Collapse of Steel
Buildings 5.2.0 The First Wave of Politically Correct
Revisionist Theories 5.2.1 Fire Theory 5.2.2 Steel Melted By
Heat 5.2.3 Steel Weakened By Heat 5.2.4 Refutation of Early Fire
and Heat Theories. 5.2.5 The Problem of a Completely Symmetrical
collapse 5.2.6 Pancake Theory 5.3.0 The FEMA Building
Performance Assessment (BPA) 5.3.1 Executive Summary 5.3.2
Deepest mystery makes Appendix C 5.3.3 Immediate Reaction to the
FEMA BPA Report 5.3.4 Structural Engineers 5.3.5 Firefighters
5.3.6 Congress 5.3.7 Media 5.4.0 The 9/11 Commission 5.4.1 The
9/11 Commission Report 5.4.2 9/11 Commission Makeup 5.4.3 9/11
Commission Behavior 5.5.0 The Silverstein Studies 5.6.0 The NIST
Investigation 5.6.1 Review of Documents: 5.6.1.1 Many relevant
documents not mentioned or missing 5.6.1.2 Original tower design
features and claims 5.6.2 Interviews 5.6.3 Lab Tests: Fire and
NIST 5.6.4 Analysis and Simulation 5.6.4.1 WTC tower structure
5.6.4.2 NIST Simulation of Aircraft Damage to Tower Structure.
5.6.4.3 Descending Block Scenario during collapse initiation.
5.6.4.4 Where is the momentum transfer analysis? 5.6.5 Steven
Jones on Kevin Ryan and NIST: 5.6.6 The Engineering Community
5.6.7 Purdue Study: A NIST prop? 5.6.8 Secrecy 5.6.9 The real
goal of the NIST investigation ? 5.6.10 Legal challenges filed
against NIST 5.6.11 More Scientists Architects and Engineers
question NIST Results 5.7.0 How do the Official Investigations
Compare? 5.7.1 A Continuity of Faces 5.7.2 North Tower Antenna
5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC towers 5.7.4
References to explosives, explosive, or anomalous
characteristics 5.7.5 Aircraft Impact Damage 5.7.6 Pancaking,
Progressive Collapse; Mode of failure; New building codes 6.0
Bush Science 7.0 Alternative Theories 7.1 Steven Jones Thermite/Thermate
Alternative 7.2 Gordon Ross Four Phase Attack Alternative 8.0
Wrapping it up with a few questions 9.0 Fair Use Notice ATV
Units assist in cleanup September 11 2001 June 12 2002 9] 1.0
The Case for Controlled Demolition 1.1 First experts suggest
explosives were used. On September 11, 2001, American explosives
expert Van Romero said: "My opinion is, based on the videotapes,
that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were
some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse. The Albuquerque Journal further noted: The
detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a
common terrorist strategy, Romero said. One of the things
terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and a
secondary device, Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial,
diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the
scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said. Romero said
that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would
have been the collision of the planes into the towers. 10] The
next day, Mark Taylor, demolition expert noted in New Scientist:
it cascaded down like an implosion. 11] Webster Tarpley notes
European expert sources who immediately suggested the
possibility of explosives in the towers. On Sept. 12, the Danish
"bomb expert" Mr. Bent Lund stated: "an estimated amount of
circa 1 tons of Extra high-explosives Bombs must have been
detonated inside the World Trade Center complex in order to make
the Towers collapse in the manner they did." 12] Jens Claus
Hansen, a high ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy,
on 9/11/01 stated in an interview: Additional bombs must have
been placed inside the WTC towers--otherwise they would not have
collapsed as they actually did. Former NATO General Keld
Hillingsoe in the same interview stated: Additional bombs must
have been installed inside buildings. On Sept 13, 2001, Hugo
Bachmann, Professor Emeritus of building dynamics and earth
quake engineering at the Swiss Eidgenossische Technische
Hochschule in Zurich saw two possible scenarios, and felt that
both should be investigated. The first was fire and its effects
on the steel supports; the second, an additional terrorist
action. The article quoted by Tarpley noted that Bachmann could
imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key
supports in a lower floor before the attack. 13] 1.2
Explosives Considered Why would explosives experts say that
explosives were used? Eric Hufschmid, J. M. King, and more
recently Dr. Steven Jones, have noted that the explosives theory
explains very well the apparent removal of all structural
support and the neat demolition-like collapse of the towers.
14] Dr. Jones notes: Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to
have been exploded top-down rather than proceeding from the
bottom - which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly
possible, depending on the order in which explosives are
detonated. As first proposed by Eric Hufschmid in his book
Painful Questions, Jones notes that explosives may have been
placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio
signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the
plane entered the tower: Certainly this hypothesis ought to be
seriously considered in an independent investigation using all
available data. 15] Although Van Romero later changed his
mind, he still admitted the collapses looked like demolitions
16] This is true in a number of ways. Dr. David Ray Griffin has
noted eleven characteristics of the WTC collapses consistent
with Controlled Demolition: 1) Sudden Onset; 2) Straight Down;
3) Almost Free-Fall Speed; 4) Total Collapse; 5) Sliced Steel;
6) Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials; 7) Dust
Clouds; 8) Horizontal Ejections; 9) Demolition Rings; 10) Sounds
Produced by Explosions; 11) Molten Steel. 17] 1.2.1 Problems
with the Dust Concrete and all other non-metallic objects were
pulverized to dust. Rather than a piling up of shattered
concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused
progressive collapse ("official theory"), we find that most of
the Towers material (concrete, carpet, etc.) is converted to
flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. 18] Danish
video expert Henrik Melvang claims his four hour video shows
five distinct "DUST CLOUDS" from Demolition Bombs exploding far
below the point of airplane impact within the WTC. 19] The
first event in the collapse of each building was a mushroom
cloud of dust above each building. Jeff King (2003), notes: " A
great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top
of the building very early in the collapse. . . when] concrete
slabs would have been] bumping into each other at only] 20 or
30 mph. As King points out, dust clouds were created far above
the impact zones. 20] What is the energy source needed to
produce this fine dust at the beginning of the collapses, before
gravity has a chance to do anything? 21] Using a photograph
from Chapter 5 of the FEMA Building Performance Assessment, Jim
Hoffman estimated that the dust cloud from the North Tower grew
to about 5 times the volume of the building within 30 seconds of
the start of the collapse. He then calculated the energy
required to allow the observed volume of expansion of dust, and
found that it exceeded energy available from gravitational
collapse by a factor of 10. 22] WTC Complex: From FEMA BPA 22]
This is in marked contrast to the official theory which,
according to Derrick Grimmer, proposes that 30% of the
gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the
pyroclastic cloud of debris. 23] 1.2.2 North Tower Antenna
Video frames show that the North Tower antenna droops prior to
the adjacent columns prior to collapse. 24] A sinking antenna
suggests the building core failed, which is usually how
buildings are intentionally demolished. Frames 5,6,7:the white
portion of the antenna at the top of Frame 7 is a bit longer,
while the walls have not yet moved. This suggests the antenna,
and thus the building core, began to collapse first 24] 1.2.3
Symmetrical, quickly, completely The collapses progress rapidly,
at almost free fall speed, so they are completed in under 16
seconds 25]. The collapses proceed floor-by-floor in a nearly
perfectly balanced and symmetrical manner, with debris falling
largely within a symmetric boundary around the buildings
footprints. 26] S. Tower Collapse: From Hufshmid 26] 1.2.4
Sliced Steel Griffin has noted that in controlled demolitions of
steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel
columns and beams into pieces of desired lengths. 27]
Controlled Demolition Incorporated, the company selected to
remove the rubble from the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
building in Oklahoma City, was also selected to cleanup rubble
from the WTC. CDI advertises its ability to demolish steel
columns into pieces matching the lifting capacity of available
equipment. Interestingly much of the WTC steel rubble could be
stacked conveniently on standard flatbed trailers. 28] Jones
notes that slicing of steel for demolition purposes is routinely
done by use of high temperature cutter charges made from
exothermic materials such as thermite, HMX, and RDX. 29] He
notes these cutter-charges are typically placed at about a 45
degree angle to the length of the vertical steel beams of a
building to be demolished. 30] Workers place cutter charges in
building demolition. Jones 30] He also notes several instances
of photographs of WTC wreckage showing truncated steel columns
very similar to what would be expected from the use of such
cutter charges. 31] Jones has also argued that WTC cleanup
crews used only oxy-acetylene torches, and did not use thermite.
Angle cut box columns: Jones/Hufschmid 31] 1.2.5 Squibs
Photographs show symmetrical squibs well below collapsing
floors. As opposed to the dust blown out of successive floors
below the collapse, these squibs are stationary and ere
eventually overtaken by the collapsing floors. Such squibs are
associated with controlled demolition. 32] Jets of Material
(squibs) From North Tower. Courtesy Eric Hufschmid 32] Griffin
notes still another common feature of collapses induced by
explosions are demolition rings in which series of small
explosions run rapidly around a building. 33] 1.2.6 Ejected
material Some material was ejected horizontally at high speeds.
Objects were thrown laterally several hundred feet. At bottom,
debris was scattered in 500 ft radius. Some clips show material
thrown upward, and building fragments were found imbedded in
surrounding buildings. 34] Debris ejected from S. Tower 600,000
lb. Steel beam imbedded in WFC 3 35] WTC steel imbedded in
adjacent building 34] Dr. Stephan Grossman has presented much
evidence documenting the incredible energy of the collapses as
well as the resulting destruction. He notes a steel beam
weighing 600,000 pounds (270 metric tons; about twice the weight
of a 767-200ER), which was thrown laterally for over 390 ft, to
imbed deeply into the World Financial Center 3. 35] 1.2.7
Surface Hot Spots Five days after the collapse, on September 16,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an
Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to
collect thermal data at the WTC site. The data revealed a number
of surface thermal hot spots in the region of collapse. Analysis
of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800 deg F in
these hot spots (some over 1300 deg. F). 36] From U. S.
Geological Survey Report see 36] 1.2.8 Molten metal in the
Basements for weeks The surface hot spots were indicative of
what was below the surface: Numerous confirmed references to
molten steel appear in the 9/11 WTC literature. According to
Mark Loizeaux, president of CDI, "pools of molten steel were
found at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers
down seven basement] levels, "three, four, and five weeks
later, when the rubble was being removed." As has been noted,
construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about
2,800° Fahrenheit 1535° Celsius]. 37] Steven Jones cites
several confirmations of molten metal, including Dr Keith Eaton,
and Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. 38] A video clip
provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground
zero. 39] The observer notes that the observed surface of this
metal is still reddishorange some six weeks after 9/11. 1.2.9
Vaporized Steel A February 2002 New York Times article noted
that pieces of steel were found that were "apparently melted and
vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also
because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in
the conflagrations. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of
the firewise professors, who expected to see distortion and
bending--but not holes." 40] This anomaly was cited in Appendix
C of the FEMA Report. 1.2.10 Massive Destruction On September 8,
2002 Colonel John O'Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
appeared on The History Channel. O'Dowd, who is no stranger to
disaster scenes, had never seen anything like the remains of the
twin towers. "At the World Trade Center sites," he said, "it
seemed like everything was pulverized." There was nothing
recognizable in the debris -- nothing to indicate that that
pulverized debris had been, just seconds earlier, a functioning
10,000,000-square-foot office building. O'Dowd had been present
at the scene of the partially collapsed Oklahoma City federal
building. Though the collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah building
was definitely facilitated by one or more powerful explosive
charges, the debris from that collapse was not pulverized to the
degree that it was at the site of the WTC towers, which
presumably was acted on only by gravity. 41] Dr Grossman
provides an image from CNN.com showing damage to dozens of
buildings around the WTC Complex. 42] One of the more unusual
artifacts to emerge from the rubble was an object which has come
to be known as "the meteorite" a combination of steel and
concrete fused by the heat into one single element. 43] 1.2.11
Afterglow Many videos show an afterglow or a flare at the end
of the collapses of both the North and South Towers.
911research.wtc7.net has several videos showing this effect.
44] Afterglow of WTC1 Collapse 44] 1.2.12 Vaporized Humans?
According to an Associate Press article of 1/15/02, Dr. Charles
Hirsch, chief medical examiner of the City of New York,
triggered an angry response when he told grieving relatives that
many bodies had been "vaporized." The goal of his office was to
identify at least 2000 of the 2823 victims. Dr. Michael Baden,
the state's chief forensic pathologist said that most bodies
should be identifiable because the fires ... did not reach the
3,200-degree 1760 deg C.], 30-minute level necessary to
incinerate a body. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a top forensic pathologist
in Pittsburgh said the combination of fire and compression from
tons of rubble could reduce a human body to a small amount of
tissue and bone. 45] After one year, Hirsch's office had
identified 1,401 victims. 46] Almost six years later, as of
April 2007, more than 1100 victims still do not have
identifiable remains. 47] After the Oklahoma City bombing, all
168 people killed were eventually identified. And the towers,
according to the official story, were acted upon by nothing more
than the effects of fire and gravity. 2.0 Eye and Ear Witness
Reports 2.1 Suppression of Photographic Evidence? Photographs at
Ground Zero were prohibited, ostensibly for humanitarian
reasons. Tarpley notes Rudolph Giulianis autobiography
Leadership, in which he states I noticed a disturbing
phenomenon hundreds of people carrying disposable cameras and
hand held video cameras. I understood the impulse
At the same
time, this was a crime scene and a dangerous one. I did not want
anyone to get hurt or to damage evidence as they scouted out the
best angle for their snapshots. The result was his infamous
order that all photos were illegal around the complex. 48] 2.2.
Reports of explosions. The mainstream media generally did not
report explosions. Reports continue to surface however, and
there is now much photographic 49] and eye witness evidence
which suggests that explosions actually did occur within the
Twin Towers prior to their collapse. Steve Evans, BBC 59] Mike
Pecoraro, Engineer 54] W. Rodriguez/G. Bush 53] 2.2.1 Reports
of explosions prior to aircraft impact and/or emanating from
lower floors All damage in both towers was implicitly assumed in
the Official Story to have occurred only after, and because of
aircraft impact and fire. Not all reports support these views:
The Christian Science Monitor reported the experience of Tom
Elliott, who was at work in his office at the Aeon Corp., an
insurance brokerage firm, on the 103rd floor of the South tower.
Sometime after 8:30 a.m., a bright flash of light startled him,
and a rumble shook the structure. Flames appeared to be crawling
up the outside of the building, along with dark smoke and
debris, burning paper and ash. Elliott and two others headed
down the building stairwell. As they reached the 67th floor,
United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the 78th floor of their
tower at 9:03 a.m. Although its spectacularly televised impact
was above Elliot, at first he and those around him thought an
explosion had come from below. An incredible sound he calls it
an exploding sound shook the building and a tornado of hot
air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying
up the stairwell. In front of me, the wall split from the
bottom up. 50] William Rodriguez, age 44, worked at the WTC
for 20 years in building maintenance. He was in an office on
sub-level (basement) 1 of the North Tower when it was hit by
flight 11. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor
beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and
everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled
together with at least 14 other people in the office. "Seconds
after
. I hear another explosion from way above," said
Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the
airplane hitting the tower
" Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia,
supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the
people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.
Subsequently Rodriguez helped to save hundreds of people in the
North tower, by opening doors with a master key for fire
fighters before he was finally turned back at the 39th floor. He
also added that he heard a series of small explosions going off
between the 20th and 30th floors while making his way through
the stairwell to the top floors. Although initially considered
an official hero, he soon concluded that the explosions
occurring before flight 11 hit the tower proved the towers were
brought down by controlled demolition. In an effort to open a
fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed,
Rodriguez has approached and been ignored by government
officials, the 9/11 Commission, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). As of 2005, he was being
represented by Attorney Phil Berg in a RICO law suit against GW
Bush and his administration. 51] Other independent reports
corroborate explosions emanating from the basement, but it is
not clear if these occurred prior to aircraft impact: Stationary
Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the subbasement level
of the North Tower, gives a harrowing eyewitness account of
numerous ground and subbasement level explosions in the on-line
publication Chiefengineer. For example, from D level: The two
decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine
shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be
working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the
machine shop gone. There was nothing there but rubble Mike
said. We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone! The
two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it,
too, was gone. There were no walls, there was rubble on the
floor, and you can't see anything he said. 52] Regardless of
time of occurrence, the notion that all lower floor damage was
caused by aircraft impact/fireballs is further refuted by
testimony from NYFD Lieutenant William Walsh, who stated that
North Tower elevators, which serviced the lower 30 floors, were
blown off the hinges from below. Craig T. Furlong and Gordon
Ross, in a study of seismic activity, reasonably conclude
Lieutenant Walsh was referring to local elevators which serviced
floors 34 down to the lowest level of the building, Level B6 in
the basement. In other words, since these elevators did not go
above floor 34, they could not have been affected by aircraft
impact between floors 94-98. Furlong and Ross conclude that
explosions generating seismic activity did occur prior to
aircraft impact. 53] 2.2.2 Reports of explosions probably after
aircraft impact but prior to collapse. According to Scott
Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust,
Inc., with offices in the former WTC, Fiduciary employees
trapped between the 90-97th floors of the South Tower told
family members (via cell-phone calls) that they were hearing
"bomb-like explosions" throughout the towers. Forbes, who had
helped prepare the South Tower for an unusual power outage the
weekend before 9/11 discussed under WTC Security ] had the day
off, and saw the towers collapse on TV. 54] Kim White, 32, an
employee on the 80th floor, reported hearing an explosion. "All
of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We
didn't know what was going on ... We got down as far as the 74th
floor ... then there was another explosion." 55] Teresa Veliz,
who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower: noted : "The
flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and
out to Church Street. There were explosions going off
everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all
over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel
pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street
toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street.
There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to
run." 56] On Sept. 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC)
interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans: I
was on the ground floor
There was huge bang
But seconds
later, there were two or three similar huge explosions and the
building literally shook. At which point, people came - I nearly
said screaming, but they weren't screaming - it was a mild
panic
We all streamed out, some people running, some people
crying, nobody really screaming, across the road and you look up
and you can see the top of one of the towers, smoke billowing
out from it, the odd flame coming out of the top of these
towers. 57] 2.2.3. Unexpected Damage on the 22nd floor, lobby,
and basement of N. Tower probably after aircraft impact but
prior to collapse Members of the WTC security department dug
thru the debris of the security office on the 22nd floor prior
to collapse, to rescue several trapped employees. 58] The 22nd
floor was also affected by fire. On September 12, 2001, NY News
Day reported that officials had recently taken steps to secure
the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof
windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command
center. "When the fire started, the room was sealed," said Hermina]
Jones, who was in the command center when explosions rocked the
building. "Flames were shooting off the walls....We started
putting wet towels under the doors. The Fire Department unsealed
the door and grabbed us by the hand and said, 'Run!' " 59]
According to Peter Wong, who was right under the elevator lobby
of WTC 1 between the two ID checkpoints: "I heard the sound of
broken glass, smelled burning gas what kind of gas??], a door
blown off about twenty feet in front of me, heat was coming my
way. I stepped back and hid myself at the middle elevator of the
Blue Cross/Blue Shield section when the strongest wave of
explosion passed by with chunks of glass and debris flying
around." 60] NY1.com reported the following: Brian Reeves, a
34-year-old security guard, was nearly killed while making the
rounds in the lobby of 1 World Trade Center on September 11. He
started to run after hearing an explosion that he said sounded
like a missile, but he was knocked down by a fireball that
roared down the elevator shaft. 61] It has not been determined
who verified the origin of the fireball. On March 11 2002, CBS
aired a film consisting largely of documentary footage on the
firefighters of the FDNY's Engine 7, Ladder 1, all of whom
survived the collapse of the towers. 62] The footage was taken
by a team of two French brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who
have now become suspect in helping to stage the photographic
capture of Flight 11 striking the North Tower as merely luck,
when they actually may have known what was going to happen. 63]
Jules Naudet reports that as he entered the North Tower lobby,
minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire,
a scene he found too horrific to film. 64] However, to their
surprise, the firefighters of engine 7 also found something else
completely unexpected: widespread damage to the entire lobby
area of the North tower. Over and over, these professional
firefighters expressed their complete puzzlement over the damage
in this area. According to a World Trade Center Task Force
deposition from the New York Times Archives, "The lobby looked
like the plane hit the lobby." 65] Fire officials were
"informed... by certain federal officials" that the lobby damage
occurred because burning jet fuel had poured eighty stories
down the elevator shafts and then exploded in the lobby.
Unexpected damage on the 22nd floor and basement of the N. Tower
prior to collapse was also attributed to this fireball. Phillip
Morelli, a 37-year-old Queens native, describes being thrown to
the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of
the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and
seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a
larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time
blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was
in the subbasement there when the second plane hit, again
associated with a powerful underground blast. 66] 2.2.4 Reports
of explosions and tower swaying at the time of collapse. Genelle
Guzman McMillan was the last person pulled alive from the
wreckage of the World Trade Center. She was discovered on Sept
12, 2001, 27 hours after the towers had fallen. With a group of
16, she was descending from the 64th floor of the North Tower.
On the 13th-floor landing, McMillan heard a rumble. "A big
explosion," she now calls it. "The wall I was facing just opened
up, and it threw me on the other side," she says. She was
struggling to reach a friend "when the rubble just kept coming
down....Everything just kept coming harder and harder," McMillan
says. 67] On viewing a September 11, 2001 Fox 5 News video,
Retired Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes: "A few seconds after
10:00 a.m. we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising
from the base of the South] tower. The anchor gal exclaims
'There is an explosion at the base of the building
white smoke
from the bottom
something happened at the base of the building
then, another explosion!
'" 68] Conor O'Clery stated on seeing
the South tower collapse: "I shifted my eyes upwards to the
first tower that had been hit and was still standing, and saw
that several more people had appeared in the upper stories where
they had smashed windows. The man with the white cloth was still
there, hanging precariously by one hand with his body out over
the abyss. I wondered why there was no attempt to rescue them by
helicopter as part of the roof of the 1350-foot building was
clear of smoke. But then the tower began to sway slightly and
two people fell in quick succession from the windows as if
unable to maintain their grip....Then the building collapsed
]." 69] 2.3 Reports of explosions by members of the NYC Fire
Department 2.3.1 Attempt to Discredit NYFD? According to Tarpley,
members of the NYFD were the greatest immediate threat to the
official myth of the cause of the collapse of the towers. For
this reason he argues, they were the target of psychological
warfare. Stories were circulated about looting by the NYFD which
supposedly had began to take place even before the towers had
collapsed. Giuliani tried to limit the number of firemen working
on the WTC rubble pile, who were trying to recover the bodies of
fallen firefighters before the rubble was removed . A
firefighter demonstration against his WTC policies degenerated
into a full scale riot between the firefighters and the police.
70] Several types of reports are available which give an
accounting by first responders to the 9/11 tragedy: 1)
Statements going directly to the media; 2) Real time audiotapes
of communication between rescue services during the attacks,
some of which have found their way to the media; and 3) oral
histories or interviews taken in interview format after the
attacks. 2.3.2 Statements going directly to the media In the
September 12, 2001 issue of People Weekly magazine, Louie
Cacchioli tells of his rescue work inside the South tower: "I
was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty fourth
floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip
up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the
building." 71] Shortly after 9 o'clock Albert Turi the Chief
of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the
possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going
off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he
said there was another explosion which took place, and then an
hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he
said there was another explosion that took place in one of the
towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that
there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
72] 2.3.3 Real time audiotapes of communication between rescue
services during the attacks According to the New York Times, the
City of New York held hundreds of documents and audio tapes
recording the response of emergency services to the September 11
attacks on the WTC, which it said should never be released to
the general public. The Bloomberg Administration, in response to
a lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court by the New York Times,
cited a number of reasons for keeping the documents secret.
These included citing its value in the government's case against
Zacarias Moussaoui, who is accused of being the ''20th
hijacker. The administration has argued that releasing these
materials would be an invasion of privacy for the families of
those who died at the trade center, and for the firefighters who
responded to the disaster scene. Michael A. Cardozo, the city's
corporation counsel. Noted both the oral histories and the
radio transmissions, especially the 911 calls, contain highly
personal and emotionally charged material. Victims were recorded
as they were experiencing life-threatening circumstances, in
some instances as they were dying. In its suit, which was filed
in May, The Times rejected each of the city's claims, arguing
that much of the material reflected information and images that
had already been viewed by millions of people through news
accounts, documentaries and books. Included in the material the
administration said should never become public were the oral
histories given to Fire Department officials by firefighters and
chiefs after Sept. 11. Administration officials say that the
firefighters and chiefs were promised confidentiality when they
gave their accounts. A former senior official in the Fire
Department however, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,
advised the Times that the firefighters were, in fact, never
told that their remarks would be kept confidential. ''The
histories are more than for historical purposes,'' said the
former official,. ''They are of great value to understanding
what happened there. I tend to think that people should be able
to see them.'' 75] In response to a petition by the New York
Times, which had been trying to get copies of these materials,
New York State Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun ruled in
February 2003 that the city had not provided sufficient reason
for withholding these documents. The City of NY initially
appealed this ruling. 76] Meanwhile, the 911 Commission
subpoenaed the New York Tapes. (see section 5.4) The Bloomberg
Administration responded that the mayor was "dismayed" by the
subpoena and that the city had offered to share material with
the commission after it was edited to remove the intensely
emotional statements of people who lost their lives or whose
lives were in jeopardy on Sept. 11. The Commission noted that
"the city's failure to produce these important documents has
significantly impeded the commission's investigation," The
Mayors office also noted It also is puzzling why the
commission is trying to distract the public by focusing on the
city's response as opposed to the question we all want answered
how this savage terrorist attack was planned and executed
without any warning. 77] A "compromise" was reached. According
to the New York Times, In an abrupt reversal, the Bloomberg
Administration, announced it had agreed to release records of
emergency 911 calls and other materials sought by the
Commission. Under the deal, the city secured the right to block
out information
handed over to the Commission, but would
allow panel members on their premises to review the unedited
versions of those records. Notes could be taken. 78] In the
final court ruling, portions of the oral histories and tapes
containing the opinions and recommendations of the interviewees
and dispatchers will be redacted, "since such opinions and
recommendations are to be distinguished from factual material."
77] Apparently the New York Supreme Court, as well as the City
of New York, do not trust the opinions of those entrusted with
the safety of NYC citizens. The press will get only expressions
of personal feelings. This suppression of firefighter comments
was perhaps made more palatable by discrediting of members of
the NYFD. The decision to allow "redacted" versions to be
released could be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, but
the New York Times has not indicated any plan to appeal. 78] In
an NBC exclusive: 911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11 (Part 2) June
17, 2002 "Tapes Released For First Time," the quoted dialog
references explosions: "Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've
just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch,
we've had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion
command. Additional explosion." 79] Perhaps this is an
audiotape that was released before the decision was made to
suppress such communications. Interestingly, access to the
original "lost" audiotape of firefighters, showing they reached
the 78th floor of the South Tower was severely restricted by the
Justice Department. The relatives of the 16 firefighters whose
voices were identified on the tape were allowed to hear their
last words, but were first required to sign a statement prepared
by lawyers that they would not disclose what was said on the
tape. 80] Senior FDNY officials also heard the tape, but agreed
to keep its contents under wraps at the behest of federal
prosecutors in Virginia, who planed to use a copy at the trial
of accused 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. 81] 2.3.4.
Interviews and Oral Histories taken after the attacks Subsequent
to his comments regarding explosions to the press, Turi was
interviewed, providing the following clarification:.. And as
my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south
tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there
was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring
right around the building blew out. I later realized that the
building had started to collapse already and this was the air
being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my
eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this
building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody
was ahead of me running for the garage
. The New York Times took
pains to make sure this clarification was posted on the
internet as Turis Own Words. 82] Very telling oral histories
were released in 2005, and reported by the New York Times. These
constitute about 12000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY
firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics, collected from October 2001
through January 2002. For example, firefighter Edward Cachia
independently reported: We] thought there was like an internal
detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom,
boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down...It actually
gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. 83]
Assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional
insights: When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center
before it came down, before No. 2 came down, I saw low-level
flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never
mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw
low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with
him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was.
I mean, it could have been as a result of the building
collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and
then it looked like the building came down. Question: . Was that
on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
Answer: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when
they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when
it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach
the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm
crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
right next to me... He said did you see any flashes? I said,
yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them,
too. 84] In January of 2006, an article entitled Explosive
Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral
Histories by David Ray Griffin, appeared. 85] Griffin
referenced roughly 31 witnesses to explosions. Graeme MacQueen
provided additional research to try to establish if other FDNY
witnesses to explosions could be found, and to see if there were
any witnesses whose testimony supported a nonexplosive collapse
of the Towers. 86] MacQueen concludes in his analysis that there
is little evidence of coercion of the interviewees by
interviewers. However, the oral histories show how many people
who originally thought they had witnessed critical explosions
later changed their minds (as did Albert Turi, whose accounts
appeared in the mainstream media soon after the attacks),
believing they were mistaken, often opting for a non-explosive
alternative such as pancaking. We now have solid evidence
that, for the FDNY, non-explosive collapse is, indeed, a
revisionist theory. Still, even after applying a fairly
stringent set of criterion for what constitutes expression of a
belief in the explosive hypothesis (EH) versus a
non-explosive hypothesis(NEH), he finds 118 out of 503
witnesses chose an EH, while only 10 chose an NEH. 87] These
insights may afford more credibility to an apparently
far-fetched story appearing much earlier. Auxiliary fireman Lt
Paul Isaac Jr., in an interview by Randy Lavello, also spoke of
bombs in the towers: Many other firemen know there were bombs
in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it
because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Isaac
further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as
the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, was sending a
gag order down the ranks. 88] Several DVDs show audio and video
of NYFD firefighters describing a series of explosions in the
towers: floor by floor it starts poppin out
It was like
as
if they had detonated
Yeah detonated
As if they were planned to
take down the building Boom boom boom boom boom 89] Louie
Cacchioli with life size photo in background 71] NYFD
firefighters: boom boom boom boom boom 89] 3.0 How does the
seismic data fit in? 3.1 The Earthquakes Seismic waves from the
collapses of the towers were recorded by at least 13 of the 34
seismograph stations operated by Lamont-Doherty for Columbia
University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: LDEO] . The
closest station, at Palisades N.Y., 21 miles North of the WTC
complex, recorded minimal earth shaking, at the time of aircraft
impact, but recorded significant earthquake activity around the
time of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1
magnitude earthquake of 10-second duration during collapse of
the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second
collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. 90] Traces showing
seismic activity: aircraft impact and tower collapse 91]
According to the often quoted American Free Press (AFP) , "A
huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went
into the ground
The strongest jolts were all registered at the
beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris
struck the earth." 92] According to AFP, experts apparently
could not explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers
hit the ground. Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur
Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards
and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current
research and discussion. It is still being investigated." 93]
However, while AFP assumes seismic activity began before debris
hit the ground, in the form of explosions, LDEO, in its report :
Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building
Collapses at WTC, N Y, assumes the earthquakes were caused by
the tower collapses (i.e., material hitting the ground, over a
10 and 8 second period) and were considered small, the energy
being absorbed by the towers and neighboring structures. 94]
These times have apparently incorrectly been taken as the time
for collapse of the towers. Calculations done by Derrick P.
Grimmer, Ph.D. indicated that the seismic spikes of the WTC
events represented energies close to those of the energy of
collapses themselves, i.e., without explosions. 95] Jim Hoffman
writes: "There appears to be no basis for the claim that the
large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy
indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for
by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy
(equivalent to 2.9207 e8, or 292,070,000. foot pounds) stored in
the elevated mass of each tower." Further, Hoffman notes:
"Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but
the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves
oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel;
whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the
direction of travel." 96] A problem with assessing the seismic
data is in coordinating the precise recorded time of the seismic
activity with the precise time of physical events at the World
Trade Center. As Hoffman notes, While it's true that the
station recorded 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude quakes, Bollyn provides
no evidence that the spikes occurred at the beginning of each
collapse. On the other hand, reports of explosions and tower
swaying at the time of collapse seem to suggest the possibility
of some seismic activity prior to material hitting the ground.
Genelle Guzman McMillan heard "A big explosion" at the time of
collapse. see] The seismic activity at 9:59:04 may be compared
with the September 11, 2001 Fox 5 News video that Colonel Donn
De Grand Pre reported. see ] The concept of possible seismic
activity prior to collapsed material reaching the ground is also
suggested by the commentary of Conor O'Clery. see] 3.2 Is the
seismic record consistent with NIST conclusions? Although
Hoffman rejects the Hufschmid/AFP notion that the large spikes
provided evidence of controlled demolition, he argues that the
seismic data and LDEO interpretation is inconsistent with the
conclusions of the NIST WTC study. NIST concluded, as we will
see, that Once the upper building section began to move
downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone
was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling
building section and global collapse ensued. Hoffman notes that
only small signals precede the larger signals, which according
to LDEO represent the main mass of debris hitting the ground.
Thus the time duration of the small signals must include the
instant when NISTs alleged huge mass of the upper block
impacted the lower block. From this we must conclude that the
purported tremendous energy of the falling building section
did not even show up on the seismographs. 97] 3.3 Seismic
activity at time of aircraft impact Craig T. Furlong and Gordon
Ross also argue that seismic data is proof that 9/11 was an
inside job. They make the case that two seismic events occurred
immediately prior to aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. They
conclude these seismic events can only be explained by evidence
of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as
experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others in WTC1. (There
were a total of fourteen people in the office, including
Rodriguez, at the time. There were an additional twenty-two
people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first
explosion.) Two separate precision data time sets recorded the
time of aircraft impact into the Towers. Both data time sets
are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the worlds atomic
clock system) and the sources that determined these times were
prestigious, reliable and credible. The authors note that these
two data sets record different impact times. The two data sets
are from LDEO and the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commissions
times are reported to be based on FAA radar data and air traffic
control software logic. 98] The authors state: There is no
question: AA Flight 11 died exactly at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175
at 9:03:11 UTC 4 hrs]. Since the planes crashed at those
times, the authors ask: what caused the LDEO seismic activity 14
and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?
Since Rodriguez and 36 others felt and heard an explosion prior
to aircraft impact of WTC1 , the authors argue the seismic
signals were due to the pre-impact explosions. The authors go on
to argue that the NIST derived times of aircraft impact appear
to have been fudged, supported by neither the NTSB nor radar
data. Interestingly, in 2005, NIST contracted for the services
of Dr. Won-Young Kim of LDEO to re-analyze the original seismic
data times originally issued in 2001. The new study added on 3
seconds to the original times of aircraft impact. The authors
ask why the fudging; why the re-analysis? 99] 4.0 WTC Security
4.1 Insurance Only three months before the attack, Silverstein
Properties and Westfield America signed a rental contract for
the WTC, agreeing to pay a total of 3.2 billion dollars in
leasing installments over 99 years to the Port Authorities.
100] According to The Financial Times Ltd., terms of the lease
allowed the new owners to walk away from their investment in the
event of "an act of terrorism." 101] Despite not being the
owner of the buildings, Silverstein demanded to be the sole
beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7
billion dollars. Steve Solomon, his spokesman, said: The Port
Authorities agreed with Silverstein's demand." 102] 4.2 Damage
to FBI Offices Severe damage to the 22nd (security office) floor
of the North Tower has been previously noted. Dick Eastman of
Yakima Washington notes: It is known that these floors
contained the New York FBI offices -- Peter Jennings actually
did a two-day network news story on the effects of the destroyed
evidence and files on American financial crime investigations
around the world. Interestingly, the entire accumulation of
evidence and investigation briefs on two highly important cases
were being stored in the security (FBI) office. 103] 4.3
Anomalies leading up to the Day Ben Fountain, a financial
analyst who worked in the 47th floor of the South Tower, told
People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were
numerous unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both
the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote
security reasons. 104] Victor Thorn of Wing TV has reported
the WTC 9-11 security concerns of Scott Forbes, a senior
database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices
in the former WTC. Forbes reported that his company was notified
three weeks in advance that New York's Port Authority would take
out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up on the
weekend prior to 9-11, ostensibly to implement a computer
cabling upgrade. Forbes noted that Fiduciary Trust was one of
the WTC's first occupants after it was erected, and that a
"power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion.
Forbes recalled the power was out approximately 36 hours between
early Saturday morning (September 8th) and mid-Sunday afternoon
(September 9th) As a result of the power outage, the WTC's
security cameras, ID systems, and elevators to the upper floors
were rendered inoperative. Forbes noted that many "engineers"
going in- and-out of the WTC had free access throughout the
building due to its inoperative security system. Forbes also
noted other security related anomalies: Video cameras positioned
atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images
to local television stations were inexplicably inoperative that
morning. Also, a Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower
floors and escaped immediately after the first (North) tower was
struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI
agents that were already on the streets surrounding the WTC
complex only minutes after the initial strike. Forbes said that
even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current
employment, he has stepped forward because, "I have mailed this
information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but
no one seems to be registering these facts." 105] Soon after
Forbes appearance on Wing TV, he was marginalized by 9/11 truth
debunkers because he seemed to vanish. Between 2005 and 2006 he
has been remotely interviewed at least three times from his home
in England. In a Killtown interview, Forbes observed that both
main stream and progressive media of other countries have been
much more interested in his story than in America. He also noted
that, being British, he was eventually interviewed by London
police, but none of my American colleagues were contacted by
police or FBI or any agency. Kind of weird. 106]. Most
recently, Forbes statements, which are reasoned and
dispassionate, have been used by 9/11 truth debunkers against
Ben Fountain 107]. Forbes also stated in an interview that 4-6
weeks before 9/11, there was lots of noise coming from floor 98,
above his office. Aeon was moved out, and the floor was vacant.
He heard what sounded like heavy machinery work going on;
drilling and hammering; like something very heavy being moved
and dumped, the force of which was enough to cause his office to
shake. On one occasion Forbes said he opened the door to the
98th floor to see what was going on, but the entire office space
was empty. This correlates with the experience of William
Rodriguez in the North Tower, who, as he was climbing stairs to
unlock doors on 9/11, heard strange noises on the 34th floor.
Rodriguez noted that there was nothing on this floor. No one
was supposed to be there, and you cant even get there without a
special key. Rodriguez heard heavy equipment being moved around,
it sounded to him like dumpsters with metal wheels. Rodriguez
was afraid to open the door to floor 34 with his master key. The
week before 9/11, Forbes noticed lots of dust in the building
The dust was incredible; it was filthy; dirty gray dust. 108]
Christopher Bollyn states that "The two airplanes that struck
the twin towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 flew directly
into secure computer rooms in both buildings." While there may
have been a number of secure computer rooms distributed in the
towers, Bollyn goes on to describe a construction operation
where the 81st floor of the South Tower, in the range of floors
impacted by flight 175, was reinforced to hold very heavy
Uninterupted Power Supply batteries, which interestingly, were
apparently never turned on. Bollyn contacted a number of
companies involved in this construction and installation, all of
whom refused to comment. 109] A photo ID pass for Sept. 5 found
on one of the men charged with fraudulently obtaining a
Tennessee driver's license from a Memphis woman gave him access
to the six underground levels of WTC1. But which tenant hired
Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad, 24, to work on its sprinklers is lost,
said Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan
Hicks. Hammad told federal authorities that he was working on
the sprinklers six days before the twin towers were brought down
by terrorists, court testimony revealed. But Hicks said the Port
Authority, which owned the building, did its own sprinkler work,
and that any other work involving sprinklers would have been
arranged by an individual tenant. 110] According to a September
12, 2001 report by NY News Day, a WTC security detail had been
working 12-hour shifts prior to 9/11 because of numerous phone
threats. But on the Thursday before, "bombsniffing dogs were
abruptly removed." 111] 4.4 Security firms Ontrack/Convar, the
German company that was trying to recover data from WTC hard
drives in order to determine who was responsible for last minute
financial transactions on 9/11, was purchased after the fact by
none other than Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'Gara Eisenhardt) in June
2002. Kroll is a huge, multi-national security firm which has
strong ties to US intelligence. Coincidentally, one of their
upper echelon, Jerome Hauer, was responsible for brokering the
position of head of security for ex-FBI whistleblower John
O'Neill in the WTC. Mr. O'Neill died in the 9/11 attacks. 112]
A business entity now known as Stratesec, Inc. began performing
security work at the Center in 1993. In 1996, Stratesec, then
known as Securacom, was awarded an exclusive contract to provide
security for the World Trade Center complex. Stratesec/Securacom
also provided security for United Airlines and Dulles
International Airport. Sitting on Stratesec's board of
directors, from the time the company began working at the WTC,
was a major shareholder by the name of Marvin Bush. Marvin, like
Jeb and Neil, is a brother of George W. Bush. 113] 4.5 A note
on Urban Renewal of the Twin Towers A number of internet sites
portray the economic status of the late Twin Towers as
compromised. In particular, a frequently recurring phrase is
"the Twin Towers were always money-losers 114] The highly
regarded 911 Mysteries DVD suggests in its chapter Urban
Renewal that WTC economic problems may have been a motive for
their intentional destruction. 115] An online
911mysteriesguide appears to show that 911 Mysteries DVD
definitely got it wrong , producing a number of authentic
looking references, including one contradicting the 911
Mysteries claim that quotes for a clean-up of the asbestos in
the towers would have cost more than a billion dollars. 116]
The guide concludes we have shown that the World Trade Center
did not have tenancy problems; they did not have money problems;
and there is no reason to believe that asbestos problems were
not manageable. There was no motive for the Port Authority of
New York to destroy the World Trade Center as 9/11 Mysteries
suggests. 117] Further searching on the internet yields an
article on asbestos, noting an authentic sounding source stating
, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1
billion...to remove the asbestos..." 118] The author of this
article correctly attributes this quotation to a November 30th,
2001 article, published in the New York Psychogeographical
Association. " 911 Mysteries would appear then to be vindicated
in its pronouncement of definite WTC asbestos problems. However,
the URL for the New York Psychogeographical Association is www.notbored.org/the-nypa.html].
The website consists of a half dozen articles with names such as
No more fucking ugly buildings! And Mother Nature to 9-11
Mourners: Eat My Dust,. One article, which contained the
quotation of Note 5, entitled A new Garden of Eden, observes:
Though this may be hard for some to believe, especially in
these sentimental times, the so-called Twin Towers at the World
Trade Center were hated by many New Yorkers, who before
September 11, 2001 would have been happy if the goddamned things
had never been built and after September 11th are glad that
they're gone. An entire neighborhood was emptied out and
destroyed to make way for them. Them -- not just one spectacular
tower, but two. Looking further on the internet, one finds
Team Twin Towers, a group with a web site ostensibly dedicated
to valuing the former towers, and defending them from negative
accusations. They have provided arguments to counter statements
such as "The Twin Towers failed in their mission to revive Lower
Manhattan.", "The Twin Towers were only partially occupied. They
were money-losers.", "The Twin Towers were Ugly Banal Boxes",
and "The Twin Towers were poorly and negligently constructed.
They did not meet NYC fire codes." 119] It seems then, that the
question of the economic status of the late Twin Towers is
framed in a very polarized and controversial environment, in
which the Towers were loved by some and hated by others. What
then is the truth? 5.0 History and its Revision 5.1 The History
of Fire Induced Collapse of Steel Buildings There is none before
or after 9-11 Although the 911 Commission acknowledged that fire
chiefs on the scene thought the collapse of the Towers was
impossible, MacQueen emphasized the unanimity of the FDNY on
this issue. 120] "Fire has never caused a steel building to
collapse," writes Eric Hufschhmid, quoting Bill Manning of Fire
Engineering magazine. 121] The Towers had experienced fires
before. The Feb 14 1975 New York Times carried the headline
Trade Center Hit by 6 Floor Fire. A three alarm fire broke out
in the 11th floor offices of the BF Goodrich Company in the
North Tower of the World Trade Center just before midnight last
night, and spread through an inner service core to the Fourth
through fourteenth floors. It was like fighting a blowtorch
according to Capt. Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6
Flames could be
seen pouring out of the 11th floor windows on the East side of
the building. According to a second article, the fire burned
for three hours. 122] The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire in
Philadelphia burned for 19 hours but did not cause the building
to even crack. 123] The First Interstate Bank Building in Los
Angeles burned for more than 3 hours with bright intense flames.
There was no damage to the main structural members 124]. On
Sunday Feb. 13, 2005, CNN reported on a fire said to be the
worst in Madrids history, which burned for 2 days and gutted
the Windsor Building. Its structural core was weaker than that
of the WTC towers, and although several top floors collapsed
onto lower ones, the overall structure did not collapse. 125]
Madrid fire 125] On September 11, not one, but three structures
disintegrate to dust: WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. Hufschmid reasonably
questions why Buildings 4 and 6, which were closer to the towers
than WTC7 did not collapse. Photographs of both buildings show
giant flames and glowing red interior, and WTC6 had massive
damage due to falling debris. 126] 5.2.0 The First Wave of
Politically Correct Revisionist Theories Revisionism seen in the
FDNY interviews appears to have been paralleled by a revision of
thinking by explosives experts. Within ten days of his first
remarks, Van Romero, who previously suggested explosives in the
Towers, changed his mind: "Certainly the fire is what caused the
building to fail.." 127] Van Romero was seeking Pentagon
research funding at the time of the attack. 128] Politically
correct revisionist theories soon blanketed the news media.
Because WTC 1 and 2 stood for approximately 1 Ύ hours and 1 hour
respectively after impact, we know they did not collapse because
of airplane impacts alone. So, the first Politically Correct
theory presumed that heat from the fires simply melted the
structural core, causing the collapse. 5.2.1 Steel Melted By
Heat Henry Koffman, director of the Construction Engineering and
Management Program at the University of Southern California
wrote that intense heat from the fires melted the steel, which
caused the collapse of the towers. 129] 5.2.2 Steel Weakened By
Heat Articles by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou of Northwestern
University appeared in the on-line version of Journal of
Engineering Mechanics ASCE. 130] These articles purported to
address why the buildings collapsed. Bazant and Zhou suppose
that the steel in over half of the 287 columns of the crash zone
was exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 800 Deg. C.
1472 Deg. F.]. At such temperatures, structural steel exhibits
significant viscoplastic deformation, which may result in a
buckling of columns. 5.2.3 Refutation of Early Fire and Heat
Theories. We might ask what supplied the fuel needed for
Bazants sustained temperatures exceeding 800 Deg. C.? Office
furniture? Computers? Printer paper? Well, OK, but the central
core, which he fails to even consider, had no office furniture,
and virtually no fuel, so how did it heat up enough in one hour
to collapse? How hot was the fire, and how much heat did it
produce? Charles Clifton is a technical expert in determining
the effects of severe fire and earthquake on steel framed
buildings. He believed that fire did not cause the towers to
collapse. 131] He has noted that regions of fire at 700 deg C
would be glowing red hot and visible from outside the building,
and that significant window breakage would have occurred. He
noted that neither of these conditions occurred in the towers
132] Professor Thomas Eager is professor of Materials
Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. The Minerals, Metals
& Materials Society published his analysis, which concluded that
the fire could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel.
The analysis, which notes that steel melts at 1500 deg. C. 2732
deg. F.] and that jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of
1000 deg. C. 1832 Deg. F.], even when mixed in perfect
proportions, parallels the historically verified fact that fire
cannot melt steel. 133] Jim Hoffman notes that Corus
Construction performed extensive tests subjecting un-insulated
steelframe car parks to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires. The
highest recorded steel temperatures were 360 Deg. C. 680 Deg.
F.] 134] This is substantiated by Jim McMichael, who wrote that
the maximum temperature achieved in fire testing of unprotected
steel supports in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was
also 360 degrees C (680 F), a long way from the first critical
threshold in structural steel, 550 Deg. C. 1022 Deg. F.]. The
reason? Unheated steel forms an effective heat sink: The massive
steel structures of the towers would form a vast heat sink:
Local heat from the Tower beams was continuously conducted from
the heated portions to the massive cooler portions below,
suggesting an even lower maximum temperature. 135] Woman in
break created by impacting aircraft in WTC1 136] The appearance
of several people in the fracture caused by airplane entry in
the North Tower suggests temperatures were not excessive in the
crash zone. 136] Brian Clark, an executive vice president at
Euro Brokers, a brokerage firm that had offices on the 84th
floor of the South Tower found little problem with heat while
traversing the impact floors. 137] On Aug. 2, 2002, discovery
of a "lost" audiotape was reported. This tape is important,
because it established that firefighters, including Chief Orio
Palmer, actually reached the crash zone on the 78th floor of the
South tower and apparently believed they were in control of the
situation. This further suggests that the crash zone was not a
raging inferno. 138] The same conclusion can be drawn from the
Discovery Channel documentary entitled "Collapse: How the Towers
Fell." According to the show's experts, although jet fuel might
optimally reach temperatures approaching 2000deg F, fully
one-half of Flight 11's] fuel burned outside of the tower.
This is consistent with sources which state that each aircraft
was carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel 139], and with FEMAs
estimate that about 4000 gallons of fuel burned within each
tower. 140] The remaining half, which ignited inside the tower,
burned up in about eight minutes. And that analysis was based on
the first crash (8:46 am), into the North tower. As can be
clearly seen in video footage, a much higher percentage of the
fuel burned outside the South Tower, in the second crash (9:03
am). As investigative journalist David McGowan notes, this
analysis argues against massive structural elements of the
towers reaching high temperatures 141] The FEMA BBA and NIST
assessments of fuel burned is discussed in section 5.7.0 How do
the Official Investigations Compare? South Tower Impact
Courtesy www.serendipity.li 142] 5.2.4 The Problem of a
Completely Symmetrical Collapse It is highly unlikely that
structural weakness resulting from the fire or heat would result
in a completely symmetrical collapse such as occurred.
Irregularity would have produced a collapse in which concrete
and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area, 143]
causing additional damage and fatalities. Dr. Steven Jones notes
the great difficulty of obtaining a completely symmetrical
collapse, even using controlled demolition. This feat requires
such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
world will attempt it. 144] All these observations would
appear to refute the notion that the total symmetrical collapses
were the result of structural weakening by heat and fire from
jet fuel, especially in the South Tower. Yet the South Tower
collapsed first, about 56 minutes after aircraft impact. Thus,
evolving theories attempted to account for the completely
symmetrical collapse. A special report by Thomas Eager and
Christopher Musso titled Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation illustrates an
early attempt to explain a completely symmetrical collapse
without reference to explosives. Eager argues that although fire
did not melt the steel, fire is what brought the towers down.
The article correctly notes that only a small number of
perimeter columns were lost on airplane impact, and that the
loads were shifted to the remaining columns. The article also
correctly notes that the fire was fuel rich, producing a
diffused flame as could be seen by the thick black smoke. It
then notes that the steel was not likely to have experienced
temperatures above 750-800 deg C. The article points out that
although structural steel begins to soften at 425 Deg C, and
looses half its strength at 650 deg C, even a loss of half of
the steels strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the
collapse. Even with half its strength the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 deg C
fire. The article finds the culprit in the distortion of the
steel due to the fact that the steel temperature was not
uniform. A 150 deg C temperature difference from one location
to another will produce .. stresses. This produced distortions
in the slender structural steel which resulted in bucking
failures
Thus, the failure of the steel was due to the loss of
strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of
structural integrity due to distortion Interestingly, although
the article mentions the building core in the very beginning of
the article as being designed to support the weight of the
tower, the core is never again mentioned; as if the towers were
supported only by the peripheral columns. The article describes
the construction as egg-crate, and emphasizes the notion that
the building was light weight, and about 95 % air, explaining
why the rubble after collapse was only a few stories high. The
authors fail to note the substantial mass of concrete which was
pulverized and distributed in a pyroclastic dust cloud over many
city blocks. The article then attempts to explain the lack of
tipping or implosion of the towers on collapse. The building
is 95% air, and hence can implode on itself; and because of its
near free fall speed of collapse, there was insufficient time
for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To
summarize, a 500,000 ton structure (that is 95% air) has too
much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight
down. So the authors argue that the towers fell straight down
because they were both too light and too heavy. They do not
question how the building, especially the central core, could
collapse at close to freefall speed. 145] 3.2.5 Pancake Theory
Fire Engineering Magazine concluded that a growing number of
fire protection engineers had concluded that "the structural
damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in
themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." These Fire
Engineering specialists adopted the notion of a failure of
lightweight trusses connecting building perimeter to
load-bearing central columns. 146] The concept of lightweight
trusses was very helpful for establishing the concept of
Pancake Theory which provided the final desired result of
explaining a completely symmetrical collapse without referring
to explosives. According to Bazant and Zhou, the "chain
reaction" resulting in complete floor by floor symmetrical
collapse of the North Tower was caused by the acceleration of
the mass of the building above the buckled columns downward. The
term "Pancake Theory" (as well as its variants, Zipper or
Domino) helped facilitate the credibility of the chain reaction
theory. David McGowan notes the discrepancy between the standard
media graphic portraying the tower structure, on the right
below, and an accurately scaled rendering of the 'footprint' of
one of the towers (image on left.) Needless to say, the thin
central core in the image on the right certainly would
facilitate acceptance of Pancake Theory by the public. 147]
Photos of actual tower construction, which confirm the accuracy
of the rendering on the left, below, show: 1) Floors are not
wide-open Spaces; the structural core occupied a significant
portion of each tower's footprint. 2) Lateral floor trusses
appear firmly anchored between perimeter and core columns,
allowing the buildings to take large lateral loading due to
wind. 148] Images Courtesy David McGowan 147] Actual
construction (image on left) depicted in graphics distributed by
the media (image on the right). The service core in construction
148] The "spire" in the above images is a portion of WTC 1's
disintegrating service core. If collapse was due to "pancaking"
of weak trusses, the 110 story sturdy service cores would still
be standing. 149] As McGowan notes, 'pancake theory,' at best,
only offers an explanation how the floor and exterior wall
sections may have possibly collapsed. Even if such an unlikely
event had occurred, the end result would not have been a
60-foot-high mound of rubble, but rather two somewhat narrower,
110-story towers." 150] Derrick Grimmer asks, if a "pancaking"
effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no
video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter
between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent
especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of
gravitational collapse was small. 151] 5.3.0 The FEMA Building
Performance Assessment (BPA) The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) began a preliminary study of the collapse of
the towers. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) soon
joined with ASCE to assemble a larger group of volunteer
investigators, which was called the Building Performance
Assessment Team (BPAT), and supplied $600,000 in funding. The
BPA Team consisted of specialists in tall building design, steel
and connection technology, fire and blast engineering, and
structural analysis. On May 1, 2002 FEMA released its report of
the WTC collapses, based on the conclusions reached by the BPA
Team. 152] 5.3.1 Executive Summary According to the Executive
Summary, the team "conducted field observations at the WTC site
and steel salvage yards, removed and tested samples of the
collapsed structures, viewed hundreds of hours of video and
thousands of still photographs, conducted interviews with
witnesses and persons involved in the design, construction, and
maintenance of each of the affected buildings, reviewed
construction documents, and conducted preliminary analyses of
the damage to the WTC towers. The Executive Summary initially
states: "The structural damage sustained by each tower from the
impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total
collapse of each building." 153] Yet then immediately it notes:
"With the information and time available, the sequence of events
leading to collapse of each tower could not be definitely
determined." 154] This is precisely the conclusion reached by
the 9/11 Commission/Report, noted by Griffin. Since planes and
fire by definition were the cause, no precise mechanism need be
determined with certainty. The report insults the integrity of
the original design of the towers, by a World Class structural
engineering firm, WSH&J, stating "Events of this type, resulting
in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in
building design, and the ability of these structures to
successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy." 155] In
Chapter 8, Observations, Findings, and Recommendations, the
floor trusses are made suspect, but we are cautioned not to
think of these design features as deficiencies. 156] 5.3.2
Deepest mystery makes Appendix C A tiny fraction of the steel
beams from the tower debris were inspected. Recommendations in
Appendix C of the FEMA WTC report noted: "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." 157] A New York Times article noted that
pieces of steel were found that were "apparently melted and
vaporized not solely because of the heat of fires, but also
because of a corrosive contaminant that was somehow released in
the conflagrations." The New York Times called these findings
"perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
158] Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and
Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic
formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning
electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM,
the Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. Remains
of WTC wide flange beam. FEMA BPA Appendix C 157] A eutectic
compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at
the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components.
Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over
fires of sulfurrich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of
iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen,
sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at
the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag
corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the
metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural
integrity. WTC 1, 2, and 7 all showed signs of this eutectic
reaction. The important questions, says Biederman, are how much
sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? Did the eutectic
mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the
remains smoldered on the ground. We have no idea, admits
Sisson. 159] "A one-inch column of steel has been reduced to
half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper
scrollhave been thinned to almost razor sharpness
Gaping
holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through
a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance
shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see
distortion and bending--but not holes." 160] 5.3.3 Immediate
Reaction to the FEMA BPA Report 5.3.3.1 Structural Engineers On
Christmas Day, 2001 The New York Times reported that some of the
nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts
believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC was
inadequate, and were calling for a new, independent and
better-financed inquiry. Experts critical of the investigation
included some who actually took part in it. The team of 20 or so
investigators, who conducted their review between October 7-12,
had no subpoena power, inadequate financial and staff support,
and had been prevented from interviewing witnesses and
frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and had
even been unable to obtain basic information such as detailed
blueprints of the buildings. 161] The Times account of the BPA
team activities contrasts sharply with the account provided in
the FEMA BPA Executive Summary. 5.3.3.2 Firefighters On January
4, 2002, an editorial in Fire Engineering, a trade magazine with
ties to the New York Fire Department, called the investigation
into the collapse of the WTC a "half-baked farce." The article
pointed out that the probe had not looked at all aspects of the
disaster and had limited access to documents and other evidence.
Bill Manning, editor of the magazine, noting that destruction of
evidence is illegal, demanded that the destruction and removal
of the steel columns must stop immediately. 162] The decision
of the City of New York to rapidly recycle the 300,000 tons of
steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days
immediately after 9/11 adversely affected the FEMA BPA inquiry.
163] 5.3.3.3 Congress Congressman Boehlert, Chairman of the
Science Committee of the House of representatives, testified "I
must say that the current investigation- some would argue that
'review' is the more appropriate wordseems to be shrouded in
excessive secrecy" and "
valuable evidence has been lost
irretrievably, and blueprints were unavailable for months."
164] Professor Glenn P. Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal
Justice testified before the Science Committee of the House of
Representatives on March 6: "The collapse of the World Trade
Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world
history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we
fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead,
we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists
on a shoestring budget." Corbett further noted "The steel holds
the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and
causal factors resulting in the collapse," and recommended an
investigative commission on the World Trade Center Disaster.
165] ASME representative Gene Corley testified before the
Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6:
"Resources allocated to support our BPA team's activities is
about 1 million. In our opinion, 40 million would be
sufficient." 166] The Science committee itself, in its March 6,
2002 report, called for a broader WTC investigation. Rep. Felix
Grucci (R-NY): "We need to continue to work together, to find
what answers we can, and attempt to piece together as much
information as possible on the cause of the collapse." 167] In
a letter to Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director, Office of
Management and Budget, the committee wrote: "There was unanimity
among the witnesses on the need for a comprehensive assessment
and research agenda to address evacuation procedures, emergency
response, and structural analysis of the site's buildings."
168] 5.3.3.4 Media Even the New York Times expressed dismay. On
the first anniversary of the attacks (subsequent to the FEMA BPA
study and final report), the Times wrote: "The public knows less
about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan
in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about
the Titanic, which sank in the middle of an ocean in the dead of
night." 169] 5.4.0 The 9/11 Commission 5.4.1 The 9/11
Commission Report Chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
Heroism and Horror, discusses the attacks on the World Trade
Center. A large part of Chapter 9 concerned the response of
emergency services at the WTC complex. The Commissions Report
brings up none of the major issues discussed in the 9/11 truth
movement, which have been discussed in the previous pages.
Rather, the Commissions Report cherry picks a few of the
details, without ever getting to any real issues. 170] As
MacQueen notes, the 911 Commission appears to have used the oral
histories in composing chapter 9 of their Report. He notes the
use of the histories to verify the condition of civilians, the
nature of rescue operations, and so on, but no reference is made
to the comments on explosions. 171] Chapter 9 takes up the
notion that severe damage to the 77th floor, 22nd (security
office) floor, the lobby, and B4 level of the North Tower was
due to a fireball from airplane impact. 172] Chapter 9 notes
that by 9:58 a.m., the battalion chief Orio Palmer] had reached
the 78th floor on stairwell A of the South Tower; he reported
that it looked open to the 79th floor, well into the impact
zone. 173] This is a reference to the so called lost tape
which verified that members of the fire department reached the
scene of the crash zone of the South tower, which was NOT a
blazing inferno, and thought they had things under control.
174] Chapter 9 notes that at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the South
tower, crashing thru the 77th to 85th floors. The plane Banked
as it hit
, leaving portions of the building undamaged on impact
floors. As a consequence--and in contrast tothe
North Tower,
stairwell A initially remained passable from at least the 91st
floor down, and likely from top to bottom. 175] Recall that
the stairwell was within the 47 steel core columns, which
suggests that the core area of the South tower was damaged less
than the North Tower. Yet the South Tower collapsed first, and
Chapter 9 notes: the South tower collapsed in 10 seconds and
collapsed into itself 176] yet does not question how this
could have been possible. Griffin notes that the Commission
Report even ignored the existence of the 47 steel core columns:
The outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch
wide steel columns
These exterior walls bore most of the weight
of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow
steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.
177] Chapter 9 states At 10:04, NYPD aviation reported that
the top 15 stories of the North tower were glowing red. Yet
this is contradicted by photos 178] which shows the top floors
engulfed in smoke, with only one pocket of fire visible. The
floors of Buildings 5 and 6 on the other hand, were documented
by photographic evidence as glowing red hot, but did not
collapse. Griffin notes the statement made by former Mayor of
New York Rudolph Giuliani to the commission: We were operating
out of there the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of
WTC-7] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna
collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the
building. 179] Griffin continues: This is a remarkable
statement. There was no publicly available reason to believe
that the Twin Towers were going to collapse
The firemen going
up the stairs in the South Tower certainly did not think it was
about to collapse
Should the Commission not have asked Giuliani
some questions about this statement, such as: Who told him the
towers were about to collapse. The Commissions report makes no
mention of Giulianis statement. 180] This is all the more
interesting considering that EMT Richard Zarrillo, in a World
Trade Center Task Force interview given on Oct 25 2001, stated
that The Office of Emergency Management had prior knowledge of
the tower Collapses: OEM says the buildings are going to
collapse; we need to get out 181] 5.4.2 9/11 Commission Makeup
The 9/11 Commission Executive Director was Phillip Zelikow.
Former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean chaired the commission,
with Lee Hamilton as Vice Chair. Both Kean and Hamilton assert
in their book Without Precedent, that they were "SET UP TO
FAIL, that being the name of the First chapter, and We were
set up to fail being the first sentence. 182] The authors
relate that the commission was starved of funds to do a proper
investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to
the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the
Federal Aviation Authority. 183] Some claim their book is a
limited hangout. 184] Phillip Zelikow was a member of the
Bush transition team from the Clinton to Bush administrations.
The transition involved downgrading the importance and
visibility of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group. It was
revealed on January 15, 2004 that both Zelikow and Jamie
Gorelick, a commission member, were both still so closely
involved in the events under investigation that they have been
interviewed as part of the inquiry. 185] As Executive Director,
Zelikow retained the power to hire all Commission staff and
coordinate the flow of Kean's investigation. He also had access
to all testimony-and managed all upcoming witnesses, document
requests and subpoenas. 186] Zelikow co-authored a 1998 Foreign
Affairs article on the likely political and cultural effects of
a massive Pearl Harbor style terrorist event such as the
destruction of the World Trade Center. In that article, Zelikow
noted that such a mythic event would split time into a before
and an after. The after, of course, was the whole new world of
post-9/11 terror hysteria. 187] All commission members had
potential conflicts of interest. 188] 5.4.3 9/11 Commission
member Behavior On March 21, 2004, victim family members
complained of Phillip Zelikows conflicts of interest in an Oct.
3 2003 letter to the Commission, but were rebuffed. 189] On
March 21, 2004, 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens
Watch demanded the resignation of Zelikow, but he was defended
by the commission. New York Times journalist Philip Shenon led
the NYT coverage of the commission's activities. In early 2008,
his book The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,
revealed that among other things, Zelikow engaged in
"surreptitious" communications with presidential adviser Karl
Rove and other Bush administration officials during the
commission's 20-month investigation. 190] The 9/11 Commission
agreed to accept the redacted audiotapes of first responders
offered by the City of New York, referenced previously. See
Section 2.3.3] The result was the August revealing of these
sanitized tapes and oral histories used by the 9/11 Commission
191] At the last set of 9/11 Commission Hearings in New York
City, members of the NYFD, NYPD, and other emergency services
were criticized by Commissioner John Lehman, former Secretary of
the Navy. Tarpley suggests this was part of a programmatic
effort to discredit them; especially NYFD. 192] 5.5 The
Silverstein Studies A team of engineers from several firms
offered their own high tech analysis, intended as a follow-up to
the FEMA BPA. The firms were Weidlinger Associates Inc., LZA
Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, ARUPFire, Hughes Associates
Inc., SafirRosetti, Hillman Environmental Group, and RWDI. This
study, completed in October 2002, was commissioned by
Silverstein Properties for its insurance claim on the WTC, and
was forwarded to NIST. Although this study concurred that the
plane crashes stripped fireproofing from columns in the debris
path (and therefore that fire is what caused the collapse), the
report also concluded that fire temperatures were lower than
typical "fully developed" office fires. While the FEMA report
cast suspicion on the floor trusses, the Silverstein report
exonerated the floor trusses, and noted the core columns had to
fail completely for the tower collapse. WTC 2, though hit by the
second hijacked plane after One WTC, fell first "primarily"
because the plane struck it at an off-center angle and caused
damage that compromised the corner of the core of the building,
concludes the report's authors, the New York City-based
leaseholder of the World Trade Center. 193] The study fails to
address the fact that the top floors of the building virtually
disappeared, or rather disintegrated, in mid-air. Interestingly,
Matthys Levy, of Weidlinger Associates Inc. is recorded on video
making the following statement: "If you've seen many of the
managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause
it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of
the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what
it looked like and that's what happened." 194] 5.6.0 The NIST
Investigation The National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) WTC study began in 2002 as a result of lobbying by the
Skyscraper Safety Campaign, which was created by Monica
Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family members
on Sept. 11, 2001. 195] Although dealing with a great number of
safety related issues, NIST was specifically charged with the
task of determining how and why WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed. 196]
The 10,000 page final report for buildings 1 and 2 was published
three years later, in September 2005, by a staff of hundreds
with a budget of 17.5 million dollars. Information on the NIST
WTC study is available on the NIST website: www.nist.gov. 197]
The website avoids bringing up the primary purpose of the study,
and states that the NIST goal was to recommend improvements in
the way people design, construct, maintain, and use buildings.
The final report includes a vast amount of work on numerous
topics. For example the section headings of the reports include:
Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life
Safety Systems; Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis; Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of
Structural Steel; Active Fire Protection Systems; Reconstruction
of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers; Structural Fire
Response and Probable Collapse Sequence; Occupant Behavior,
Egress, and Emergency Communication; and The Emergency Response
Operations. These reports all contain good engineering work, but
little of it had anything directly to do with collapse analysis,
and even less had to do with selecting a cause of collapse. Only
a small part of Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of
Structural Steel and Structural Fire Response and Probable
Collapse Sequence had anything to do with determining cause.
Beyond that, as any engineer who has worked in industry knows,
what engineers do, and what the outside world sees, can be two
different things. Ultimate control is in the hands of those who
control the documentation and release process; i.e., management.
NIST is a government entity, being affiliated with the
Department of Commerce 198], so it is not independent. In
this case, management means "Administration," since NIST's
bosses are directly appointed by George W Bush. Regarding the
cause of collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the Executive Summary of the
final report states: The Two aircraft hit the towers at high
speeds and did considerable damage to principle structural
components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that
were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris.
However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have
remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation
(fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The
robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size
of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The
structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft
impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss,
a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a
television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building
core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage
and heat weakened structural components contributed to the
abrupt structural collapse. 199] According to the Executive
Summary, the WTC investigation included a review of thousands of
documents, 1200 first-person interviews with building occupants
and emergency responders, laboratory tests, and computer
simulations. 200] Kevin Ryan, former site manager of
Underwriters Labs, has discussed NIST performance on these
aspects of the investigation. 5.6.1 Review of Documents: 5.6.1.1
Many relevant documents not mentioned or missing. Ryan notes
that many relevant design claims were not mentioned. He also
notes that UL fire resistance data, as well as WSH&J (John
Skillings) fire resistance analysis came up missing. 201]
5.6.1.2 Original tower design features and claims Frank A.
Demartini, the Construction Manager of the World Trade Center,
stated in the History Channel's January 2001 film World Trade
Center: A Modern Marvel, that the building could withstand
multiple airplane hits. Demartini apparently died in the
September 11 attacks. 202] NIST notes that a document from the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated
that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the
design stage of the WTC towers. Although NIST investigators were
unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method
used in the impact analysis, the analysis concluded that such a
collision would result in only local damage which could not
cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.
203]
Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, MIT, and a Scientific American contributor, notes
that the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact
load caused by a 767, but believes the designers never
considered the fuel load and inferno that would surely ensue.
204] Eduardo Kausel 204] John Skilling 205] However, John
Skilling, partner in WSH&J, who died in 1998, stated in a 1993
interview with The Seattle Times: 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. But, he says,
The building structure would still be there. 205] Since, as
Kausel notes, the 707- 320 and 767-200ER both carry about the
same amount of fuel, one might reasonable conclude that the
buildings were indeed designed to accommodate fires from the
767-200 ER. Only floors 95-96 and 97 of WTC 1 sustained
significant damage. In these floors NIST indicates that only
about 9 of the 47 core columns were significantly damaged, and
about 15% of the 244 peripheral columns failed in the crash zone
of each tower. Yet according to the "premier construction
industry" publication, Engineering News-Record (ENR), over 25%
of the peripheral columns on the ground floor could be removed,
and the building could still withstand 100 mph winds from any
direction 206]. NIST notes that because of severed columns,
loads on adjacent columns, including the effects of the hat
trusses, increased by up to 25%. 207] This scenario appears to
conflict with the claim found in ENR that loads on perimeter
columns could be increased by a factor of 20 (2000 %) without
failing. 208] If the ENR claim were correct, even at half
strength, the load on the perimeter columns could be increased
by a factor of 10 before failing. 5.6.2 Interviews: Ryan notes
that NIST began planning for eyewitness interviews in April
2003, 7 months after the start of the investigation. By October,
NIST had still not conducted interviews, and had no access to
NYC interviews. By December 2003, NYC finally agreed to allow
NIST to access original interviews, but only in NYC offices.
209] MacQueen notes that NIST had the FDNY Oral Histories, and
praised the quality of judgments of the FDNY on the condition of
the buildings on 9/11, but never mentions the FDNY reports of
explosions. 210] 5.6.3 Lab Tests: Fire and NIST Although NIST
found no significant steel temperatures over 625 deg. C.
211], and the half strength critical temperature of steel is
650 deg. C., their report concludes column and floor assemblies
softened due to fire because fireproofing was widely
dislodged, and the floors began to sag in the impact zone,
which caused perimeter columns to buckle inwards, leading to
collapse initiation 212]. Kevin Ryan wrote to Frank Gayle,
who was heading the NIST Analysis of Structural Steel: Your
comments suggest that the exterior panel] steel was probably
exposed to temperatures of only about 500 degrees F. (250 C),
which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of
the situation
. yet]
this new summary report suggests that
much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel
in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings
did soften or melt, Im sure we can all agree that this was
certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone
briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of
great concern to all Americans.
There is no question that the
events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on
Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the
story of 9/11. 213] Ryan noted in the letter that testing of
steel components of the WTC buildings was performed by UL in the
1960s, and later pointed out that the tests verified
conformance to code requirements for multiple hours of fire
resistance at much higher temperatures. 214] According to an
article in the South Bend Tribune, Paul M. Baker, the company's
spokesman, sharply rebuked Ryan's statements, stating: "The
contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and
frankly, they're just wrong." Ryan was fired for making his
statements. Kevin Ryan, former UL Site Manager 215] Frank
Gayle, NIST 216] According to the Tribune article, Ryan copied
his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor,
and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of
911Truth.org.One day later, Griffin requested and received
permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties, and
permission was given. 217] As part of the investigation, NIST
contracted with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to test floor
trusses like those in the WTC towers. All four test specimens
were subject to a standard fire test (ASTM E119) and sustained
the maximum design load (twice that on the WTC trusses) for two
hours without collapsing
.the empirical test] results
established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial
period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any
given location on September 11. 218] The ASTM E119
time-temperature profile exposed the specimens to almost 1000
deg C. for over an hour. 219] 5.6.4 Analysis and Simulation
5.6.4.1 WTC tower structure Let us roughly characterize the
actual WTC tower structure. The 1375 ft. tall towers of 110 12.5
ft. floors consisted of a perimeter of 244 structural steel
columns forming a square plan, with horizontal bracing
(spandrels) and extremely rigid chamfered corners. The
peripheral steel columns from the 9th through the 106th floors
spanned three floors vertically, and were built into massive
steel wall sections measuring about 10 ft wide by 27.5 ft.
(three floors) tall, consisting of three 14 inch square hollow
box columns spaced three ft. four inches apart, and welded to
thick steel plate spandrels. The building core, of dimensions
79X139 ft., was a veritable forest of 47 columns, horizontal and
diagonal cross braced, which housed primarily elevator shafts.
The 47 core columns varied in thickness with floor height.
Individual core columns in the lower core measured 52 x 22 in.
(in plan), and were formed of 5 and 3 inch plate into almost
solid steel shafts that weighed up to 56 tons. 220] Other
sources, including FEMA, note the average core box column cross
section to be 12" wide x 36" deep x 2" thick, having a cross
sectional area of 176 square inches. The box cross section
construction changed to relatively light I-beam cross section
above the 85th floor. 221] Hufschmid indicates the perimeter
columns also decreased in thickness with increasing floor
height. 222] Each tower weighed 500,000 short tons or 454545
metric tons ( 1 metric ton=1.1 short ton). The intact 16 story
section above aircraft impact weighed 58,000 metric tons. Thus,
the upper 16 of the 110 floor system, or 14.5 % of the floors,
weighed only about 12.7 % of the total building weight, so the
majority of the mass per floor was in the lower floors. 223]
NIST analysis of building natural periods before and after
impact shows overall stiffness of the towers was not appreciably
affected by aircraft impact. 224] 5.6.4.2 NIST Simulation of
Aircraft Damage to Tower Structure. NIST performed detailed
aircraft impact damage estimate simulations. Four global
simulations were used to generate information about the state
of the structural components following aircraft impact. 225]
The global models extended from floor 91 for WTC1 and floor 77
for WTC2 to the top of each tower 226]. Two models were done
for each tower; one at an estimated minimum, the other at an
estimated maximum aircraft speed. The column damage for all
impacted floors was combined into a single image for each tower.
The cases, and column damage are noted in 227]. The NIST worst
case (ie max aircraft speed) damage assessment for WTC1 , was
Case B, with 6 columns severed and 3 with heavy damage. It is
instructive to compare this reasonable damage estimate with one
of the more technical 911 Truth debunking websites, which
suggests 20 core columns were removed due to impact: Composite
floor plan showing aircraft damage to North Tower, low and high
speed cases Figures 6-21 and 6-22 from NIST 228] Figure
purporting to show aircraft damage to WTC1 229] 5.6.4.3
Descending Block Scenario leading up to collapse initiation.
The NIST story has it that the floors of the upper descending
block, consisting of 15 floors with lighter supports, in the
North Tower, were able to pile up and out-crush the more
massive supports of the floors of the lower block, consisting of
85 floors. Richard Gage in his Blueprint for Truth presentations
includes real time videos clearly showing that The upper 15
floors of WTC1 disintegrate prior to the collapse of the lower
85 floors. 230]. This can be observed in successive frames from
the sequence shown in section 1.2.2, North Tower Antenna. Frames
9,10,11,12. Notice the top of the upper block is descending
rapidly, while the top of the lower block, although enveloped in
flame, appears to not have moved appreciably. 231] A well know
series of photos 1,2,3 of the South Tower shows the top 34
floors tipping and then disintegrating: 232] Steven Jones notes
the anomaly of the disintegration of the piece of the South
Tower, which was also alluded to by Hufschmid: We observe that
approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the
south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this
block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then--and
this I'm still puzzling over--this block turned mostly to powder
in mid-air!
Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since
the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon. 233] The top 34 floors begin to topple, so there
is no huge mass of material bearing down on the untoppled
floors. The toppling 34 floors are in free fall; no crushing
mass bearing down on them, so why did these floors disintegrate
into dust? This means that there was no massive upper block,
in either North or South Tower, to crush the lower floors. This
is consistent with Jim Hoffmans observation that the purported
tremendous energy of the falling building section (upper
block) did not even show up on the seismographs. Brent
Blanchard, senior writer for Implosion-World.com, also states
that a review of all photographic images clearly shows about 95%
of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the
structure. 234] There was no huge buildup of mass, either as a
single massive block or buildup of debris, onto the lower block.
Any suggestion of the descending block scenario, pancake or
progressive collapse is further contradicted by images showing
large intact portions of the towers, apparently hanging in thin
air above the collapse wave. A portion of one of the WTC
towers (center of image) seems to be hanging in mid-air 235]
Yet NIST states repeatedly that energy of the downward movement
of the building mass above the damaged columns exceeded the
strain energy that could have been absorbed by the lower floors,
so global collapse ensued 236] This is the essence of
progressive collapse theory, and it has been assumed, not
demonstrated, not proven. NIST only considers events from the
moment of aircraft impact until collapse initiation. 237]
Incredibly, progressive collapse of floors below aircraft
impact has been left out of the NIST collapse sequence computer
models! 238] Finnish 9/11 activist Sami Yli-Karjanmaa was among
the first critics of the NIST report. 239] He noted the
truncation of models to reduce model size and improve
computation time, failure to simulate the collapse, and the NIST
collapse mantra, "repeated 12 times in the project 6 report
dealing with the collapse sequence: 'The change in potential
energy due to downward movement of building mass above the
buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been
absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.'"
5.6.4.4 Where is the momentum transfer analysis? It has already
been established that the descending block scenario was
fictitious; there were no descending upper blocks impacting
lower blocks. But for the sake of argument, suppose there had
been. Suppose an upper block had hit a lower block. Stress and
strain energy are in the domain of the theory of elasticity, yet
NIST provides no elasticity analysis to substantiate its
position. Fundamental to application of the theory of elasticity
to the WTC North Tower collapse is the fact that impact of the
theoretical upper block with the lower block will not just
stress the topmost floor of the lower block; rather, the stress
will be propagated rapidly downward and upward to the rest of
the floors. This propagation will absorb energy, and the
question is, as in the case of an elastic spring, how much
energy can the structure absorb without breaking. Manuel Garcia,
in an article for Counterpunch, says that he takes up the
analysis of the collapse of the towers where NIST left off in
describing the floor-by -floor collapse, but makes the same
assumption as NIST, that the energy of descending floors is more
than the structure can absorb. He does not consider the benefit
of elasticity is absorbing energy, but only looks at the
destructive aspects of the descending wave train. 240] Gordon
Ross has applied the theory of elasticity in a comprehensive way
to the descending block scenario to show that even had it
existed, the momentum of the upper impacting block would be
absorbed during the three percent elongation phase of the steel
columns of the very top floor, and therefore collapse would not
proceed. 241] The NIST mantra remains unproven. The NIST
investigation also omitted or distorted many other important
aspects of the collapses, including movement of the WTC1 antenna
before the adjacent faηade, the pyroclastic dust clouds, and
pools of molten metal in the WTC basements weeks after the
attacks. 242] NIST failed to provide follow up study on an
unusual sulfur residue which was found during the FEMA BPA
study, and which FEMA recommended be investigated in future
studies. 243] 5.6.5 Steven Jones on Kevin Ryan and NIST: Jones
agrees with Kevin Ryan's objections regarding the NIST study.
244] Jones also challenges NIST's collapse theory: NIST
maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated
despite contrary observations, particularly the fact that fire
endurance tests with actual models did not result in
collapse
.The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST
study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the
fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. 245] NIST
constructs a computer model--but realistic cases do not actually
lead to building collapse. So they "adjust" inputs until the
model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe
cases. 246] NIST notes explicitly several times in its final
report that the computer simulation only proceeds until the
building is poised for collapse. Jones asks: What about the
subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the
antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten
metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both
Towers and WTC 7 as well
Well, some of us want to look at ALL
the data, without computer simulations that are "adjusted,"
perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. 247] Ryan did his
own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST
report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed
to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a
likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model.
Ryan's analysis is that the probability that aircraft damage and
fires (the "official theory") could cause the Towers complete
collapse is less than one in a trillion (Ryan, 2005). So where
does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan, This
"official"] story just does not add up... 248] 5.6.6 The
Engineering Community A lone scientist, Abdolhasan Astaneh Asl,
funded by the National Science foundation, got access to the
steel before the ASCE/FEMA team. Despite the fact that 40
percent of a steel beam was torn away, the column did not
collapse, an example of redundancy built into the 1970s-vintage
structure. With admiration, Asl said "The aircraft] impact did
nothing to this building." 249] The engineering community has
raised questions about the results of the NIST WTC
investigation. The popular British construction industry
magazine New Civil Engineer International (NCEI) notes:
Controversy still surrounds the exact collapse mechanism of the
Twin Towers, despite three years of detailed investigation by
the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) team.
Some engineers believe the collapse was influenced by factors
other than the fires caused by burning aviation fuel which
weakened vital structural steel elements. And they have accused
NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse
mechanism
.In this latest version, the hat trusses on top of
the towers play a crucial role in the redistribution of stresses
after the impact, one leading US structural engineer told NCE
in New York In earlier versions they are hardly mentioned.
250] Regarding the analysis used to bring the towers to the
point of being poised for collapse, NCEI notes: NIST had
obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the
impact and fire models
The software used has been pushed to new
limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications,
extrapolations and judgment calls. The same article notes NIST
is refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of
the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire
engineers
Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely
used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used
by the investigators. University of Manchester U.K.] professor
of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to
be gained from visualizing the structural response. "NIST should
really show the visualizations; otherwise the opportunity to
correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost." 251] James Quintiere,
Ph.D., one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and
safety engineers, and former Chief of the Fire Science Division
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
has called for an independent review of NISTs investigation.
Alan Miller has written an excellent article on Quintieres
plea. Miller notes that Dr. Quintiere gave his presentation
Questions on the WTC Investigations twice at the 2007 World
Fire Safety Conference, June 4- 5, 2007. Although Quintiere
apparently does not consider controlled demolition a possible
collapse mechanism, his frustration and objections regarding the
NIST WTC study include those of 9/11 Truth researchers, as well
as the engineering community. Responding to a comment from a
NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, I
found that throughout your whole investigation it was very
difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your
advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five
minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions.
... 252] Dr. Quintieres presentation at the World Fire Safety
Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005,
during a hearing on The Investigation of the World Trade Center
Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps, at which
he stated: In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls
short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not
sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by
not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the
investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to
deter rather than develop fact finding." Dr. Quintiere noted
that a number of questions had been submitted to NIST which were
never acknowledged or answered. Those questions include the
following: "Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses
investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that
they would do?" Noting destruction of the WTC steel, Quintiere
remarked that a careful reading of the NIST report shows that
they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as
necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little
steel debris they have. "Why hasn't NIST declared that this
spoliation of the steel was a gross error? " NIST used computer
models that they said have never been used in such an
application before and are the state of the art. ...." But the
validation of these modeling results 253] is in question.
Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the
cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire
investigation to compute a timeline and compare it to known
events. NIST has not done that. " "Testing by NIST has been
inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of
several work stations, a replicate test of at least one] WTC
floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not
done? ... " 254] 5.6.7 Purdue Study; A NIST Prop? The Purdue
University website, in an article dated September 11 2006,
announced the so-called Purdue Study 255]. An Associated
Press article appearing in the June 20 2007 online edition of
USA Today noted the two year study supports a federal agency's
findings NIST] that the initial impact from the hijacked
airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that
the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight. 256]
Scholars for 9/11 Truth , Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,
and Prison planet, among others, have criticized this study.
Prison Planet observed that the study was funded by the National
Science Foundation, whose budget was doubled last year to $6.02
billion by the Bush administration. Its director, Dr. Arden L.
Bement Jr., has worked for the Department of defense, where he
was Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and DARPA.
257] Prison Planet also noted that structural engineer Mete
Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on
the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that
confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995,
despite the many inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.
258] Nick Irvings paper, Purdue 9/11 Animation: Politics, not
Science, appeared on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website dated
June 23 2007 259]. Kevin Ryans paper; An Open Letter to Purdue
President Cordova, has been posted by Scholars for 9/11 Truth
and Justice. 260] Ryan notes inattention to minor detail: In a
paper describing the study, 261] he notes that Flight 77 and
impact of Flight AA71 are referenced to aircraft impact of
WTC1. He notes a litany of technical discrepancies between the
NIST and Purdue studies; for example: NIST determined that the
center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it
struck WTC 1, but the Purdue animation shows the center tank to
be completely full. Although dubbed by some as a NIST study
prop, an August 2007 ENR article entitled Purdue Model of WTC
Impact Conflicts with Federal Study focuses on the differences.
262] See: How do the Studies compare. 5.6.8 Secrecy According
to the Nov. 12 2005 New York Times, NIST announced that its
construction advisory committee, a group of experts overseeing
the investigation, would meet for 10 hours on Nov. 22 at its
headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, but that only the first
2 hours would be public. The remainder will be closed because
of the agency's concerns that discussions about changes in
construction codes could prematurely influence the building
industry and the people who write the codes, said Mat Heyman,
the institute's chief of staff. Monica Gabrielle, whose husband
Richard was killed when the South tower collapsed 57 minutes
after it was hit by one of the hijacked jets, vehemently
objected to the decision: ''You have one job, and one job only
-- to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and
to report to the public about it,'' she said yesterday in an
interview. ''You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or
federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public--the truth,
no matter where it goes.''
''There has been considerable
pressure on us to come out with our final recommendations,'' Mr.
Heyman said. 263] 5.6.9 The real goal of the NIST
investigation As Ed Haas has pointed out, the real goal of the
NIST investigation appears to have been to protect the
government. Throughout the NIST reports Haas notes the following
language:NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative
hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by
controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001. Haas also notes generous use of the
following disclaimer: No part of any report resulting from a
NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an
investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act
may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any
matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L.
1007-321). 264] 5.6.10 Legal challenges filed against NIST
According to a notice on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
website, dated April 14, 2007, 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine
and Bill Doyle, physicist Steven E. Jones, former UL manager,
Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage, and the group Scholars for
9/11 Truth and Justice have also filed a Request for Correction
(RFC) with NIST. The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report
violates information quality standards, draws inferences that
are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical
tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained
conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The
Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST
simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have
collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative,
which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is
explosive demolition. 265] On September 27 2007, NIST finally
responded to the Jones RFC. 266] The NIST memorandum appears to
agree that the NCST Act requires NIST to establish the likely
technical cause or causes of the building failure. On the fact
that temperatures reached by steel recovered by NIST directly
contradicted the temperatures calculated by the analytical
models, NIST states: While NIST did not find evidence that any
of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess
of 250 deg C., it is not possible to extrapolate from such a
small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the
fire effected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250 deg.
C. 267] On the issue that NIST failed to take into account
interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of
bombs in the towers. NIST reviewed all of the interviews
conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in
addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency
responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the
interviews did not support the contention that explosives played
a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers. 268] On the issue of
failure to carry the analysis beyond the point of initiation of
collapse, NIST states that computer models were unable to
converge on a solution, but assumes the NIST collapse mantra:
Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available
evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass
of the upper stories of the towers. 269] And to make sure we
did not miss it, the memorandum repeats: Finally, NIST has
stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that
explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not
conduct tests for explosive residue
270] In the midst of all
this, NIST admits we are unable to provide a full explanation
of the total collapse. 271] All Requests for Correction were
denied, but it is believed Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
will appeal this decision. 5.6.11 More Scientists Architects and
Engineers question NIST Results In September 2006, Alan Miller
began the website www.PatriotsQuestion911.com. 272] Initially
statements from very high profile persons critical of the
official story were posted, but the scope of the website quickly
expanded. As of February, 2009, over 160 Senior Military,
Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials;
over 350 professors; over 230 9/11 Survivors and family members;
over 190 artists, entertainers and media professionals; over 170
pilots and aviation professionals; and over 660 engineers and
architects appear on this site questioning the official story.
Patrick Leahy, Vermont Senator and current Chair of the Senate
Judiciary Committee , as well as Eleanor Hill, Former Staff
Director of the Joint Intelligence Committee 911] Inquiry (JICI)
added their signatures on November 12, 2008 Richard Gage is a
degreed and licensed architect from the San Francisco Bay area
and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has
over 20 years experience as an architect, including working with
numerous steel framed fire-proofed structures. In 2006, he
founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
(www.ae911truth.org), which as of February 2009 has garnered 607
professional signatures demanding of Congress a truly
independent investigation into the destruction of WTC1, WTC2,
and WTC7 on 9/11/01. "My objective is to make all architects and
engineers aware of the overwhelming evidence of controlled
demolition by explosives at all three WTC high-rise buildings."
273] In his excellent DVD 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, Gage
points out that fire creeps slowly from one location to another,
as successive areas are burned out, causing large visible slow
deformations and would result in asymmetrical collapse. In his
presentation, Gage goes clearly and carefully step by step
through the scientific method in arguing his case: Each claim is
tested. If it fails the test, it is rejected or reformulated. He
then summarizes a large number of features which support the
hypothesis of controlled demolition in a grided check list.
274] The relatively large number of engineers and architects on
the www.PatriotsQuestion911.com website may be due in part to
the existence of Richard Gages Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth. 5.7.0 How do the Official Investigations Compare?
5.7.1 A Continuity of Faces There does appear to be a certain
continuity of staffing of the several studies supporting the
Official Story: According to Kevin Ryan, 275] the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Team that first looked into
the collapse of the Twin Towers was initially led by the same
team that looked into the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing.
Initial ASCE team leaders as of 9/14/01 included Gene Corley,
Sr. VP of CTL Engineering as chief lead, Charles Thornton, Paul
Mlakar, and Mete Sozen. Murrah building bombing report authors
were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen.
276] Corley knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC
would collapse as it did: I just didnt know when it was going
to happen, said Corley. St. Petersburg Times] 277]
Interestingly, NYC put the firm of Thornton-Tomasetti in charge
of the WTC site. Richard Tomasetti (Thorntons partner)
cleared the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he
known the direction that investigations into the disaster would
take, he would have adopted a different stance. 278] The first
NIST meeting included comments from Gene Corley and Richard
Tomasetti. Charles Thornton was on the NIST related National
Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee. 279] FEMA authors
Therese McAllister, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, William Baker,
Harold Nelson, and Ramon Gilsanz were co-authors for portions of
the NIST report. An internet search of Gene Corley, Charles H.
Thornton, Richard L. Tomasetti, Paul Mlakar, and Mete Sozen
produces mixed results. Although Corley and Mlakar could be seen
as having potential conflicts of interest due to their
association with the defense industry, Thornton is considered a
hero, having received the 2001 Engineering News-Record Award of
Excellence for being the consummate mentor and role model.
280] Kevin Ryan notes that Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, and
Richard Tomasetti, involved in the ASCE/FEMA studies, were also
involved in the studies to establish the Silverstein insurance
claim. Although both studies agreed that airplane impact and
fire were the cause of collapse, the Weidlinger - Silverstein
studies directly contradicted the FEMA report regarding the
floor trusses as a mechanism of collapse. 281] Were these
engineers unaware of this contradiction? 5.7.2 North Tower
Antenna The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly
regarding the North Tower collapse: Review of videotape
recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates
that the transmission tower on top off the structure began to
move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident
at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one
or more failures in the central core area of the building. The
report notes this is consistent with other observations. 282] A
NY Times article also notes this behavior: Videos of the north
tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna
began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the
building. The observations suggest that the building's steel
core somehow gave way first. 283] The NIST investigation also
noted that the collapse of the North Tower Antenna suggested
that the steel core gave way first, but later stated:
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify
structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a
building were examined for a given event or time period to
provide complete understanding of the building response.
Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and
may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance,
photographic and video records taken from due north of the WTC 1
collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into
the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west
vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building
section above the impact area tilted to the south as the
building collapsed." 284] This NIST statement cannot be
precisely accurate, because we know there had to be a component
of antenna motion downward as the structure collapsed. As Dr.
Jones notes, the proper technical approach would be to resolve
the southward and downward components of motion analytically, to
see the relative contribution . 285] NIST seems to have arrived
at its conclusion in disagreement with the FEMA Report, which
noted the observation of the sinking core was based on
videotape recordings taken from various angles. The NIST
conclusion is based on data which is apparently not available to
the public. 5.7.3 Amount of jet fuel burned within the WTC
towers According to the FEMA BPA, aircraft fuel capacity was
23,980 gallons; at time of impact, each jet had an estimated
10,000 gallons of fuel on board. 286] "Calculations indicate
that between 1000 and 3000 gallons of jet fuel were likely
consumed" in fireballs for each tower. The remainder flowed away
from the structures, or burned within them. Assuming half flowed
away, then approximately 4000 gallons remained on the impact
floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet Fuel
would have been consumed within the first few minutes. 287] The
NIST Executive Summary states "About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
were sprayed into multiple stories" 288] The more detailed
account states: "Upon aircraft impact, a significant fraction of
10,000 gallons of jet fuel ignited within the building." 289]
Apparently struggling for every gallon to be burned within the
towers, NIST finally concedes that somewhat less than 10,000
gallons of fuel actually burned in each tower: "The timing and
appearance of the fireballs indicated they were ignited within
the building. A calculation based on the oxygen contained within
the building on the floors into which the fuel tanks entered
indicated that up to 15% of the available jet fuel could have
burned inside the building in the immediate event...If roughly
another 15-20 % of the jet fuel burned outside the building, as
in WTC2, then about two thirds of the jet fuel remained inside
the building to burn later or just flow away from the fire
zones." 290] With WTC 2; we find classic NIST-ese. Is it a
highly detailed description of how much fuel burned in the
building, or obfuscation? 291] Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut
Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's
School of Civil Engineering, and lead investigator for the
Purdue study, stated "the ensuing fire fed by an estimated
10,000 gallons of jet fuel". 292] The figures from the first
official investigation, by FEMA, are more in line with figures
given on the Discovery Channel, noted earlier by Dave McGowan.
The tendency is that in later investigations, the estimated
amount of fuel burned inside the buildings escalates. 5.7.4
References to explosives, explosive, or anomalous
characteristics Chapter 1 of the FEMA Report notes: Sudden
collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread
dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many
blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong
enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and
break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around
the WTC site. 293]
Once movement began, the entire portion of
the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a
cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through
the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed
outward, creating the illusions of a secondary explosion. 294]
Although not noted in the main text, the FEMA Report did note in
appendix C the presence of sulfur and a eutectic reaction, which
had a corrosive effect of the steel, as previously discussed.
Although FEMA noted this was an unusual event, and recommended a
detailed study, this went no further in the official reports.
Chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report contains only one
oblique reference to explosions: When the South Tower
collapsed, firefighters on the upper floors of the North Tower
heard a violent roar, and many were knocked off their feet
those
firefighters not standing near windows facing south had no way
of knowing that the South Tower had collapsed, many surmised
that a bomb had exploded
295] Investigations by the 9/11
Commission, FEMA, and NIST did not address the well documented
presence of molten metal in the WTC basements. 296] 5.7.5
Aircraft Impact Damage The towers are traditionally accepted as
having been designed by Leslie E. Robertson to withstand 140
mile per hour winds, and the impact of the largest airliner of
the day, the Intercontinental Boeing 707. This has been
acknowledged in both the FEMA BPA, and the NIST investigations.
297] The FEMA BAP contends that the 707 design was for low
speed and low fuel, and that the 767 is more massive than the
707. Both of these claims have been rebutted. 298] FEMA wrote
that for each tower, the aircraft impact resulted in severe
structural damage, including some localized partial collapse,
but did not result in the initiation of global collapse. 299]
The NIST Executive Summary states: The two aircraft hit the
towers at high speeds and did considerable damage to principle
structural components, Abdolhasan Astaneh Asl wrote: The
impact did nothing to this building. 300] 5.7.6 Pancaking,
Progressive Collapse; Mode of failure; New building codes
While the FEMA report cast suspicion on the floor trusses, the
Silverstein report exonerated the floor trusses, and noted the
core columns had to fail completely for the tower collapse. The
Silverstein study also concluded that fire temperatures were
lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. 301] The
FEMA BPA implicated weakening of floor trusses as leading to
progressive collapse. It mentions pancaking only a few
times, but references floor failure and weakness numerous times.
302] The March 2005 Popular Mechanics debunk article notes in
support of pancake theory: FACT: Once each tower began to
collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone
bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor.
Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail,
transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the
collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain
reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does
not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a
structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on
the FEMA report. 303] In the first place, as we have seen,
there were no massive blocks bearing down with pulverizing
force, because both upper blocks were pulverized. Further, no
momentum transfer analysis was done; and it is just assumed the
lower floors would fail, because they did. Going further, Dr.
Steven Jones puts it this way: "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 floor and intact steel support columnsthe fall
must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. - somehow
the enormous support columns failed /disintegrated along with
the falling floor pans. How do the upper floors fall so quickly,
then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?
304] The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11
Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall
times were not analyzed. Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have
used the following example to illustrate the point. Which tower
top will strike the ground first? According to the official
story, both will strike the ground at the same time. Tower tops
in free fall 305] Like all office buildings, the WTC towers
contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that
air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the
force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. When
you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going
to shoot air and concrete dust out the window, NIST lead
investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may
create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds,
but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.
306] Although pancake/pancaking is not referenced in the NIST
report, the lead investigator uses the term freely. Steven Jones
has an excellent response: the timing between puffs is too
short, so air expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. A
rough calculation of the time for the north tower to freefall
(from 1368 ft) is 9.22 seconds, and the time for one floor to
freefall is .88 seconds. 307] Pancaking as described by Mr.
Sunder would require each floor to collapse (free fall)
independently and sequentially for each of the 110 floors. The
total time would be 110 stories * .88 seconds per story, or
about 97 seconds. This does not include a delay time for the
breaking of successive floors. So the observed time of collapse
of the North Tower (under 16 seconds, is much closer to freefall
time (9.2 seconds) than the time for pancaking as described by
Mr. Sunder (Which would take 97 seconds). As Steven Jones notes,
the FEMA Pancaking approach finally fails to account for the
observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which
are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings,
and it has the striking weakness of requiring the connections of
the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the
core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.
308] Although NIST has officially given up the idea of
pancaking 309], which is never mentioned in its final report,
it has clearly has not given up on the term progressive
collapse 310], which is mentioned frequently. 311] Although
the FEMA, NIST and Purdue studies emphasize the high
temperatures of the fires, the Silverstein study noted that fire
temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office
fires. Although both NIST and the Purdue study agree that
stripped fireproofing from the core columns was a factor leading
to collapse, the Purdue study, as the Silverstein study, suggest
core columns failed first, while the NIST study concluded the
perimeter columns failed first. NIST reported that 9 core
columns were severed or heavily damaged in the more severe
category, while Purdue claims 52 core columns were "destroyed or
heavily damaged" over a height six floors; Shyam Sunder, lead
NIST WTC investigator, suggested the fidelity of modeling was
the reason for this discrepancy. 312] Kevin Ryan notes that in
one important way the Purdue animation reflects reality: it is
clear that the aircraft impacting the WTC towers could not have
been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the
form of shotgun blasts. The Purdue animation more realistically
displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage
clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. This
contradicts the NIST notion of the aircraft disintegrating into
shotgun type blasts, purportedly scraping the fireproofing off
of thousands of square meters of surface area. 313] NIST says
the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT
fail (contrary to FEMA's model), but rather the floor pans "pull
with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns
to significantly pull in, leading to final failure. 314] NIST
coordinated on some WTC work with ARUP, an international
construction and safety organization. According to NCEI,
British engineers strongly disputed official American claims
that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse as a result
of removal of fireproofing due to aircraft impact. The
disagreement provoked a strong exchange of views at a major
conference held at Gaithersburg near Washington DC to discuss
the official findings. British engineer Barbara Lane stated that
from ARUPs analysis, the towers would have collapsed even
without the removal of fireproofing. 315] ARUP also contests
another NIST failure mechanism: the core columns cannot pull
the exterior columns in via the floor simply as a result of
column shortening. 316] Although the FEMA BAP acknowledged the
novelty of the collapses, 317] Griffin notes of NIST: Indeed,
the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST--the National
Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)--even implies that
fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal
events (Hoffman, 2005). 318] Indeed, NIST, based on the
singular collapses of 9/11, appears to have come up with a whole
new class of building failures that were not coded for in past
history, and must be protected against retroactively and in the
future. 319] NCEI notes that the engineering community as well
as developers are now concerned about another layer of
regulations, some of whom doubt the resulting buildings will be
any safer. 320] The apparent revisionism we have seen in the
politically correct collapse mechanism advocated by the US
technical and fire fighting community seems paralleled in Great
Britain. Although British elements in ARUP are now convinced the
towers would have fallen even without removal of fireproofing,
several high profile British structural designers were
originally quite dubious of the idea of fire induced collapses.
In an article dated 4 October 2001, Professor Wilem Frischmann,
of the Pell Frischmann Group and the City University, London,
said that the aircraft puncturing of the outer steel shells of
the towers would not in itself have caused the towers to fall.
Although the explosion caused by the fuelladen aircraft would
have been intense, the lack of available oxygen inside the
towers would, according to Professor Frischmann, have limited
the fireball's temperature to less than 1,000 Celsius, within
the tower design limits. Architect Bob Halvorson, of Halvorson
and Kaye in London said: "There is going to be a debate about
whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have
collapsed in the way that they did....We are operating well
beyond realistic experience." 321] One might wonder how there
can be so much divergence in details of the mechanism of
building collapse proposed by the various studies, even by the
same engineers, yet such certainty that the underlying cause is
aircraft impact and fire. 6.0 Bush Science The NIST study is a
product of the Bush administration. An enumeration of the
inconsistencies of the NIST study is consistent with a long
standing and well documented pattern of Bush administration
abuse of the scientific method The House Committee on Government
Reform found "numerous instances where this Administration has
manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed
scientific findings." 322] On February 18, 2004, over 60
leading scientists, including Nobel laureates, signed a
statement that "The distortion of scientific knowledge for
partisan political ends must cease." Since then, over 9000
additional scientists and engineers have signed on. 323]
Consider the case of the US Fish and Wild Life Service.
According to the L.A. Times, a survey of the 1400 employees
working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientific staff
was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. A division of
the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
charged with determining which animals and plants should be
placed on the endangered species list and designating areas
where such species need to be protected. More than 20% of the
420 survey responders reported they had been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information." More
than half of survey responders said they knew of cases in which
commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and
energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse
scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business. One
biologist, who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency,
said: "Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all
the cases
As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't
trust the science coming out of the agency." 324] left: George
Bush on Global Warming; Center: James Connaughton, chairman
NewsFollowUp.com of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality 325] A clear example of distortion of scientific
knowledge was seen in the subsequent declaration by EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman that the "air is safe" in
Manhattan a week after the attacks. 326] In fact, according to
top scientists, the air at Ground Zero was highly corrosive, and
a "significant threat to health." 327] The White House Council
on Environmental Quality, headed by James Connaughton, directed
the EPA to edit the scientific findings "based on how it should
be released publicly." 328] Since then, problems have mounted
from 9/11 dust. The number of people with medical problems
linked to the 9/11 attacks on New York has risen to at least
15,000, and over 70,000 are enrolled in WTC Health Registry.
329] 7.0 Alternative Theories 7.1 Steven Jones Thermite/Thermate
Alternative On 23 Nov 2003, D. P. Grimmer published a paper
which considered the possible use of thermite to melt sections
of the WTC inner core columns in such a way as to cause
collapse. The paper estimated the mass and volume of thermite
necessary to allow melting, and concluded that it would have
been physically possible to deliver this quantity of thermite to
the WTC towers. 330] In late 2005, and early 2006, two articles
were published in the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City mainstream
publication, which signaled the emergence of the issue of the
collapse of the WTC towers into mainstream U.S. consciousness.
The first article, BYU Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes,
Toppled WTC, 331] set the stage, justifying the possibility
that the WTC towers were subject to explosives. The article
included a list of characteristics observed during the collapse
of the towers which paralleled classic examples of controlled
demolition. The second article, Physicist Says Heat Substance
Felled WTC, 332] presented some preliminary evidence for a
specific demolition mechanism. Jones noted that the government
requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling
them to be traced back to their manufacturers, but no tags are
required for aluminum, iron oxide, or sulfur, the constituents
of a powerful incendiary. The article noted a video showing a
yellow molten substance flowing from the South Tower moments
before it collapsed. About this same time, Scholars for 9/11
Truth was founded, which attempted to focus on scientific fact
in an investigation of the events of 9/11. At this time, Jones
began several ongoing reports to document his position, and his
alternative theory of the collapse of the towers: Answers to
Questions and Objections, and Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings
Completely Collapse? See Abbreviations used in endnotes and
text. Dr Steven E. Jones]
332] A key question is: how does a small amount of jet fuel at
the top of the towers, with a maximum temperature of 1000 deg C,
result in large explosions and molten metal at 1500 deg C. in
the basement? Jones maintains that these observations molten
metal in the WTC basements] are consistent with use of the
high-temperature thermite reaction or some variation thereof
such as thermate, used to cut or demolish steel
Thermite is a
mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of
the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the
thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot
enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while
reacting
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the
reaction cannot be smothered, even with water...Use of sulfur in
conjunction with the thermite produces thermate, which will
accelerate the destructive effect on steel. Remember Appendix
C of the FEMA report discusses the presence of sulfur, creating
a eutechtic reaction]. Jones also said the use of explosives
such as HDX and RDX should also be considered.] 333] From an
analysis of the color of slag recovered from WTC debris, and
melting temperatures of various metals , Jones concluded the
metal could be either structural steel and/or iron, both of
which melt at about 1500 deg C. 334] Metal slag recovered from
WTC basement 335] Jones notes that an abundance of Iron (as
opposed to aluminum) is suggested by the reddish rust in a
sample of slag recovered from the WTC site, now stored in a
warehouse in NY. 335] Bright flame in S. Tower 336] Molten
metal flows in S. Tower 337] Jones notes that a photograph
found in the NIST Report provides evidence for a highly
exothermic reaction Regarding this photograph, NIST notes an
unusual flame is visible
a very bright flame
a bright spot
appeared
followed by the flow of a glowing liquid 336] A
number of frames showing flowing molten metal from the South
Tower, shortly prior to its collapse, are available . 337] Ash
from South Tower 338] A previous version of Why Indeed shows
a picture taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New
York Post] with white ash rising from the South Tower near the
dripping, liquefied metal. 338] Thermite reaction at BYU lab
339] Jones notes the similarity between NISTs bright flame
followed by molten metal and white ash with a thermite reaction
in his lab at BYU, which shows bright flare, molten yellow-white
glowing iron, and a plume of aluminum oxide smoke. 339] He
states: These discoveries strongly motivate an immediate
in-depth investigation of the use of thermite-type reactions in
the destruction of the WTC. 340] NIST investigators ruled out
the possibility of melting steel being the source of the
material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. They
suggested the molten material may have been aluminum from the
impacting aircraft. 341] Jones argues that although aluminum
may glow faintly, the material flowing from the South Tower is
most likely not aluminum, but iron. 342] As of July 2006, Jones
stated that a peer reviewed qualitative analysis has shown that
samples of formerly molten material from the Towers were mostly
iron. Electron microprobe data also showed aluminum, sulfur, and
potassium, as well as fluorine. Potassium (K), manganese (Mn)
and fluorine (F) are used in thermite explosives, and are often
present in the residue, and may be part of a "thermite
fingerprint." 343] Note that the FEMA investigation found
sulfidization of several samples of WTC steel. Jones notes:
While gypsum in the buildings is a possible source of sulfur,
it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into
the structural steel such as to form a eutectic. 344] Dr Jones
and his students also ran experiments to see if a hypothesis put
forward by F. Greening might be credible. This hypothesis holds
that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could
melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel
surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." The results of
Dr. Jones experiments lent no support whatever to the Greening
theory. Aluminum hit with torch does NOT catch fire; Aluminum
melts and flows at about 600 deg c. No violent aluminum-rusty
steel or aluminum-gypsum/concrete/plastic reactions occurred.
345] Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide can be cast into any
shape in a "sol-gel", developed by Livermore Labs. However,
Kevin Ryan notes that sol-gels might leave a tell-tale residue:
1,3,diphenylpropane. 346] Analysis of WTC dust showed that one
molecule, 1,3,diphenylpropane, was present at levels "that
dwarfed all others," according to EPA's Erik Swartz. "We've
never observed it in any sampling we've ever done." Swartz
speculated that the most likely source was plastic/ polyvinyl
chloride materials of tens of thousands of burning
computers 347] In his paper 9/11 Revisited Applying the
Scientific Method, Dr. Jones reports of his work on dust from
the WTC collapses. The iron rich component of the WTC dust
samples was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray
energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). The result: much of the
iron rich dust was composed of roughly spherical
particles-microspheres, up to about 1.5 mm in diameter. The
presence of metallic microspheres implies that the metals were
once molten so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a
roughly spherical shape. Jones notes that a thermate reaction of
a mixture of iron, aluminum powder, and sulfur, produces
metallic spheres with high peaks in iron, aluminum, and sulfur,
in X-EDS testing. He notes this would constitute a chemical
signature of thermate variant microspheres. Although he
meticulously avoids drawing any conclusions, he does point out
that the WTC iron rich dust samples also contained aluminum and
sulfur. He then points out that the NFPA (National Fire
Protection Association) 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion
investigation clearly states: Unusual residues might remain
from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials. He then notes that
looking for residues is the standard procedure for fire and
explosion investigations. Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite resedue? NISTs answer: No, and in that answer they
are remiss. 348] Although Jones notes that the USGS Particle
Atlas of WTC Dust shows micrographs of a few metallic spherules
, 349] particle form is not considered in most air quality
analyses. Environmental Health Perspectives notes The explosion
and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic
event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers,
residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11
September 2001. Each of three samples was analyzed for
inorganic and organic composition, not for particle size or
shape. 350] On 4/18/08, Dr. Jones and his researchers
successfully published their first paper in a mainstream Civil
Engineering journal, The Open Civil Engineering Journal,
pp.35-40. The title is Fourteen Points of Agreement with
Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center
Destruction. Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R.
Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley. The abstract was
given as: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account
of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In
this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive
discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we
find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time
countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses. 351]
Jones research on the collapse of the WTC towers made Project
Censored story number 18 in 2007. Peter Phillips noted that
inclusion of few stories, if any, have generated more
controversy, and that two of Project Censoreds esteemed
national judges resigned because of its inclusion in the 2007
yearbook. 352] 7.3 Gordon Ross Four Phase Attack Alternative
According to Gordon Ross, the towers were demolished in four
separate steps. The four steps destroyed successively the upper
central core, perimeter corners, perimeter sides, horizontal
bracing, and lower core. Ross notes that the chamfered corners
of the tower perimeter were capable of supporting the total mass
above them, without the help of the perimeter sides or tower
cores. He points out that the floor trusses from the core
connected only to the mid perimeter columns within the
projection of the core width (which makes good sense
geometrically). The floor trusses from the four corners outside
the projection of the core were connected to a transfer truss,
and the transfer truss was connected to the core. Ross suggests
that this provided two somewhat independent structural systems;
the perimeter corners, and the core and perimeter mid-sides.
Each would have been capable of sustaining the towers structure.
Ross argues that both of these systems were attacked and
destroyed to bring about total collapse. Upper core failure
would result in transfer of the entire load through the hat
truss (building top) to the perimeter columns. The downward
moving core would pull the perimeter mid-side columns inward
(inward bowing). Failure of each of the four corners of each
tower would also result in a transfer of the load to the
perimeter mid-sides columns, which would then fail. Ross
believes, to facilitate collapse, the floor to mid-wall
perimeter and core column connections were broken. He notes this
would be especially necessary on the mechanical floors, because
of their relatively greater design strength. Finally, the lower
core was attacked. Ross provides evidence, including still
images and video, for each of the stages of destruction. These
include: Survival of the lower core structure until an advanced
stage of the collapse; Survival of the corners of the perimeter
structure after the collapse front has passed; Inward bowing of
the perimeter walls; Sagging of floors; Tilting movement of the
upper section; Bending of upper section; Early disintegration of
upper section; Early downward movement of the antennae;
Ejections of dust & debris simultaneously across whole floors;
Behavior of the "spire"; Flashes of light; Color and character
changes of smoke emissions; Molten metal ejections; Failure of
core structure horizontal bracing; and Angle cut core columns.
This scenario would appear to account for the infamous behavior
of the top 34 floors of the South Tower, which had seemingly
violated the principle of angular momentum. 353] 8.0 Wrapping
it up with a few questions 8.1 Questions RE the Official Story
Why have no steel framed structures collapsed either before or
since 9/11 due to fire, even though subjected to very intense
fire? Could it be that the World Class structural design firm
Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson screwed up in designing
the towers to sustain impact with a 707, even when, according to
John Skilling, they designed for fires from about the same
amount of fuel that the impacting aircraft carried? We have been
told by the Official Discovery Channel that the fuel burned up
in 8 minutes or less in each tower, so we might ask what
supplied the fuel needed for sustained high temperatures for the
remaining time until the towers collapsed? Why does NIST
conclude floor assemblies softened due to high temperatures,
when actual NIST test specimens endured temperatures of almost
1000 deg. C for two hours, while no significant steel
temperatures over 625 deg. C. were found? (Not withstanding the
fact that a lot of the steel had been inappropriately
recycled) Where did all the extra energy come from to: create
a pyroclastic flow; cause massive destruction; pulverize
concrete to fine dust; melt metal in basements; vaporize steel
columns in mid-air; partially or fully burn or melt thousands of
cars and trucks near the towers; create afterglow, and vaporize
humans? Who is correct in calculating the amount of energy
needed to produce the observed quantity of dust during tower
collapse? Jim Hoffman calculated 10 times the available
gravitational energy, and the official story calculated 30% of
available gravitational energy. What caused the non-incendiary
destruction of the lobby, basement machine shop, and underground
parking garage in the North Tower, prior to its collapse ? A
floor-by-floor gravitational collapse of a 110-story tower
appears to require over 90 seconds, a time much longer than the
actual time of collapse of the towers. Why? How could any
mechanical process (causing a floor by floor chain reaction
collapse) proceed through 110 floors with enough speed to
roughly coincide in time to building free fall? What caused the
numerous explosions and tower swaying reported prior to and
during the collapses? What caused the smoke coming from the area
around buildings 5, 6, and/or 7, videotaped by CNN, moments
after flight 175 crashed into the South Tower? Why did major
media outlets mis-represented the size of the WTC service cores
by use of a misleading diagram? WTC1,2, and 7 all collapsed
symmetrically at close to the time of freefall; produced a
pyroclastic cloud; showed signs of eutectic reaction; and molten
metal remained in the basements for weeks. Photographic evidence
shows that steel from the towers actually vaporized in mid-air.
Photographic evidence shows metal of all sorts, including
thousands of cars and trucks near the towers, being burned
and/or melted. Sometimes a vehicle is only partially burned, and
the remainder is undamaged, and videos showed an afterglow after
each collapse. How can this be the work of gravity? Why would
the Supreme Court of New York label reports of emergency
responders "opinions" and "recommendations" as untrue, across
the board, and refuse to release this information to the public?
Why was this information redacted from first responders reports,
and this redacted material accepted by the 9/11 Commission? What
are these "opinions" and "recommendations" NY City wants to keep
hidden? Why has the New York Times removed all articles related
to these issues from their archives? Why were the relatives of
16 firefighters identified on the "lost tape required to sign a
statement of non-disclosure before being allowed to hear it? The
so-called lost tape, which recorded the last words of Chief
Orio Palmer on the 78th floor of the South Tower, were
ostensible a secret because they were going to be used in the
Zacarias Moussaoui trial. That trial is over now, so why not let
the public hear the un-redacted audio tape of Chief Palmers
last moments? Who told Former Mayor of New York City Rudolph
Giuiliani that the towers were going to collapse, and how did
they know? Why did the 9/11 Commission not further question
Giuiliani on this? Why is it that a number of European explosive
experts continue to support the possible scenario of explosives
in the towers, while that scenario has been consistently denied
by the official investigations? Why do the official reports by
NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission ignore the possible
significance of the well-documented evidence of large quantities
of molten metal observed in the basement areas of the Twin
Towers and WTC 7? NIST speculated the metal may have been
aluminum from the aircraft, but apparently have done no testing
of recovered slag to verify this. Why? Why do the official
reports by NIST and the 9/11 Commission laud the information
provided by first responders on the state of the buildings, but
ignore oral histories from these same first responders
mentioning the sounds of explosions? The FEMA BPA found evidence
of sulfur, which allowed a eutectic reaction, which resulted
in severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of some WTC steel.
Why did the FEMA BPA consign evidence of this reaction to a
report appendix? Where did the sulfur come from in the reaction?
When did the eutectic reaction occur? Why did NIST not follow
through with the FEMA request for further study? Why has NIST
assumed the most critical aspect of global tower collapse:
Energy of the downward movement of the building mass above the
damaged columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been
absorbed by the lower floors? Why no momentum transfer, or
elasticity analysis to prove that assumption? Was this because
there was no upper block in either the North or South Tower
collapse? The upper floors of both disintegrated prior to, or
during, the collapse of the lower blocks. That the Towers
collapsed due to progressive collapse as described by NIST makes
no sense. The top 15 floors of the North Tower are recorded on
video to have disintegrated prior to the collapse of the
remaining floors. The top 34 floors of the South Tower begin to
topple, so there is no huge mass of material bearing down on the
untoppled floors, so why did the lower floors collapse? The
toppling 34 floors are in virtual free fall; no crushing mass
bearing down on them, so why did these floors disintegrate into
dust? Why, as members of the engineering community state, has
NIST changed its story in explaining the collapses? Why has
NIST resisted calls from the engineering community to simulate
the collapses? www.serendipity.li/WTC.html notes that steel
which is subjected to explosion exhibits a characteristic which
metallurgists call "twinning". Why has this test not been
performed on representative WTC steel and reported upon? Why
have many of the same people headed the study of the Oklahoma
City Murrah building bombing, as well as the FEMA and NIST WTC
collapse studies? Why have many of the same people been
responsible for writing the ASCE, FEMA, and NIST reports? Why
did the engineers who signed off on the NIST report also sign
off on the Silverstein report, even though those two studies
reached contradictory conclusions regarding collapse mechanism?
Remember that in 2006 the Bush administration doubled the budget
of the National Science Foundation to $6.02 billion. Was the NSF
funded Purdue Study a payback? How can there so much uncertainty
about the mechanism of the collapse, but yet such certainty of
the underlying cause of the collapse, i.e., aircraft impact
and fire? NIST was charged with determining how the towers
collapsed, but themselves have admitted that they do not know
how global collapse ensued. Why has this been accepted? 9.0 Fair
Use Notice Sections of this paper may contain copyrighted
material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made
available to promote discussion of important health,
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic,
scientific, and social justice issues. 911 Visibility Project
believes this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material in this presentation is distributed without fee or
payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. 354] |
13.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant
Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti |
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the
NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis Graeme MacQueen Tony Szamboti
April 22, 2009* In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World
Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its
explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. 1]
Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million
expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the
total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely
qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature
of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it
is easy to demonstrate that it is false. In this paper we will,
concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
easy to understand but reasonably precise capable of being
stated briefly verifiable by any reader with average computer
skills and a grasp of simple mathematics. NISTs Hypothesis of
Total Collapse: Three essential elements of NISTs hypothesis of
total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the
companion volumes of the study: 1. Because of damage to stories
93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire,
the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof
were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began
to behave as a unit. 2] 2. This rigid block of 12 stories
plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it
abruptly fell onto the stories beneath it. 3] 3. The fall of
the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that
global collapse began. 4] The rigidity of the upper block of
stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were
to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not
threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it. In addition, the rigid
block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this
seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it.
We hear about the rigid blocks descent. 5] We hear of tilting
and downward movement. 6] We have to look carefully to find
the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the
reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for
the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it,
with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors.
If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath
collapse? Journal of 911 Studies 2 January 2009/Volume 24 There
was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid
or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this
weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283
cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load
capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the
factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to
withstand high windsand gravity loads were essentially the only
loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as
9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor
(excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or
fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If
there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of
the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity,
and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to
increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since
NISTs theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of
events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the
greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and
the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on
the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors,
however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in
favour of the falling of the upper block. 7] Zdenek Bazant and
Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope
theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely
agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell.
8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe
impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the
impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by
seismometers. 9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower
structure required one powerful jolt. 10] Of course, if there
was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have
been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord
with Newtons Third Law. In order to keep a sense of reality as
we discuss NISTs theory it may be useful to label the three
interacting parts of the North Tower, as they are pictured by
NIST, as RB-12+, DS-6 and RB-92. Where RB stands for rigid
block, DS stands for damaged structure, and the numbers
following the letters refer to the number of stories in each
structure. The upper block comprised the 12 stories of 99-110 as
well as the roof structure with antenna and hat truss; the
intermediate area was damaged by plane impact and fire and was
six stories high (93-98 inclusive); and the lower block was
rigid and comprised, in addition to subterranean levels, the
first 92 stories of the building. These designations actually
underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the
latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more
massive per story. It was also stronger: the Towers columns
tapered as they ascended. 11] Yet the fall of RB-12+, we are
supposed to believe, put a catastrophic end to DS-6 and RB-92.
What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the
lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto
the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its
momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to
initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the
ground. The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to
RB-12+ after its impact with the two structures beneath it. Did
it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the
rubble heap on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and
rigidity the whole time--as Bazant argued in 2001 and has
continued to argue? 12] Journal of 911 Studies 3 January
2009/Volume 24 On this the NIST authors are silent. NIST also
does not tell us how far RB-12+ fell before its impact with
intact structure. Did it fall one story (roughly 12 feet), or
several stories? We are left in the dark. Once again Bazant
comes to the rescue. It fell at least one story, he says. 13]
To his credit, Bazant is willing to state the essential elements
of the hypothesis. If this hypothesis is to hold any water at
all there must be substantial impact: RB-12+ has a lot of work
to do, so it had better fall at least one story. As we will
show, for the purposes of the present refutation it does not
matter whether RB-12+ fell one story, six stories, or somewhere
in between. The Necessary Jolt: As Bazant has said, when the top
part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a
powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted
object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a
hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking
a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be
abrupt and dramatic. Although NIST does not explicitly speak,
like Bazant, of a jolt, and may therefore be thought to evade
this papers refutation, it is impossible for NIST to escape the
implications of its own assertions. The NIST report speaks of a
strong, rigid structure (the upper structure or rigid block)
falling freely onto another strong, rigid structure (the intact
part of the building below the damaged area): the jolt cannot be
avoided. 14] This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required
work could not have been done. Testing for Deceleration: If a
jolt occurred there would have been high short-term deceleration
of the upper block. Why not simply check for this deceleration?
It is not difficult. We will: examine a video clip of the
North Towers collapse find a point on the upper block of the
North Tower, the progress of which can be observed and measured
in the early stages of the collapse plot the progress of this
point on a graph check for evidence of deceleration We have
chosen a well known video clip of the collapse associated with
French film maker, Etienne Sauret. 15] The Sauret clip has
advantages over many others. It is a single, continuous sequence
with no changes in camera angle and no zooming in and out. There
is a very slight shift in the camera position relative to
distant objects caused by a trembling of the camera several
seconds prior to the collapse, but this is irrelevant to us
since all our measurements are taken after the shift. The camera
is very steady throughout the time we are making our
measurements, as we can confirm by measuring the position of the
picture frame relative to stationary objects. In addition, the
image of the north face of the North Tower is exceptionally
clear in these images. Journal of 911 Studies 4 January
2009/Volume 24 Here is how we proceed: 16] 1. We save the
Sauret footage to our hard drive. 2. We break the 1 minute,
56.53 second clip into 3497 equal segments or frames. Each
frame is approximately 0.033 seconds in length (33 thousandths
of a second). 3. We find two points associated with the roof of
the upper block of the North Tower whose progress we can
measure. Two points are necessary since neither one is
consistently visible but one of the two is always visible. The
point whose fall we shall use in our computations is at the tip
of a white device on the roof. (The distance between this point
and the upper frame is called Distance A in Figure 1 below.) The
other point is located at the interface of the upper white
section of the roof and the lower dark section. (The distance
between this point and the upper frame is called Distance B in
Figure 1.) The difference between Distance B and Distance A is
approximately 28 pixels. Where the white device on the upper
right-hand corner of the roof is obscured by smoke, measurements
of the roof interface have been taken and the position of the
device has been obtained by subtracting 28. 4. We choose a set
of frames that stretches from Frame 929, before the discernible
beginning of the roofs fall, to the last frame in which our
point can be recognized before it disappears into the dust
cloud, Frame 1024. 5. We measure the number of pixels separating
the white device from the fixed upper edge of the video frame,
computing the position of the device when necessary by measuring
the position of the roof interface. We take one measurement at
each five frames in the progress of the Towers collapse, ending
up with 20 points. 6. Our measurement stretches from 30.93
seconds into the clip to 34.1 seconds into the clip, giving us a
total interval of 3.17 seconds. 7. We find that during this
interval the white device on the roof has fallen a distance
represented by 130 pixels. 8. In order to get an approximation
of the real distances at issue; we find a known vertical
distance on the north face of the North Tower. (The Towers
proportions have been distorted as it has been rendered into
frame-by-frame format. See Appendix A for a description of our
method of determining the known vertical distance and the ratio
of pixels to feet.) We discover that in our frame-by-frame
version of the Sauret video 1 pixel = 0.88 feet. We now know
that the point on the roof has fallen approximately 114.4 feet.
The figure is not precise--there are the effects of
foreshortening to consider (the roof and device are higher than
the camera and the upper block, as it moves downward, tilts away
from us)--but the figures are close enough for our purpose
because we are looking for changes in acceleration over time,
not exact velocity values. Figure 1: Sauret Video:
Representative Frame with Key Points for Measuring the Roofs
Fall DistanceADistance B 9. We know that d = ½ Χ g Χ t2 where d
stands for distance, g stands for acceleration due to gravity,
which is 32.174 ft./s2 at sea level, and t stands for time.
Using this formula, we discover that a freely falling object
would travel 161.6 feet in the time it took the roof to drop
114.4 feet. 10. We create two graphs. In the first the roofs
descent is given in pixels. In the second the roofs fall is
given in feet. Journal of 911 Studies 5 January 2009/Volume 24
Figure 2: The Roof Fall: Pixels Roof Fall in
Pixels02040608010012014000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Pixels Data:
Frame from clip start Distance of device (pixels) Distance of
inter-face (pixels) Distance of device (pixels) adjusted to 0
Distance of device (feet) adjusted to 0 (1 pixel = 0.88 ft.)
Time (seconds) from clip start Time (seconds) adjusted to 0 929
109 0 0.00 30.93 0.0000 934 110 1 0.88 31.10 0.167 939 111 2
1.76 31.27 0.334 944 113 4 3.52 31.43 0.500 949 115 6 5.28 31.60
0.667 954 118 9 7.92 31.76 0.834 959 122 13 11.44 31.93 1.000
964 126 17 14.96 32.10 1.167 969 132 23 20.24 32.27 1.334 974
138 29 25.52 32.43 1.500 979 146 37 32.56 32.60 1.667 984 (153)
181 44 38.72 32.76 1.834 989 (161) 189 52 45.76 32.93 2.000 994
(170) 198 61 53.68 33.10 2.167 999 (180) 208 71 62.48 33.27
2.334 1004 (190) 218 81 71.28 33.43 2.500 1009 (201) 229 92
80.96 33.60 2.667 1014 (213) 241 104 91.52 33.76 2.834 1019
(226) 254 117 102.96 33.93 3.000 1024 (239) 267 130 114.40 34.10
3.167 Journal of 911 Studies 6 January 2009/Volume 24 Figure 3:
The Roof Fall: Distance Roof Fall
Distance02040608010012014000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Distance
(feet) Data: Time (sec.) Roof Fall Distance (ft.) 0.000 0.00
0.167 0.88 0.334 1.76 0.500 3.52 0.667 5.28 0.834 7.92 1.000
11.44 1.167 14.96 1.334 20.24 1.500 25.52 1.667 32.56 1.834
38.72 2.000 45.76 2.167 53.68 2.334 62.48 2.500 71.28 2.667
80.96 2.834 91.52 3.000 102.96 3.167 114.40 Journal of 911
Studies 7 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 8
January 2009/Volume 24 Knowing the distance the roof fell, in
equal time intervals, from our measurements, we can now
determine its actual velocity, at each measured point through
its fall, using symmetric differencing. The equation is Vn =
(Dn+1 - Dn-1) / (Tn+1 Tn-1) where V = velocity D = distance T
= time n = point in question Data: Time (sec) Roof Fall Distance
(ft.) Velocity (ft./sec) 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.1667 0.88 5.28
0.3334 1.76 7.92 0.5000 3.52 10.56 0.6667 5.28 13.20 0.8334 7.92
18.48 1.0000 11.44 21.12 1.1667 14.96 26.39 1.3334 20.24 31.68
1.5000 25.52 36.96 1.6667 32.56 39.59 1.8334 38.72 39.60 2.0000
45.76 44.88 2.1667 53.68 50.15 2.3334 62.48 52.81 2.5000 71.28
55.45 2.6667 80.96 60.71 2.8334 91.52 66.01 3.0000 102.96 68.65
It may be noticed that the last point measured at 3.167 seconds
is left off of the data table above and the velocity graph
below. The reason for this is that each point the velocity is
found for needs to have a point ahead of it as well as behind
it, so this method cannot calculate the velocity for the last
point measured. As it is known that the measurements were taken
every five frames with a 30 frame per second video, the actual
time can be resolved fairly precisely. The use of four places
for time increments, of 0.1667 seconds between measurements, in
the velocity calculation above, is done for accuracy. Below is a
graph of the actual velocity of the roof at each measurement
point over the same time frame in which the distance was
measured. Figure 4: The Roof Velocity y = 22.81xR2 =
0.99610102030405060708000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Velocity
(ft./sec) Regression analysis (least squares curve fit) The
velocity of the roof increases in a relatively linear way and is
68.65 ft./s after 3.00 seconds, which is about 71% of the free
fall velocity of 96.52 ft./s for this fall time. At the actual
measured distances and calculated velocities, the initial fall
through one story would have taken place in approximately 1.0
second. If the upper block, RB-12+, were rigid, as Bazant and
NIST claim, the powerful jolt, required by Bazant to generate an
impulsive load and explain the collapses of the Twin Towers,
would show itself as an abrupt negative deviation in the
otherwise positively sloped and virtually linear velocity graph.
For readers unfamiliar with the concept of an impulsive load,
the impulse-momentum change equation is shown below and
essentially shows that the change in momentum with respect to
time provides the force involved in a collision.
matvmtvmvmForceffii=ΔΔ=Δ−= As stated earlier, it is only the
velocity that changes with respect to the duration of the
impulse, as the mass of an object is constant at all times
everywhere in the universe. A change in velocity with respect to
time is defined as either an acceleration or deceleration,
depending on whether it is positive or negative. This
acceleration or deceleration is then multiplied by the mass of
the impacting object and provides the force involved in the
collision, so the impulse equation ultimately reduces to the
well known relation F = ma. Journal of 911 Studies 9 January
2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 10 January 2009/Volume 24
It is useful to refer to accelerations and decelerations in
terms of the acceleration due to gravity, which is defined as
1g. The static weight of any item on earth is measured as the
force due to the mass of the item multiplied by the acceleration
of earths gravitational pull or 1g. An acceleration or
deceleration of 1g is equal to 32.174 ft./s2, so if the
deceleration of an impacting object during a collision is
greater than this then the weight or force applied by the
impacting object is amplified. To find the number of gs
involved one merely needs to divide the actual deceleration by
32.174 ft./s2. Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification
of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the upper stories,
could have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower
blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. 17] With
the 98th story columns completely collapsing, a distance between
floor slabs of approximately 11.44 feet, and the actual measured
velocity of 22.81 ft./s of the upper block at this point, the
first collision would have occurred approximately one second
into the fall. Regardless of the actual amplification, any
impulse at the impact zone between the 98th and 99th story floor
slabs capable of causing collapse continuation would have had to
cause the columns on at least the first stories on either side
of the impact to deform elastically, and plastically, and then
to buckle. The deformations and buckling of the columns of the
impacting stories, on both the lower and upper blocks, would
cause a kinetic energy drain, which would reduce the velocity of
the rigidly attached falling mass above them. Using energy
methods we have calculated what effect these energy drains would
have on the velocity of the upper block. Since the upper block
would pick up the mass of the 98th floor in the impact there
would also be a conservation of momentum component to the
velocity reduction. From Appendices D and E we find the reduced
velocity (Vreduced) of the upper block, after impact,
considering the three energy drains and conservation of
momentum, and it is Vreduced = 22.81 ft./s (15.63 ft./s + 1.75
ft./s) = 22.81 ft./s 17.38 ft./s = 5.43 ft./s Since the roof
was part of the rigid upper block it would have displayed this
momentary abrupt change in its velocity, from 22.81 ft./s to
5.43 ft./s, if the collapse were a natural occurrence. It should
also be noted that the energy losses and conservation of
momentum we have calculated and used here, to determine the
velocity loss, are a minimum. We do not consider energy losses
due to vibration of the building, heat, and sound, during the
initiating impulse, all of which would have required energy from
the impulse to produce and thus have an additional effect on
velocity loss. The intent here is only to show that, even with a
quantifiable minimum energy loss and conservation of momentum,
the velocity loss would be quite dramatic, and should have been
readily observed if an impulse capable of causing collapse had
indeed occurred. The graph below shows what the upper block
velocity change would look like if a 31g impulse had occurred
one story into the fall, with its velocity at least momentarily
reduced in a significant way after impact. Figure 5: Roof
Velocity Curve with a hypothetical 31g deceleration Journal of
911 Studies 11 January 2009/Volume 24 The fact that a 31g
impulse requires a deceleration of 997.4 ft./s2 is unassailable,
and it does not matter whether the collision is elastic or
inelastic. With a velocity reduction of 17.38 ft./s and a 997.4
ft./s2 deceleration, the duration of this impulse would have
been 17 milliseconds. This rapid deceleration associated with
the 31g impulse would necessarily show itself as an abrupt
negative slope change in the velocity curve. We have shown the
curve starting upward again after the impact, on the generous
assumption that the impacting object (the upper block) is now
free to accelerate. We have also only charted what the effect on
the velocity would have been for an initiating impulse between
the first two floors to collide. The measurements of the roofs
actual fall do not show any abrupt negative change in velocity,
so it appears that there was no impulse and thus no amplified
load. It seems that Dr. Bazant was simply theorizing that there
had to be one to make sense of the collapse in a natural way. It
is also important to note here that Dr. Bazant was off by a
factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the
columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. 8] The actual stiffness,
calculated here using the actual column cross sections, is
approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C) 19] 20] This
error caused Dr. Bazant to significantly overestimate the
potential amplifying effect of the impulse or jolt, which he
claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block. In an
effort to refute the argument put forth in this paper, some may
claim that plastic deformation of the lower stories of the upper
block could have created a crush wave below the upper block and
kept the roof from experiencing a discernable impulse. If that
were true then the impulse durations would have increased
dramatically, absorbing the energy over a longer period of time
and eliminating any significant amplification of the upper
blocks weight. But without the amplification of the upper
blocks weight why would the lower block have collapsed? There
are those who might argue that the tilt of the upper block to
the south could have kept an Actual measured velocity 31g
impulse with abrupt negative slope and velocity loss Pre-impact
velocity recovery 700 msec impulse from being discernablethat
there may have been impulses on the south face or further inside
the Tower, in the central core, that were not visible on the
north face. Impulses at these locations could not have caused
the collapse of the north face of the Tower and its corner
columns in the observed vertical manner. The corner columns of
the east and west faces, in conjunction with the columns of the
north face, formed a structural channel (a stiff structural
element with support in two orthogonal directions) and, barring
planned demolition, would have collapsed as observed only if
they were struck impulsively, in a vertical manner by the upper
block. In reality, the upper block could not have tolerated the
potential 31g impulse theorized by Dr. Bazant. To get this
overload he claims was possible, all of the mass of the upper
block would have had to participate, and if it did so it would
have come apart completely. Perhaps the impulse was of a lower
value but still high enough to cause an overload of the lower
structure and bring about global collapse? Consider a velocity
graph with a 6g deceleration, very likely the minimum load
amplification necessary to overcome the reserve capacity of the
perimeter columns, which had a minimum factor of safety of 5.00
to 1. Figure 6: Roof Velocity Curve with a hypothetical 6g
deceleration 0102030405060708000.511.522.533.5Time (sec)Velocity
(ft./sec) 6g impulse with abrupt negative slope and velocity
loss Pre-impact velocity recovery 800 msec Actual measured
velocity A 6g impulse requires a deceleration of 193 ft./s2.
With a velocity reduction of 17.38 ft./s and a 193 ft./s2
deceleration, the duration of this impulse would have been 90
milliseconds. As the graph shows, there would still be a quite
obvious abrupt negative slope change, which is not seen in the
velocity curve determined from the measured data. The
measurements were taken every five frames, or 167 milliseconds
apart. The recovery to the pre-impact velocity is shown to occur
in the dashed graphs in the approximate times of 700
milliseconds for the 31g case and 800 milliseconds for the 6g
case. In both cases there are four data points taken well within
this recovery window, so it is apparent that a negative change
in the velocity of the roof would have been captured if an
impulse had indeed occurred. Journal of 911 Studies 12 January
2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 13 January 2009/Volume 24
Findings: As the figures and graphs above clearly show, any
impulsive load would have required a high deceleration, which
would have shown itself very prominently in the velocity curve
derived from the measured data. The fact that no such negative
change exists in the roofs actual velocity curve reveals that
no major interruption or significant abrupt deceleration, and
therefore no amplified load, could have occurred during the fall
of the upper block. How can this be? If RB-12+ fell with a jolt
on the rest of the building after a 12 foot drop (one story),
the deceleration, as shown above, would have revealed itself
clearly, and if RB-12+ fell more than one story, the
deceleration would have been even more dramatic. If RB-12+ fell
72 feetall the way through the six damaged storieswe would see
powerful evidence of a jolt during the measured 114.4 foot fall
of the roof. It would be dramatic precisely because the velocity
and therefore the momentum would be high, and any change more
discernable. But there is no evidence of major impact and
deceleration either early or late. In the main, these findings
confirm the earlier research of Dr. Frank Legge. 18] In 2006
Legge, using a different video clip and measurement technique,
carried out detailed measurements of the fall of the roof of the
North Tower and calculated its acceleration rate. Although his
purposes were different from ours, he discovered similarly
smooth curves. There is no more trace of deceleration in his
graphs than in ours. What happened to RB-12+ during its fall? It
would appear, based on the Sauret video and other video
recordings of the event, that a substantial portion of the
bottom of RB-12+, along with DS-6, was violently destroyed
amidst clouds of ejected matter at the same time the top portion
of RB-12+, containing the rooftop, was falling. Since the clouds
of matter in the videos obscure many details of the event, it is
easy to see why someone might try to make the case that the fall
of the upper portion of the rigid block was accompanied by a
fall of its lower portion. But we do not see a fall of its lower
portion: we simply see violent destruction in the vicinity of
the lower portion and fall of the upper portion. To repeat: if
RB-12+ had fallen as a rigid block, there would be impact, and
the impact would have caused abrupt interference with the fall
of its upper part, including the roof. No such interruption has
occurred, and therefore no such impact has taken place.
Evidently, the violent destruction that occurred--presumably
through planted explosives or other means of
demolition--effectively destroyed the structural integrity of
the lower part of the upper block as well as DS-6, permitting
the upper block to fall at speed while meeting minimal
resistance and experiencing neither major impact nor abrupt
deceleration. Conclusions: We have tracked the fall of the roof
of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories)
and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden
impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there
could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an
amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of
the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire.
The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST
report has not withstood scrutiny. Journal of 911 Studies 14
January 2009/Volume 24 NOTES Thanks are offered to members of
the discussion forum of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice,
especially to Alfons, who initiated the discussion and provided
a number of interesting ideas. Thanks are also due to Zoran
Bilanovic for a critical reading of the paper and to Paul Bouvet
for early software advice. Crucial software assistance was
obtained from Joe Terrien, who gave freely of his time and
expertise. We are enormously grateful to Civil Engineering
Professor Robert Korol for help with the calculations in the
appendices. All measurements, calculations, and conclusions are
the sole responsibility of the authors. 1. NIST NCSTAR 1.
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World
Trade Center Disaster. Final Report on the Collapse of the World
Trade Center Towers. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
2. There is some ambiguity in the NIST study on which stories
are included in the upper rigid block, but the analysis given in
this paper appears to represent NISTs best estimate. See, e.g.,
NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 150-151. 3. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 151. 4. NIST
NCSTAR 1, p. 151. 5. NIST NCSTAR 1, p. xxxviii. 6. NIST NCSTAR
1, p.151. 7. NIST NCSTAR 1, 145 (the falling building
section); 146 (the falling building mass, the falling
mass). See also the companion volume: NIST NCSTAR 1-6. Federal
Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center
Disaster. Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse
Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September
2005, p. liv (the building section began to fall downward) and
p. 156 (the building section began to fall vertically).
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm 8. Bazant, Zdenek
and Yong Zhou, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Simple
Analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 128, no. 1
(Jan. 2002), p. 2-6 See also the Addendum to this article in the
same journal, vol. 128, no. 3 (March 2002), p. 369-370. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
Note: when we refer in the article to Bazant, we include his
co-authors. For NISTs reference to the Bazant paper, see NIST
NCSTAR 1-6, p. 323. Journal of 911 Studies 15 January
2009/Volume 24 9. Bazant, Zdenek and Jie-Liang Le, Frank
Greening, David Benson, Collapse of the World Trade Center
Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It? Structural Engineering
Report No. 07-05/C605c. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Northwestern University. May 27, 2007. Revised
December 15, 2007. p. 11. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf
Jim Hoffman challenged Bazants claim some time ago in his
article Seismic Records of the Twin Towers Destruction:
Clarifying the Relationship Between Seismic Evidence and
Controlled Demolition Theories. Version 0.9, Oct. 31, 2006.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html#evidence_of
10. Addendum, Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 369. 11. See Gregory
Urich, Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade
Center Tower 1. Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18 (Dec. 2007).
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also NIST NCSTAR 1-1.
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World
Trade Center Disaster. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of
Structural and Life Safety Systems. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, September
2005. http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm 12. Bazant and
Zhou, 2002; Bazant et al, 2007. 13. Bazant et al, 2007, p. 1.
14. The following four points commit NIST to impact and jolt:
(a) NIST speaks of the core of the building as consisting of
three sections, which correspond closely to the sections we have
spoken of when discussing the building as a whole: At this
point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three
sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors
that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally
undamaged and at almost normal temperatures. There was a top
section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy,
rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially
damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. (NIST
NCSTAR 1, p. 79) (b) The section of the building above the
damage zone NIST calls a rigid block. This rigid block first
manifests its independent movement when it tilts to the south.
(The section of the building above the impact zone (near the
98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted
NIST NCSTAR 1, p.
201.) NIST also refers to this rigid block with terms such as
upper section, building section above the impact zone,
building mass, upper building section and structural
block. See NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 83, 195, 196, 201 Journal of 911
Studies 16 January 2009/Volume 24 (c) NIST acknowledges that
this rigid block then falls. NIST says that the building
section began to fall downward, the building section began to
fall vertically. Indeed, we are told that this falling rigid
block goes through all or part of the damaged area essentially
in free fall. (Since the stories below the level of collapse
initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy
released by the falling building mass, the building section
above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.)
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238; NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. (d)
After falling through all or part of the damaged area of the
tower, the rigid block or falling building mass encounters
intact structure. (The potential energy released by the
downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the
capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through
energy of deformation.) See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. This intact
structure, has, of course, already been referred to as
including the core of the building, described as a strong,
rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal
temperatures. 15. A version of the Sauret video clip can be
found at: https://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo For our
purposes we have used the footage from Etienne Saurets film,
WTC: the first 24 hours. 16. Readers wanting to get a rough
approximation of the measurements in this paper without expense
may acquire from the internet the software, Vdownloader: http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/VDownloader-Download-51327.html
Once the on-line version of the Sauret video clip (see note 15)
is downloaded it can be broken into 0.033 second frames using
VirtualDub: http://www.virtualdub.org/ A pixel measurement
device (several are available free or for a minimal charge on
the Internet) can be used for measurements. For our paper we
found we were able to get more accurate measurements by ripping
the Sauret video (from the DVD) using DVD Decrypter. Then the
raw video files were converted to mpeg2 using Xilisoft Video
Converter 3.The converted files were then imported into Adobe
Premiere Pro CS3. The timestamp was added and the entire segment
was exported as a still frame sequence in .gif format. For pixel
measurements, we used Screen Calipers: http://iconico.com/caliper/
17. Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 3. 18. Frank Legge, 9/11-Evidence
for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations.
Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol.1 (June 2006).
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf
Journal of 911 Studies 17 January 2009/Volume 24 19. The cross
sectional areas of the central core columns on each story were
released by NIST in 2007 and are publicly available. This
information can be found at http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
20. The exterior column cross sectional area for each story was
determined using the WTC1 mass analysis cited in reference 11],
which gives the total mass of the columns on each story. Knowing
the length of the columns and the density of steel, the area
could be determined. 21. See Section 2.6 on pages 5 through 7 of
the below link for an explanation of column cross section
classifications for resistance to local buckling. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/civeng/H23S07/Design%20of%20SHS.pdf
* This paper has been revised to use symmetric differencing to
calculate instantaneous velocity. The initial method used the
equations of motion to calculate velocity, which are only valid
with constant acceleration, causing smoothing of the data and
inflation of the pre-impact velocity. Since the energy
requirements do not change, the actual lower pre-impact velocity
results in a larger percentage of kinetic energy drained at
impact with a correspondingly more dramatic change in velocity.
An arithmetic error in the velocity reduction calculation on
page 26 was also corrected. AUTHORS Graeme MacQueen received his
Ph.D. in Asian religion and literature from Harvard University.
Now retired, he taught at McMaster University in Canada for
almost thirty years. He was founding Director of McMasters
Centre for Peace Studies and directed peace-building projects in
several war zones, including Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. He is a
member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. Tony Szamboti
received his Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering from
Villanova University. Prior to that he worked as a machinist and
tool engineer in industry, and as an aircraft mechanic in the
U.S. Navy. Since 1990 he has worked as a design engineer in
industry, performing structural and thermal design, analysis,
and testing to ensure survivability of antennas and equipment
for use on ships, aircraft, spacecraft, and communication
towers. He is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Journal of 911 Studies 18
January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX A DETERMINING THE PIXEL-FOOT
RATIO FOR THE SAURET VIDEO 1. In order to correct any possible
vertical distortion of the image of the North Tower that might
affect our measurements (such distortions are common), we
decided to find a vertical distance on the north face of the
Tower that can be measured accurately in pixels. We took a
measurement from a horizontal line of damage caused by the plane
to a line on the roof of the NT, where the upper white part of
the roof meets a darker, lower part of the building. 2. We then
chose five excellent still photos of the North Tower. The
perspective from which they were taken seemed unlikely to create
severe foreshortening effects. These photographs are from the
NIST report (NIST NCSTAR 1.5A, Chapter 8), and are grouped
conveniently on the forensic website WTC Demolition Analysis
found at: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=20&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=909
The photographs were taken at different times and by several
different photographers, and they are reproduced below with
added red arrows showing the two distances measured. Our aim was
to measure, in pixels, the horizontal distance x and then the
vertical distance y so that we could work out the ratio of x to
y. If consistency could be found, we could be confident that we
had the correct ratio. Then, knowing the value of x (the width
of the tower) in feet, we could determine the value, in feet, of
y. 3. Here are the measurements made for the original five
photos, marked A, B, C, D, and E. (Note that the measurements
will be different on the photos as reproduced below, but the
proportions will remain constant.) Photo x y x:y ratio A 231
pixels 211 pixels 1: .91 B 373 pixels 340 pixels 1: .91 C 379
pixels 354 pixels 1: .93 D 373 pixels 343 pixels 1: .92 E 327
pixels 302 pixels 1: .92 4. There is little variation in the
figures found for the ratio of x: y. The average is 1:92, which
corresponds to the ratio in what is arguably the photograph with
the least apparent distortion from foreshortening, photo D, 5.
Various figures, from 207 to 210 feet, have been suggested for
the external width of the Towers. We chose 210 feet as our best
estimate. The figure is from NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 5. See also
Gregory Urich, Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of
World Trade Center Tower 1 (Journal of 9/11 Studies), p. 8.
Bear in mind that the perimeter columns were covered in
insulation and aluminum cladding, which added to their external
dimensions. 6. This means that the value of the vertical
distance measured (y) is 210 x .92 = 193.2 feet. 7. Measuring y
in our frame-by-frame version of the Sauret video we found it to
be 220 pixels. The ratio of pixels to feet for vertical
measurements in this version of the Sauret video is: 1 pixel =
0.88 feet. A Journal of 911 Studies 19 January 2009/Volume 24 B
C Journal of 911 Studies 20 January 2009/Volume 24 DE Journal of
911 Studies 21 January 2009/Volume 24 Journal of 911 Studies 22
January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX B CORE AND PERIMETER COLUMN
CROSS SECTIONS ON THE 97TH STORY CORE COLUMNS 97TH story Yield
Flange Flange Web Web Cross sectional strength width thickness
height thickness area Column No. Designation (ksi) (in.) (in.)
(in.) (in.) (in.2) 501 14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875
124.942 502 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 503
14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 504 14WF246F36 36
16.945 1.813 12.624 1.125 75.645 505 14WF219F36 36 15.825 1.623
12.624 1.005 64.055 506 14WF287F42 42 16.13 2.093 12.624 1.31
84.058 507 14WF264F42 42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 508
14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 601 12WF106F42
42 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62 30.881 602 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128
12.624 0.695 43.776 603 14WF158F36 36 15.55 1.188 12.624 0.73
46.162 604 12WF106F36 36 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62 30.881 605
12WF120F36 36 12.32 1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 606 14WF150F36 36
15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695 43.776 607 14WF142F36 36 15.5 1.063
12.624 0.68 41.537 608 12WF106F36 36 12.23 0.986 10.908 0.62
30.881 701 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486 10.908 0.905 47.066 702
14WF176F36 36 15.64 1.313 12.624 0.82 51.422 703 14WF103F36 36
14.575 0.813 12.624 0.495 29.948 704 14WF53F50 50 8.062 0.658
12.624 0.37 15.280 705 14WF43F45 45 8 0.528 12.624 0.308 12.336
706 14WF111F36 36 14.62 0.873 12.624 0.54 32.343 707 14WF167F36
36 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78 48.784 708 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486
10.908 0.905 47.066 801 12WF161F42 42 12.515 1.486 10.908 0.905
47.066 802 14WF176F36 36 15.64 1.313 12.624 0.82 51.422 803
12WF133F42 42 12.365 1.238 10.908 0.756 38.862 804 12WF79F36 36
12.08 0.736 10.908 0.47 22.909 805 14WF111F42 42 14.62 0.873
12.624 0.54 32.343 806 14WF167F36 36 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78
48.784 807 14WF167F42 42 15.6 1.248 12.624 0.78 48.784 Journal
of 911 Studies 23 January 2009/Volume 24 901 12WF120F36 36 12.32
1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 902 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624
0.695 43.776 903 14WF193F36 36 15.71 1.438 12.624 0.89 56.417
904 12WF92F36 36 12.155 0.856 10.908 0.645 27.845 905 12WF99F36
36 12.19 0.921 10.908 0.56 28.562 906 14WF142F36 36 15.5 1.063
12.624 0.68 41.537 907 14WF150F36 36 15.515 1.128 12.624 0.695
43.776 908 12WF120F36 36 12.32 1.108 10.908 0.71 35.046 1001
14WF426F42 42 16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 1002 14WF264F42
42 16.025 1.938 12.624 1.205 77.325 1003 14WF342F36 36 16.365
2.468 12.624 1.545 100.282 1004 14WF219F36 36 15.825 1.623
12.624 1.005 64.055 1005 14WF202F36 36 15.75 1.503 12.624 0.93
59.085 1006 14WF314F42 42 16.235 2.283 12.624 1.415 91.992 1007
14WF287F36 36 16.13 2.093 12.624 1.31 84.058 1008 14WF426F42 42
16.695 3.033 12.624 1.875 124.942 Total area (in.2) = 2,621.657
PERIMETER COLUMNS The perimeter columns were uniform in cross
section on a given floor. While their exact cross sections have
not been made publicly available they are discernable due to
their height, number, material density, and total weight per
floor being known. The NIST NCSTAR 1-3D report states that As
the elevation in the building increased, the thickness of the
plates in the columns decreased, but the plates were always at
least 0.25 thick. The height of a floor of perimeter columns in
WTC 1 can be calculated by dividing the building height of 1,368
feet by 110 stories to get a height of 12.44 feet or 149.24
inches per story. The weight of the 236 perimeter columns at the
97th story was approximately 78.71 tons or 157,420 lbs..
Dividing the weight by the 0.283 lbs./in.3 density of steel and
the number of columns gives a volume for each column of 2,357
in.3. Dividing this volume by the 149.24 inch height of each
floor gives a cross sectional area for each column of 15.79
in.2. With 236 columns this gives a total cross sectional area
for the perimeter columns at the 97th story of 3,726 in.3. As
the perimeter columns can be approximated as 14 inch square
columns, the wall thickness can be estimated. For the 97th story
it would be approximately 0.289 inches. This comports well with
the NIST statement that the plate thickness was never less than
0.25 inches thick, and since the 97th story was 13 floors down
from the top of the building it appears reasonable. Journal of
911 Studies 24 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX C CALCULATION OF
THE AXIAL STIFFNESS OF THE COLUMNS FROM THE 97TH STORY DOWN TO
GROUND LEVEL IN THE TOWERS The axial stiffness of a structural
column can be determined knowing the modulus of elasticity of
its material, the cross sectional area, and the length of the
column, with the equation K = AE/L. The problem for determining
this for the tower columns below the 97th story is that the
cross sectional areas change with elevation. One way to estimate
the cross section is to use a median, which we will do here
using the cross sectional area of the columns at the 55th story
since it is the midpoint in the tower above ground level. The
core column cross sectional area at the 55th story was 8,777
in.2 and the perimeter column cross sectional area 10,784 in.2
giving a total column cross sectional area of 19,561 in.2 at the
55th floor. Steel was used for all of the columns and the
modulus of elasticity of steel is 30 x 106 psi. The length of
the columns from the 97th story down to ground level was 149.24
inches per story multiplied by 97 stories, giving a length of
14,476 inches. Using K = AE/L = (19,561 in.2)(30 x 106
psi)/14,476 inches, the stiffness is found to be 40,538,132
lb./in. or 7.1 GN/m. While one could make the case that the
stiffness used should have been that from the 97th story down to
the foundation, and considering the six sub-levels, the
stiffness in that case would be nearly the same. The median
floor in that case would be the 52nd story and the columns on
that floor were only slightly larger in cross section than those
on the 55th, which would be offset in the calculation by the
additional length of the six sub-level floors. Journal of 911
Studies 25 January 2009/Volume 24 APPENDIX D CALCULATION OF
VELOCITY CHANGES DUE TO ENERGY DRAINS DURING THE COLLISION OF
THE UPPER AND LOWER BLOCKS It is assumed that there are 3 parts
to the energy dissipation from the collision for a given story.
These are: 1) Uniform elastic spring action compression in the
core and perimeter columns. 2) Compressive plastic yielding of
core and perimeter columns in columns of the 97th and 99th
stories. 3) Plastic hinging action (buckling) of all columns, in
the two stories. 1) Calculations show that an average spring
constant for the tower columns is 40,500 kips/in or 7.1 GN/m,
i.e. if the columns were of uniform cross section over the 110
stories of the building, and using values found at mid-height
for the 55th story. If the cross sections were uniform the tops
of the columns of the 97th story would axially compress
elastically 19.84 in. However, the column sections are not
uniform, since the cross sections get smaller with increasing
height, as one would expect with decreasing load. Thus the 97
stories of columns can only be shown to compress elastically the
amount consistent with the least cross sectional area, i.e.
those of the 97th story. To calculate the maximum resistance
offered by the core and perimeter columns in the 97th story we
need to take into account the fact that some columns are very
stocky while some have thin elements that will buckle locally
before they yield. All 47 core columns plus 236 perimeter
columns are categorized into classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 (with 4 being
the thinnest-walled and 1 being the sturdiest), where class 4
columns do not reach yield before local buckling occurs. 21]
Approximately half of the core columns were 36 ksi yield
strength with the remaining half at 42 ksi or above, resulting
in an average yield strength of approximately 40 ksi. 14 of the
core columns are class 4 and we conservatively use 50% yield
resistance before buckling for these columns. With the remaining
33 columns being given 40 ksi credit, we get a total core column
load resistance of 94,900 kips. The 236 perimeter columns at the
97th story are considered class 4, but all have a yield strength
of 65 ksi. Using the 1/2 factor and multiplying by the total
area of perimeter columns we get 121,600 kips. The total
sustainable load, before plastic deformation occurs, for the
97th story columns = 216,500 kips. As expected, the columns of
the 55th story have a significantly larger overall cross section
and their sustainable load, before plastic deformation occurs,
is 821,600 kips. The elastic displacement of the tops of the
97th story columns can then be found using the ratio of
(216.5/821.6) times 19.84 inches = 5.22 inches. Using the
equation E = ½Kx2, the elastic energy absorbed by axial
deformation of the columns can be calculated using the figures
above as ½ (40,500 kips/in.)(5.22 in.) 2 = 552,000 in-k. (Note:
in-k is an accepted abbreviation for in-kip). 2) The 216,500 kip
elastic strain limit value, that was used to calculate the
elastic axial strain energy above, is also used to calculate the
plastic axial strain energy. When the columns as a group reach
their elastic limit, many will be able to sustain the value of A
x Fy, i.e. cross sectional area times the yield stress. The
thinner walled columns will not. A 3% axial strain limit is
commonly assumed for class 1 sections, and lesser proportional
amounts for classes 2, 3 and 4. Taking an average between 3 and
zero (zero for class 4 since they will buckle locally before
reaching yield), we get 1.5% strain. The shortening of a column
in a given Journal of 911 Studies 26 January 2009/Volume 24
story will thus be the height of the column of 149 inches times
0.015 = 2.24 inches. It follows that the axial plastic energy is
216,500 kips x 2.24 inches = 485,000 in-k. 3) After the 2.24
inch plastic strain occurs, rather than continuing to squash
like a pancake, the columns will deform by forming plastic
hinges at the top, bottom and at mid-height within the story and
then buckle. The energy dissipation here is calculated in the
same manner used in the Bazant model, in which the total
rotations summed at the three locations = 2 pi. There will be
fully plastic moments for the stockier sections that can
maintain Mp for several degrees of rotation before the bending
capacity diminishes. For the less stocky columns (classes 2 and
3) Mp is initially reached and then degradation sets in. For the
class 4 thin-walled columns, Mp is never reached, but a value of
0.5 Mp is likely. Finally, a scissors shape will occur in all
columns of the 97th story with the 98th floor squashing the
space between it and the 97th floor slab with a corresponding
energy drain of 2,103,000 in-k. Adding these up, a total energy
drain of 552,000 + 485,000 + 2,103,000 = 3,140,000 in-k is
realized. However, this is only a part of the energy drain that
needs to be considered. Since the lower columns of the upper
block would be subject to equal but opposite forces, these
columns would also be expected to suffer axial elastic and
plastic deformation and buckling. The forces applied to the
upper block will, in fact, be exerted on the columns of the 99th
story, at the bottom of the upper block. With the forces being
equal and opposite, the total damage to the structure of the
upper block, if calculated, would show an equivalent total
energy drain to that occurring in the structure of the lower
block. However, here we are only quantifying the energy required
to deform and buckle the columns on the 99th story, as we did
for only the columns on the 97th story of the lower block. Since
the 99th story columns had 93% of the size of the columns on the
97th story, they result in 93% of the energy drain found for the
columns on the 97th story, with the difference being accounted
for by stress wave propagation to points further up in the upper
block structure. The total amount of energy dissipation for the
columns on both the 97th and 99th stories is thus 1.93 times
that for the 97th story and it calculates as 1.93 x 3,140,000
in-k = 6,060,000 in-k. As shown earlier, the weight of the upper
12 stories plus the roof had a value of 69,303 kips and the
velocity determined by the regression analysis, at 1 second into
the collapse and just prior to impact, is V1 = 22.81 ft./s. The
kinetic energy of the upper 12 stories plus the roof, dropping a
height of 11.44 feet to the 98th floor slab below, can be found
using the equation ½MV12, while also dividing the weight by the
acceleration due to gravity to get mass. A value of 6,725,860
in-k is found for the kinetic energy of the upper block, at the
time of impact of the 99th and 98th story floor slabs. The after
impact velocity V2 can be found by subtracting the dissipated
energy from the kinetic energy just prior to impact and solving
the equation below for velocity. 6,725,860 in-k - 6,060,000 in-k
= ½MV22 The value of V2 is 7.18 ft./s, reflecting a velocity
reduction of 15.63 ft./s due to the three calculated energy
drains of axial elastic deformation, axial plastic deformation,
and plastic hinge buckling of the columns on the 97th and 99th
stories. Journal of 911 Studies 27 January 2009/Volume 24
APPENDIX E CALCULATION OF VELOCITY REDUCTION DUE TO CONSERVATION
OF MOMENTUM The upper block consists of the 99th through 110th
stories plus the roof with an approximate weight of 69,303 kips,
the mass of which we will designate as M ( = 2,152 k-slugs). The
measured velocity of the upper block, when it contacts the floor
slab of the 98th story, was 22.81 ft./s (based on a height
between floor slabs of h = 11.44 feet), which we will designate
here as V1. If the masses of the 98th story columns and floor
slab are added to the original mass of the falling upper block,
the new mass becomes 13/12M. A velocity drop will occur due to
conservation of momentum and can be found using the equation M x
V1 = 13/12M x V1′ As mass drops out of the equation we are left
with 12/13V1 = V1′ Knowing V1 from the actual measurements and
solving we find the new velocity V1′ = 21.06 ft./s reflecting a
reduction in velocity due to conservation of momentum of 1.75
ft./s. |
14.
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers |
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers
respond to NIST submitted by Reprehensor on mon, 09/15/2008 -
10:02pm via Electronic Mail: [email protected] WTC Technical
Information Repository Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman National
Institute of Standards and Technology Stop 8610 Gaithersburg, MD
20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports
Dear Mr. Cauffman,
I am writing on behalf of a group of
scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who
are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction
of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September
11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released
by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7
(collectively referred to herein as the Report). We have found
many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST
personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We
have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this
document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of
comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).
At the outset, we would like to call attention
to the fact that we requested a reasonable extension of time for
the public to submit comments. Given the rate at which we were
finding incorrect or contradictory statements in the Report, we
would likely have found many more areas NIST needs to re-examine
before issuing a final report. As we pointed out in our original
correspondence with you requesting the extension, the original
three week deadline was completely unreasonable. First, it took
NIST more than three years to compile this 1000+ page Report.
Why, then, were members of the public only given three weeks in
which to comment? Moreover, NIST lists ten authors and dozens of
contracted and employed staff, which over the three year
investigation would yield somewhere in the neighborhood of
200,000 man-hours of labor. How did NIST expect members of the
public to match or even come close to NIST's labor expenditure
in three weeks? This first reason alone was enough to warrant a
significant extension in the deadline for public comment.
Second, in NISTs "Questions and Answers" page
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html),
NIST has attempted to refute many of the points that members of
our group and others have made regarding the WTC 7 destruction.
However, NIST did not provide any references to sections of the
Report that support its alleged refutations. How is a member of
the public, then, able to verify NISTs refutation without
reading through the entire 1000+ page Report? Our comments are
directed to many of the areas addressed in the "Questions and
Answers" page, and without citations directly to the Report
itself, it was extremely difficult and time consuming for us see
whether our main criticisms of the NIST theory of collapse have
been adequately addressed in the Report. This is especially true
in light of the fact that this latest draft Report is the third
different story NIST has come up with.
Your response to our request was dismissive,
based primarily on your belief that a six-week comment period on
the 10,000 page report NIST issued for the Twin Towers was
reasonable. You also saw no problem with NISTs failure to
provide any references in its Questions and Answers page to the
1000 page Report itself, apparently satisfied with NIST
committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. As things
stand right now, your position in this matter can be seen as
nothing less than a deliberate attempt to hamstring the publics
ability to review and comment on NISTs work in this extremely
important area of research.
Nevertheless, we have been able to spend some
time reading and analyzing the report, and have already found
numerous problems that severely undermine its veracity and
usefulness. Our comments on the Report are detailed below. Note
that we declined NISTs invitation to comment only on the
summary report, NCSTAR 1A. These comments are all regarding the
more detailed NCSTAR 1-9 document. Of course, once NCSTAR 1-9 is
revised according to these comments, the summary report NCSTAR
1A will need to be revised as well.
Based on our comments below, it is readily
apparent that the NIST collapse explanation relies solely on
extremely suspect computer models. Furthermore, at each juncture
where NIST was given the opportunity to input data into each
subsequent model, NIST has chosen to use those inputs which
would cause the highest temperatures and the most amount of
structural damage. Therefore, the submitters of these comments
hereby call on NIST to publicly release its models and modeling
data so that members of the scientific community can test
whether other, more reasonable, assumptions will also result in
global collapse of the structure. After all, a scientific
hypothesis cannot be widely accepted unless it is repeatable by
others.
Chapter 9: Fire Simulations
Contradictions between Floor 12 Fire
Simulations and Other Evidence
Figure 9-11 from NCSTAR 1-9 (page 383) depicts
the upper layer air temperatures on the 12th floor fire
simulation. As can be seen therein, significant fires are
present across at least half of the north face of the building
at 5:00pm.
This part of the fire simulation presents two
problems. First, it contradicts an earlier report issued by NIST
regarding the fires on floor 12. Second, it contradicts NISTs
own photographic evidence of the fire activity on floor 12.
COMMENT: Appendix L to NISTs June 2004
Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety
Investigation of the World Trade Center contains NISTs
Interim Report on WTC 7. (See
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) On
page L-26 of this interim report, NIST states that Around 4:45
p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near
the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this
time.
REASON FOR COMMENT: The contrast between
NISTs prior assertion that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm,
and NISTs current computer model, that shows a raging inferno
at 5:00pm, could not be more apparent. This discrepancy calls
into question the veracity of the Report.
SUGGESTED REVISION: This discrepancy must be
acknowledged and explained in the Report. Furthermore, the
photographic or other visual evidence NIST relied upon for its
statement in Appendix L that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm
must be included in the final version of its report.
COMMENT: To support NISTs assertion that
there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has
provided a single photograph from an unknown source (Figure
5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around
5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the
northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this
photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of
error of at least 10 minutes, using shadow analysis.
REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that
NIST could estimate the time the unknown source photograph in
Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it
was able to estimate the photographs time using shadow analysis
to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.
COMMENT: The following graphic is excerpted
from Figure 9-11, and purports to describe the state of the
fires on the 12th floor of WTC 7 at 5:00pm:
As can be seen, this graphic depicts raging
fires across at least half of the north face of the building.
However, when compared with Figure 5-152, which only shows a
small fire in the extreme northwest corner, clearly the computer
model is not representative of reality.
REASON FOR COMMENT: It appears that NISTs
computer fire simulations are not representative at all of the
fires actually occurring in WTC 7.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST needs to describe why
(assuming Figure 5-152 accurately describes the floor 12 fires
at about 5:00pm) the computer models show significant fires
across at least half of the north side of the building at
5:00pm. NIST should clearly explain why its fire simulation
models of the 12th floor should be accepted by the public as an
accurate representation of the fires actually occurring in WTC
7.
Separately submitted by Chris Sarns and
Richard Gage is a graphic that compares NISTs computer model
fire data for floor 12 with actual pictures of the fires in WTC
7. It is attached hereto as Exhibit A. They present a more
realistic depiction of what a computer model for the floor 12
fires should look like if it were to agree with the available
visual evidence. NIST should take this into consideration when
they are re-running their computer models based on these public
comments, and revise their Report to use computer models that
are more representative of reality, which would look more like
the depictions contained therein.
Combustible Fuel Loading on Floors 11 and 12
COMMENT: This comment relates to NISTs
assumptions regarding combustible fuel loading for the 11th and
12th floors. In NCSTAR 1-9, at p. 375 (para. 1, sent. 7-9) NIST
states:
NIST assumed that the combustible mass of
furniture was about the same in an office as in a cubicle. Since
the loading of other combustibles was reported to have been high
on the 11th and 12th floors (Chapter 3), NIST assumed that the
total combustible mass in an office was double that of a
cubicle. Thus, the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and
12th floors was estimated as 32kg/m2.
However, Chapter 3 tells us that, contrary to
NISTs assertions in Chapter 9, the loading of other
combustibles was not reported to have been high on the 11th and
12th floors. On page 55 (para. 6, sent. 1) of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST
reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
occupied the 11th and 12th floors and the north side of the 13th
floor. On page 56 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST further reports that
American Express occupied the southwest sector of the 13th
floor. On the same page, NIST reports that the combustible load
in the offices was described as high by interviewed American
Express managers. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 56, para. 4, sent. 3)
REASON FOR COMMENT: Recall that American
Express occupied only the southwest sector of the 13th floor.
How, then can NIST credibly claim that the combustible load on
the entirety of the 11th and 12 floors, both occupied solely by
the SEC, was reported to have been high? Were American Express
managers given regular access to the SEC offices, such that they
would be qualified to comment on the combustible fuel load
there? Moreover, are American Express managers qualified to give
an opinion on the quantity of combustible fuel load as compared
to offices in the Twin Towers?
SUGGESTED REVISION: Clearly American Express
personnel are competent to provide information only on the state
of the American Express offices, which were confined to the
southwest sector of the 13th floor. NIST must provide real
support for its assertion that the combustible load on the 11th
and 12th floors was high in order to merit any increase in
estimated average combustible fuel load on these floors. If it
cannot provide such support, it should re-run its computer
models with the lower combustible fuel load on these floors and
report those results to the scientific community and the
American public.
Combustible Fuel Loading on Floor 13
COMMENT: This comment is regarding NISTs
treatment of the combustible fuel load of the 13th floor. On
page 375 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 8, 9) NIST states as
follows: The density of combustibles on the 13th floor was
varied and not well known. The average value for the 13th
floor] was assumed to be the same as the 12th floor. Here
again, the only reported description of the combustible load on
the 13th floor was from American Express managers, who were
competent to comment only on the southwest sector of the 13th
floor. In Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-9, page 57 (para. 2, sent. 2, 3)
NIST reports that in the SEC occupied sections of northern
perimeter of the 13th floor were a hearing room and multiple
testimony rooms facing it. There were additional testimony rooms
on the northern portion of the east and west sides of the floor,
and a storage room at the northwest corner.
Importantly, NIST reports that the testimony
rooms were sparsely furnished, with just a table and a few
chairs. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 57, para. 2, sent. 4) Furthermore, an
examination of the schematic diagram of floor 13 (Figure 3-8, p.
57) reveals that the hearing room appears similar to a court
room. Court rooms are also sparsely furnished, with a few tables
and chairs. Finally, it is doubtful that there was any
appreciable level of additional combustibles present in these
testimony and hearing rooms.
REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST has apparently
greatly overestimated the fuel loading on the 13th floor.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must justify its use
of the higher combustible fuel load on the 13th floor in Chapter
9 of the Report with more than just bare assertions. NIST
clearly had more information available to it regarding the
layout and make up of floor 13, as reported in Chapter 3, than
it lets on in Chapter 9. This discrepancy must be reconciled.
Combustible Load Sensitivity Tests
COMMENT: NIST claims that it did sensitivity
tests to determine whether these exorbitant combustible fuel
loads adversely affected the outcome of its simulations.
However, the fact that NIST even performed the sensitivity tests
brings up the question of why NIST went to the trouble of
increasing the fuel load in the first place if it would have a
negligible effect on the simulation. That point aside, Chapter 9
contains statements that directly contradict the results of
these alleged sensitivity tests.
On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3)
NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th
floor, t]he fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half
slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load
on the 12th floor simulation]. NIST goes on to report that the
burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer
than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para.
3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could
have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the
sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)
In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced
sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel
load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly
more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382,
para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that
decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12
showed little effect on the rate of fire progression. (Id.,
para. 6, sent. 1-3)
REASON FOR COMMENT: NISTs contradictory
statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by
more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire
rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel
load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST should explain here
exactly what the differences in the fire progression rate were
in each case and let the public judge whether the effect was
little. More important, however, is the direct contradiction
between NISTs statement that the spread rate was about
one-third to one-half slower than that on lower floors due to
the higher fuel load (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 3)
with its statement that decreasing the fuel load to a value
equal to that of the lower floors showed little effect on the
fire rate of progression. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 6, sent.
1-3) Surely NIST can see this direct contradiction. On page 381,
it is claimed that higher fuel load slows down the fire spread
rate. On page 382, it is claimed that a lower fuel load will not
speed up the rate of fire progression. This contradiction must
be reconciled.
Fire Simulations for Floors 11 and 13
NIST used the data generated by its 12th floor
fire simulation for floors 11 and 13. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para.
1, 3) The 13th floor simulation used the 12th floor data delayed
by one-half hour because visual evidence indicated that the 13th
floor fire followed the 12th floor fire. (Id., para. 3, sent. 5)
The 11th floor simulation used the 12th floor fire data delayed
by 1 hour, although the visual evidence indicated that the 11th
floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours.
(NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, sent. 5)
COMMENT: Our first comment in this regard
simply notes the discrepancy between the visual evidence that
the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5
hours, yet in its fire simulations for the 11th floor, it was
only delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.0 hour.
REASON FOR COMMENT: This represents yet
another discrepancy in the Report that needs to be rectified.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain why the
visual evidence was not relied upon for inputs on the 11th
floor, when it was relied upon for inputs on the 13th floor. The
computer models should be re-run with the 11th floor fire
delayed by 1.5 hours, not 1.0 hour, and the results reported
accordingly.
COMMENT: Our second comment concerns both the
11th and 13th floor fires. As we demonstrated above, the 12th
floor fire simulation is not representative of reality, and
likely grossly overestimates the fires that were present there.
By using its grossly overestimated 12th floor fire data on both
the 11th and 13th floors, it has magnified this error
three-fold.
REASON FOR COMMENT: By magnifying an obvious
error by three times, the results of all of NISTs subsequent
computer models are again called into question.
SUGGESTED REVISION: The computer models should
be re-run for the 12th floor using more realistic fire
scenarios, and if NIST can still justify using the 12th floor
data on the 11th and 13th floors, it should use that more
realistic data on both floors. The results should then be
reported accordingly.
COMMENT: Our third comment concerns the
propagation of error through NISTs approach to using a purely
computer model driven approach. On page 382 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para.
1-3, sent. last) NIST acknowledges that its computer models for
the fires on floors 11 and 13 could have led to a mild
overestimate of the heating on the north side of the floor.
REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: In
order to assure public confidence in the document, NIST must
explain how such an error in overestimating the heating would
propagate itself throughout all of NISTs subsequent computer
models, and how such propagation of error will affect the
reliability of the ultimate results. The Report should be
revised to include such a propagation of error analysis.
Chapter 11: Structural Analysis of Initial
Failure Event
Section 11.4 Structural Response to Case B
and Case C Fires
COMMENT: In Section 11.4 (NCSTAR 1-9, p.
523-532), NIST goes through a detailed comparison of the
structural response of the lower floors of WTC 7 to Case B and
Case C fire scenarios. Case B used gas temperatures that were
10% higher than Case A, while Case C used gas temperatures that
were 10% lower than Case A. No analysis of the structural
response is shown or discussed for Case A.
On page 533 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 1)
NIST makes the unsupported assertion that comparison of Case B
and Case C results at 4 h (Section 11.3.3) showed that the Case
C structural response would be nearly identical to the Case B
structural response at a time between 4.0 h and 4.5 h. However,
when we read Section 11.3.3, we see that the analysis of Case C
structural response was not carried out to 4.5 hours. Instead,
we see that the response of Case C at 4.0 h was somewhat similar
to the response of Case B at 3.5 h. NIST must explain how it
extrapolated the Case C damage to 4.5 hours, when it was using
lower temperatures in Case C than in Case B.
Also, no detailed analysis is disclosed for
the Case A temperatures. NIST must include this data generated
by Case A temperatures in its Report so the public can
independently determine whether Case A profiles should be used
in the subsequent LS-DYNA model.
REASON FOR COMMENT: Most important is the fact
that NISTs use of the structural response to only Case B
temperatures in its subsequent LS-DYNA model represents yet
another example of NIST choosing input data that would tend to
overestimate the temperatures and structural damage caused
during the WTC 7 fires. We explained above how NIST did this
before with respect to gross overestimates of combustible loads
on floors 11, 12 and 13. These happen to be the exact floors on
which the most damage was caused in NISTs black box model. Why
did NIST not use the Case A and Case C structural response in
the LS-DYNA model? Or, if it did, why did it not report the
results of these models?
SUGGESTED REVISION: The final report must be
revised to correct this error. If Case A and Case C structural
responses were never used with the LS-DYNA model, the models
should be re-run and the results reported to the scientific
community and the American people. This is especially true in
light of the fact that the 3.5 h Case B structural response did
not result in global building collapse in the LS-DYNA model.
Chapter 12: WTC Global Collapse Analysis
Section 12.5.3 Collapse Time
COMMENT: This comment concerns NISTs
estimation of the time it took for the WTC 7 structure to fall.
Specifically, this concerns NISTs comparison to the actual
descent time with a hypothetical free-fall time. (NCSTAR 1-9, p.
595; NCSTAR 1A, p. 40-41) Basically, NIST took two data points,
and assumed a constant acceleration throughout the collapse.
(Id.) The first data point was allegedly taken at the time the
top of the parapet wall on the roofline of the north face began
descending. The second data point was allegedly taken at the
time the roofline was no longer visible in Camera 3. NIST claims
that the time it takes for the building to fall this distance,
242 feet, is 5.4 seconds, plus or minus 0.1 seconds. No
graphical or visual support is given for this time estimate.
REASON FOR COMMENT: Members of this group have
conducted an independent analysis of the Camera 3 footage and
come to an entirely different conclusion regarding the collapse
time. Our analysis was done on a frame-by-frame basis using a
frame rate of 29.97 frames per second. As shown in the figure
below, our analysis concludes that it takes 3.87 seconds for the
top of the roofline to descend out of view of Camera 3. This
time matches almost exactly the free-fall time.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must revise its
Report to show the exact frames it used from Camera 3 in
determining the time it took for the roofline to fall out of
view. 5.4 seconds appears to be a gross overestimate. The frames
we used in our collapse analysis are shown below (times t + X
seconds reference the times given in NISTs Appendix L, Table
L-1) along with a graphical analysis of how we determined which
frame represented the onset of global collapse:
Members of this group have used the Physics
Toolkit computer software to plot Velocity vs. Collapse Time
using discrete data points gathered during the entire collapse
from the view NIST calls Camera 2. This plot is reproduced below
and provides a much more detailed look at the dynamics of the
WTC 7 collapse than is provided by NISTs two-data-point
analysis. Also included in the graph is a linear regression for
approximately 2.6 seconds of the collapse that appears to have a
constant acceleration. As can be seen, the slope (acceleration)
during this portion of the collapse was approximately constant
at about 9.8 m/s/s, or acceleration due to gravity with little
to no resistance below. The r-squared value for this linear
regression analysis was 0.9931 a very good fit. This clearly
demonstrates that NIST is being extremely misleading in
reporting to the public that the structure did not descend at
free-fall speed, especially given the implications of this
documented feature of WTC 7s destruction.
Chapter 8: Initiating Event Hypothesis
Inconsistencies Between Report and NIST
Technical Presentation Slides
COMMENT: On page 353 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1,
sent. 9) NIST states that Buckling of other floor beams
followed as shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to collapse of the
floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column
79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b). Slide 33 of Dr. Sunders August
26, 2008 technical presentation states that Forces from thermal
expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the
girder off the seat. (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf)
REASON FOR COMMENT: There seems to be an
inconsistency in what NIST is telling the public. In the Report
it seems as if the floor system collapses, which drags the
girder off its seat to the east. In Dr. Sunders presentation,
the floor beams appear to remain rigid and push the girder off
its seat to the west. These conflicting statements make it
difficult for the public to determine which story NIST actually
believes.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must reconcile the
difference between its public presentation and the substance of
the Report.
Perfectly Fixed Exterior Columns and Rigid
Floor Beams
COMMENT: On page 350 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 2)
the exterior columns and column 44 were modeled as perfectly
fixed at a number of locations during the finite element
analysis of the northeast corner of the building. This computer
model was purporting to demonstrate that thermal expansion could
cause the girder to disconnect from Column 79. Obviously, if the
floor beams were to elongate due to thermal expansion, it would
expand in both axial directions. This, in turn, would put
pressure on whatever was connected to each end of the expanded
beam.
REASON FOR COMMENT: To the extent perfectly
fixing the exterior columns and column 44 caused the computer
model NewsFollowUp.com to neglect the pressure put on the
exterior columns due to thermal expansion, the computer model
does not represent reality. The exterior columns should have
been allowed to bow outward in response to this pressure. It is
also unclear whether the floor beams were allowed to sag as they
heated in the computer model. In NISTs report on the Twin
Towers, the main reason given for global collapse initiation was
sagging floor beams. If NIST did not allow the floor beams to
sag in its WTC 7 model, then it did not allow any of the thermal
expansion to express itself as sagging rather than pressure on
the connections. Even the Cardington tests cited by NIST showed
that floor beams to sag when they are heated.
SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must more clearly
explain how the thermal expansion of the floor beams in both
axial directions was accounted for in the computer models. If
perfectly fixing the exterior columns caused all of the
thermal expansion to occur in one direction, the computer models
needs to be modified to comport with reality, and allow outward
bowing of the external columns. Also, if the floor beams and
girders were not allowed to sag as they heated, there is a
fundamental disconnect between the WTC 7 computer models and the
WTC 1 and 2 computer models. The computer models should be
re-run with appropriate revisions made to the floor beam
properties, which allow them to sag as they heat.
Temperatures Applied to Beams and Girders
COMMENT: In Figure 8-25 on p.352 of NCSTAR
1-9, NIST applies temperatures of 600°C and 500°C to the floor
beams and girders, respectively, over a period of about 2.6
seconds. Putting aside for a moment the fact that applying that
much heat over a 2.6 second time interval could not possibly
approximate the reality of the fires at WTC 7, other problems
still remain. For example, these extreme temperatures were
applied uniformly for all nodes of the beams and girders.
(NCSTAR 1-9, p. 351)
REASON FOR COMMENT: On page 452 of NCSTAR 1-9,
NIST only reports that some sections of the floor beams
exceeded 600°C. Nowhere does NIST indicate that the computer
models show uniform temperatures of 600°C for floor beams and
virtually no information is given for temperatures of girders.
Again, these temperatures are applied uniformly over an
extremely small amount of time, which is not representative of
an actual fire.
SUGGESTED REVISION: Run the computer models
for the northeast section of floors again using realistic
temperatures and realistic application times. Report the results
accordingly.
Only High Explosives Considered in
Hypothetical Blast Event
COMMENT: In its analysis of hypothetical
blast scenarios that might have lead to the collapse of WTC 7,
NIST only considers blast events using RDX, an extremely high
explosive. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 355, last sentence) NIST goes on to
argue that because no loud sounds were heard, and because no
window breakage was observed, that RDX was not used to bring
down WTC 7.
REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION:
However, as documented by Kevin Ryan at the Journal of 9/11
Studies
(http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf)
many scientists working for and associated with NIST have
experience with nanoenergetic compounds, or nanothermites, that
have the potential to be used for building demolitions. And
because nanothermites are primarily high-temperature
incendiaries rather than explosives, they could cause damage to
steel structures without producing the sound and destruction
levels associated with RDX. Because NIST personnel have intimate
experience with these materials, NIST should revise its report
to specifically analyze whether such nanoenergetic materials
could have been used as a component in a hypothetical blast
scenario at WTC 7.
Furthermore, the National Fire Protection
Association Manual for fire and explosion investigations, in
Section 921, very clearly indicates that the possibility of
explosives should have been thoroughly investigated by NIST.
Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 High Order Damage
High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the
structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and
structural members are splintered or shattered, with the
building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great
distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the
result of rapid rates of pressure rise. WTC 7 clearly met this
definition. Therefore NIST should have investigated more
thoroughly the possibility that explosive were used.
Specifically, the use of exotic accelerants should have been
investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants, three
indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough
investigation into the possible use of exotic accelerants,
specifically as stated in the guideline, Thermite mixtures.
NIST should comply with NFPA Section 921 and test the debris
from WTC 7 for thermite residues and report the results to the
scientific community.
Omissions from the NIST Report
Foreknowledge of Collapse
NIST omitted from the Report information
relating to foreknowledge by several groups of people that WTC 7
was going to collapse.
What we mean by foreknowledge is a quality of
detail and a strength of conviction that allow us to say, in
light of the buildings collapse at approximately 5:21 p.m.,
that they knew in advance that it was coming down.
Such knowledge is highly significant in light
of the facts that (a) no steel framed skyscraper in history
(indeed, NIST says, no tall building in history) had ever
before collapsed from fire alone; and (b) the collapse,
according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and
unpredictable factors, which did not come together in such a way
as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or
possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.
In any situation where someone demonstrates
foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event, the possibility
must be considered that the knowledge derived from those who had
control over the event. In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7s
collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building
was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of
its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring
it down.
NIST has tried to evade the issue of
foreknowledge of WTCs collapse by implying:
(a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the
damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and
rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse.
From NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.16:
The emergency responders quickly recognized
that WTC 7 had been damaged by the collapse of WTC 1...
As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that
there was no water coming out of the hydrant system to fight the
fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh
in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might
collapse...
(b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw
the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse,
passing on this assessment to others (Lead Investigator Shyam
Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio,
Wingham, Ontario, Aug. 25, 2008)
It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly
witnessed by some firefighters and led a few of them (about
seven) to worry that the building might collapse, but the great
majority (approximately 50) who were worried about collapse did
not base this worry on what they perceived but on what they were
told. (See Graeme MacQueen, Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse
Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories, Journal of 9/11 Studies,
June 11, 2008) Moreover, while it is apparently also true that
an engineer communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the
building might collapse, neither this communication nor
communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain the
evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.
Below are seven reasons why the above NIST
explanations of foreknowledge are inadequate. One example is
given to illustrate each of the seven reasons. More details can
be found in the paper by Graeme MacQueen titled Waiting for
Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies
(http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven...).
1. Certainty To worry that a damaged building
might collapse in some fashion is one thing; but to be certain
that it will collapse is another. Detailed study of the accounts
of the FDNY shows that over half of those who received warnings
of WTC 7s collapse (where degree of certainty can be determined
from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that
it was coming down. (The figures are: 31 out of 58. See Waiting
for Seven.)
2. Early announcement If someone was observing
the fires in WTC 7 and was able to determine, in the last few
moments of the buildings existence, that a peculiar set of
circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would
be one thing; but to receive warnings of the buildings collapse
well before this set of circumstances was in place raises far
more suspicions. Yet a detailed study of the FDNY reports show
that of the 33 cases where the time of warning can be
determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more
hours in advance and in six cases warnings were apparently
received four of more hours in advance. (See Waiting for
Seven.) In other words, long, long before the unique set of
circumstances had come together to cause the buildings
collapse, the collapse was being spoken of widely.
3. Precision If the collapse warnings derived
from vague worries and concerns they would not have been
precise. No building had come down from these causes before,
and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC
2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled
demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on
9/11, speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a
collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out
to be." (See Waiting for Seven.) Yet, despite the rareness of
complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that
WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse. Consider the
following from the FDNY oral histories:
Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down
in the afternoon?" A. "Yes." Q. "You were still there?" A. "Yes,
so basically they measured out how far the building was going to
come, so we knew exactly where we could stand." Q. "So they just
put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came
down?" A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly
right on point, the cloud stopped right there." (See Waiting
for Seven.)
4. New information If the collapse warnings
derived from worries and concerns expressed early in the day by
engineers and firefighters, why would the collapse of WTC 7 have
been reported by CNN (one hour and 10 minutes in advance) and
BBC (23 minutes in advance) as breaking news based on just
received information? CNN anchor Aaron Brown said We are
getting information now. CNN anchor Judy Woodruff: Were
hearing for the first time (See Appendix.) BBC anchor: Weve
got some news just coming in.
5. Premature announcement CNN and the BBC did
not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might
collapse; they prematurely announced its actual collapse.
CNNs Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in
advance of the collapse: We are getting information now that
one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade
Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is
collapsing... BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: the
Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of
Manhattan, has also collapsed. No satisfactory explanation has
been forthcoming about these premature announcements, which were
obviously based on data fed to these announcers.
6. Continuity The BBC continued to announce
that WTC 7 had collapsed, even when the building could be seen
standing directly behind reporter Jane Standley, for about 17
minutes until the story was pulled abruptly.
When CNN personnel realized they had made an
error in their early announcement, they could simply have
corrected it. They could, at the very least, have withdrawn
their attention from WTC 7 and stopped covering it since it was
obviously still standing. Instead, CNN continued to keep WTC 7
in the forefront of its coverage over the hour and ten minutes
preceding its collapse, repeatedly warning that it was going to
come down and keeping the image of the building in front of the
viewer until it had actually collapsed. (See Appendix.)
7. Progression According to NISTs study, WTC
7s fires had been reduced from ten floors, soon after the
collapse of WTC 1, to essentially two floors as the collapse
time approached. This was a building in which the fires were
actually dying down. Why, then, did CNN show awareness of the
buildings approaching doom, and why did it revise its captions
accordingly, from may collapse to poised to collapse
(approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then to
on verge of collapse (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual
collapse). (Appendix)
Any one of these seven factors would be enough
to make us consider the possibility of foreknowledge of WTC 7s
collapse. Taken together, they make an unanswerable case.
As further support, below we have provided a
timeline of events based on CNNs coverage of Building 7. The
times in the left-hand column are within 30 seconds of actual
time.
The NIST Report should be revised to include a
detailed analysis of all of the reports of specific
foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7. NISTs Lead
Investigator, Dr. Sunder, when challenged with reports like this
during radio interviews recently has stated that NISTs
investigation was not a criminal investigation, but instead is a
technical one. However, this position belies the fact that NIST
did opine in the Report that the controlled demolition
hypothesis was unlikely because NIST didnt believe that the
explosives could be placed without being detected. Such an
opinion is not a technical opinion, but an operational one that
goes more to logistically how a criminal could have committed
the crime than technically how it was done. Clearly NIST could
consider the many reports of foreknowledge and note the
impossibility of such specific and detailed foreknowledge. The
Report should be revised accordingly.
FEMA Building Performance Study Appendix C
The NIST WTC 7 Report does not attempt to
explain the severe high-temperature corrosion attack on
apparently the only piece of WTC 7 steel which was tested, as
documented in Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building
Performance Study, which can be found at the link below on the
NIST website.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
The detailed further study deemed necessary by
FEMA was as far as we know - never done, and the observed
intergranular melting of the steel can not be explained within
the framework of the present NIST hypothesis. Why would NIST
ignore the recommendations made by FEMA investigators for
additional research of the unexplained material behavior?
In a taped interview Worcester Polytechnic
Institute Fire Engineering professor Dr. Jonathan Barnett, one
of the authors of the 13 page report in Appendix C, made the
comment that normal investigative protocol was not followed in
the case of the WTC 7 collapse. He says that the steel from WTC
7 was not photographed, examined, and cataloged before being
removed. The comments he makes are at the 3:00 minute mark in
the below linked video.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9998&med=0&ord=Name&strt=180&...
It is reported that WTC 7 was fully evacuated
long before its collapse and that there were no fatalities or
missing persons involved with its demise. The photos in the
figures below show the collapsed WTC 7 to have its debris field
confined to within a short distance of its footprint.
In addition to showing the relatively tight
confinement of the debris field of WTC 7, the photo in Figure 2
also shows that debris from WTC 6 and WTC 5 was contained within
their footprints or very nearby.
The FEMA report debris field map for the Twin
Towers, below in Figure 3, shows that only a small percentage of
the debris from WTC 1 made it the 350 feet to WTC 7s location.
The lighter areas on the map represent low debris density and
the darker areas high debris density.
The seeming separation of the WTC 7 debris
field from those of the other buildings, and the fact there were
no missing persons or fatalities involved with its collapse,
make it hard to accept the History Channel program narrators
comment, in the video above, that the mingling of the steel from
the different buildings, and the need for search and rescue,
were the reasons for the removal of the WTC 7 steel, before it
could be properly photographed, examined, and cataloged, at the
collapse site.
Even if the WTC 7 steel was moved, without
being examined and cataloged at the site of the collapse, an
additional question arises as to why it wasnt recovered and
stored for later testing, evaluation, and a systematic forensic
analysis. This is especially pertinent in light of the FEMA
recommendation that additional research was needed due to the
strange findings in their very limited metallurgical
examination.
In the August 2008 NIST draft Report on WTC 7
there is no mention of testing of any recovered steel from the
collapsed remains of the building. In sections where the
properties of the steel need to be discussed reference is
curiously made to WTC steel samples, not specifically those of
WTC 7. This can be understood if one is aware that in an earlier
draft of the WTC 7 report NIST made the stark admission that No
metallography could be carried out because no steel was
recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as
those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels.
Since the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7
suffers from a lack of physical evidence to support its
findings, it should go into some level of detail on: why normal
investigatory protocol was not followed, why none of the steel
was recovered, and whether any laws were violated in not doing
so. If there are questions as to the legality of the removal and
lack of recovery for investigatory purposes, NIST should
recommend that an investigation be commenced to determine who
was involved with the decision to remove the steel and why NIST
did not receive any of it for its investigation.
There are also several seemingly contradictory
issues between the FEMA Building Performance Study Appendix C
and the NIST WTC 7 Report, for which no explanations have been
provided, and they are:
NIST states "No steel was recovered from WTC
7" while FEMA section C.2 shows that at least one piece of WTC 7
steel was tested, with the results being alarming, considering
the highly unusual formation of a liquid eutectic, intergranular
melting, and erosion. Features not seen before, by the
experienced investigators, in steel subject to common office
fires. FEMA section C.3 Summary for Sample 1 states that the
steel was heated to around 1,000° C. (1,800° F.), which is much
hotter than the steel temperatures NIST is claiming to have
caused the collapse, and seemingly far outside the ability of
office fires to heat the steel. Additionally, this section
states that steel liquefied at these temperatures, due to the
formation of the eutectic, which would dramatically lower the
usual 2750° F melting point temperature of the steel. FEMA
Section C.6 Suggestions for Future Research states "It is also
possible that the intergranular melting, eutectic formation, and
erosion phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the
weakening of the steel structure."
Why hasn't the "future research" been done,
and the results from it published, especially when FEMA itself
suggested that this melting and erosion may have started prior
to collapse? NIST was charged with investigating the conditions
that led to the collapse of WTC 7, and clearly something that
possibly occurred prior to collapse and accelerated the
weakening of the steel structure is something NIST should have
investigated. NIST should revise the Report accordingly after it
has performed the needed metallurgical analysis. These public
comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report are being submitted by the
following individuals:
James R. Gourley, Esq. Chemical Engineer
International Center for 9/11 Studies [email protected]
Tony Szamboti Mechanical Engineer Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard Gage AIA Architect Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D. Scholars for 9/11 Truth
& Justice
Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D. Physicist S&J
Scientific Co.
Kevin Ryan Chemist Scholars for 9/11 Truth &
Justice
Dr. Niels Harrit Ph.D. Chemistry University of
Copenhagen
Ron Brookman Structural Engineer Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Chris Sarns Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth
Kamal Obeid, SE PE Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Scott Grainger, PE Forensic Engineer Civil
Engineer Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge Logistical Systems Consulting
Bob Fischer Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth
Justin Keogh Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth
David Chandler Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth
Gregg Roberts [email protected]
|
15.
Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to
NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E. |
|
16.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics: |
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the
World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Se en February,
2008, Vol. 134, No. 2, pp. 125-132 DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:2(125) Crockett Grabbe1 1
Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of
Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 and SeaLane Consulting, Iowa City, IA
52245-3314. E-mail: [email protected] Se en's paper presents
what it calls a simple analysis for the dynamics of the World
Trade Center (WTC, implicitly just the South and North Towers)
collapses. He claims the "factors responsible for the onset of
collapse are now well established", that: (1) intense res
created by the aircraft compromised the remaining intact columns
near the impact those undamaged by the plane collision] to
sustain the weight of the building above them. (2) The
subsequent "near free fall" of these upper parts over just 1
story resulted in dynamical overloading of the undamaged columns
below by a "factor of over 30". Se en then goes on to develop a
propagating instability model for how the re brought the Towers
down. But these claimed factors are factually inaccurate.
Furthermore, in analyzing the model built on these factors,
ideal assumptions are made that are in disagreement with
physical principles inherent in the collapses of the Towers, and
yield solutions that cannot provide answers or much insight into
how the Towers fell. 1 While the theory of these factors
responsible for the onset of collapse have been "well-proposed"
as the cause of the collapse, they have not been
well-established as factors that explain well the observations
of the collapse. The theory that Se en is improving on is the
"crush-down, crush-up" theory proposed initially by Bazant and
Zhou (2002). Yet this theory does not agree very well with
observations on how the Towers fell. For example, as lm
documentation of the South Tower collapse shows, the top part of
the South Tower does not even come close to "crushing up" after
the bottom part of the Tower "crushes down" to the ground.(NBC
lms, 2001) In fact, the top part started toppling and fully
disintegrated into gray clouds (produced from pulverizing
concrete from areas on re) in mid-air, above the lower part of
the Tower (producing only white clouds from pulverizing concrete
below where the res were), and it did so well before the lower
part came down. In addition, both of the Towers show major
horizontal forces in their collapses, forces which are fully
ignored in the "crush-down, crush-up" theory, which treats the
downward gravitational force as the only force acting in 1D
analyses of the collapses and neglects all horizontal motion.
The factors responsible for the onset of collapse assumed in
this "crush-down, crush-up" theory are clearly not
well-established. Furthermore, it has been "well-established"
that the factors that caused the onset of collapse in the South
Tower appear de nitely to not have been the res. The res created
from the plane impacts were not that intense just before the
collapse initiation for either Tower, and for the South Tower
the res seemed close to being contained and put out by the remen
when suddenly rapidly horizontally-moving masses of material
violently broke through walls of the oors below where the res
had been burning from the plane hit. As the lm documentation
shows, the collapse of the South Tower 2 initiated 1-2 stories
below the lowest oor where the res had been burning, with very
dynamic (roughly 40 mph) hurtling of white material (broken and
pulverized concrete) in the horizontal direction away from the
building | material with absolutely no re associated with
it.(NBC lms, 2001) This ejection and a subsequent horizontal
ejec- tion of rapidly-moving white material at oors just near
this formed the white clouds around the lower segment. As
presented by Grabbe (2008a), the force that ripped the South
Tower apart at one edge in the collapse was a force an order of
magnitude larger in strength than that of the force of gravity
(the only force acting in Se en's model for the collapse). There
is similar evidence that the res were not the cause of the North
Tower collapse, such as the energy analysis in Ho man (2003)
that calculates the amount of energy expended in the collapse of
the North Tower to be about an order of magnitude larger than
the energy that is available for gravitation collapse, the sole
force in the model of Se en. These analyses e ectively disprove
what Se en refers to as a "well-established" assumption { that
gravitation was the only force involved in the collapses of the
Tow- ers. Se en builds on Bazant and Zhou's 2002 paper
(hereinafter called BZ), referring to their work as establishing
the virtually "free-falling" upper parts that initiated the
collapse, even though BZ provided no physical mechanism that can
possibly allow such free-fall. Se en states that then the
subsequent gravitational "near free-fall" of the upper parts
over the height of just one story resulted in dynamical
overloading of the undamaged lower columns by 30 times their
static load. But there is no evidence to support this incredible
inference that as a result of the claimed gravitational
initiation the upper parts were suddenly virtually free-falling,
nor are there means by which grav- 3 itational collapse can
produce such a "near free-falling" state. For "near
free-falling" to happen, the contiguous solid material making up
the building below these sections where the collapse initiates
would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action the re
above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary
momentum of that lower contiguous material counters the momentum
of falling parts from above, and conservation of momentum keeps
the free-fall state from being approached. The only thing this
author knows of that could create a virtual free-falling state
is massive explosions well below the res, which could e ectively
"liquefy" the lower structure. Direct evidence for explosions,
which were created by forces other than grav- ity (such as the
horizontal forces in the South Tower collapse initiation), was
presented in Grabbe (2007). Those forces are, of course, not
present in Se en's model. Se en completely ignores conservation
of momentum in all his uses of the word "free-fall". He has
mathematically converted the problem from one of analyzing New-
ton's equations of motion to an instability analysis of the
column as a whole, in order to improve on the the story-coupling
limitations of the BZ analysis. However, one cannot ignore
conservation of energy and momentum, and the implications of
these conserva- tion laws is that the free-fall cavalierly
referred to cannot happen in the gravitational collapse of the
Towers analyzed in Se en's model.(Grabbe, 2008b) He e ectively
avoids the problems of the conservation laws in his analysis,
but they not gone away, and pre- vent achievement of the virtual
free fall he asserts. Se en correctly identi es one of the
several inadequacies of the BZ analysis, saying "However, the
link to progressive collapse is improperly asserted by claiming
that, be- cause each story locally collapses in an unstable
manner, successive stories are bound to fail sequentially." In
fact, there is no reason a gravitational collapse could not
stop, at 4 least temporarily, upon hitting adequately-sturdy
structure in the story below. Se en tries to correct that
inadequacy in BZ analysis by analyzing whether this is a prop-
agating instability. However, like BZ, he uses a grossly
inadequate 1D model of the Towers. The Towers cannot be analyzed
as 1D sticks (i.e. 1500 ft "telephone poles"). This grossly
ignores the horizontal extensions of the Towers, and completely
misses the internal structure that would be a major resistance
to such instabilities { indeed, also a major resistance to
anything anything approaching free-fall. The Towers were
well-constructed over 44,000 ft2 horizontally for this
stability, and all of that is ignored in the simple 1D model
that Se en analyzes. Se en states that "Each story is assumed to
compress homogeneously such that the overall 'wake' above the
crush-front and below the initiation site has a larger, uniform
density." On the contrary, the early stages of the fall of the
South Tower were very non-uniform over these other 2 dimensions,
making this 1D model fully inaccurate. Using this oversimplied
1D model of the Towers, Se en calculates the conditions for the
instability in Eq (21) as the maximum value the variable he de
nes as p (non- dimensionalized variable proportional to what he
calls the "steady-state propagation pressure" P) can be to
still "assure collapse" of the building. Furthermore, if p is
suciently smaller than unity in his model it can apparently
achieve the speedy col- lapse observed for the Towers. Clearly
his determination of what p is for the Towers is no good
because of invalid assumptions used, including in particular the
major over- simpli cations from his 1D model. His statement on
that "More realistically, if there is a column fracture, p is
much less than unity" shows this 1D assumption is clearly wrong
because it ignores impor- tant aspects of the 3D behavior of the
Towers. There are actually about 286 columns, 5 and they are
designed to deal with fractures in individual columns by
redistributing the load to unfractured columns. Yet a 1D model
must assume it is only 1 column. One could try to translate his
1D analysis into the assumed uniform behavior of all 286
columns, but in fact these 286 columns are engineered not to act
uniformly? Fur- thermore, Se en models the columns as being
damaged by re, but re damage itself de nitely cannot be uniform
over these other 2 dimensions. There is no sensible way to make
this translation, and the model is grossly unrealistic for the
real WTC Towers. Se en ends the calculation correctly pointing
out some of the limits of his model. Stating "Many simpli
cations have been made in this analysis for the sake of trans-
parency," he mention some of these simpli cations. However, he
fails to describe one of the most crucial oversimpli cations of
his model: the analysis of the Towers as 1D objects. Such a
treatment grossly oversimpli ed the very inhomogeneous nature of
re throughout the 286 columns spread over 44,000 ft2 in those 3D
Towers, leading to erroneous conclusions. One cannot correctly
analyze the stability of a complex 3D structure in a simpli ed
1D analysis. Horizontal forces, complex building structure over
the other 2 dimensions, and inhomogeneities of the forces of
destruction over these 2 dimensions are essential considerations
in any correct analysis. On the positive side, Se en's analysis
of the 1D model might be viewed as a useful initial analysis for
building collapses from re that to lowest order t the model he
uses, possibly helping to identify important questions that need
to be addressed in a more complex 3D followup (e.g. why has no
other high-rise in any industrial nation ever collapsed from
re?). However, when this model and its analysis are applied as
an e ort to explain the WTC collapses, claiming this is what
caused the collapses, it is decidely wrong, o ering little in
answers or insight how the WTC buildings fell. 6 His 1D model
and analysis is inadequate because it ignores fundamental 3D
aspects of the stability of the Towers, it disagrees with known
physical principles such as the conservation of energy,
momentum, and mass { conservation laws that show that the
collapsing WTC Towers could not reach the virtual free-fall
states observed by the gravitational force as claimed, and it
substantially disagrees with several observations of how the
Towers collapsed. References Bazant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y. (2002),
"Why did the World Trade Center collapse?{Simple analyis," J.
Eng. Mech., 128(1), 2-6. Grabbe, C.L. (2007), "Direct Evidence
for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact
Damage," J. 911 Stud., 14(8), 1-7, online at:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf
Grabbe, C.L. (2008a) "Analysis of the Collapse of the South
Tower of the World Trade Center" American Physical Society's
April Meeting, online at: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR08/Event/84051
http://www.sealane.org/writings/PhysSTFall.html Grabbe, C.L.
(2008b), "Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum," J. 911 Stud.
Jan. 29 Letter, online at:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf
Ho man, J., "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy
Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the
Collapse of 1 World Trade Center," 7 October 16, 2003, online
at: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html
NBC lm of South Tower collapse on 9/11/01, online at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html |
18.
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories
of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies |
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of
the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 Author: The author of this work,
Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in
both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from
Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted
at [email protected]. Summary: This paper examines the
elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of
WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon
the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after
the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there
is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening
phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the
constraints of this paper. Introduction: Previous analysis of
the momentum transfer in the collapse of the towers has viewed
them as being floors suspended in space and have examined the
momentum transfer as a series of elastic or inelastic
collisions, which are independent of each other. This type of
analysis takes the momentum transfer out of the context given by
the other effects of the collisions. This is because this type
of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only
the topmost storey of the impacted section. The reality of the
situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon several
storeys in the lower section and for a valid analysis all of
these momentum transfers must be included. If we assume that the
upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full
gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed)
storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its
velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a
kinetic energy due to its mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using
the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by Bazant &
Zhou. 1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to
residual strength within the failing columns of the removed
section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this
analysis. Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass
would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the
failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite
period of time and distance. This force would also be felt by
the columns below the storey which was first impacted. Analysis:
The falling upper section with a velocity of no more than 8.5
metres per second at impact would meet resistance from the
impacted columns and have as its first task the necessity to
load these columns through their elastic range and thereafter
through the plastic shortening phase. We shall firstly examine
this incremental time period. Bazant/Zhou 1] show in their
analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column
under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three
distinct phases. These can be Journal of 9/11 Studies 33 June
2006/Volume 1 shown on a load against vertical deflection graph
and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and
a rapid plastic deformation phase. 1/ The elastic phase shows a
linear relationship between load and deflection up to the
elastic limit. The load at this point is the failure load and
the deflection at the elastic limit for steel is generally 0.2%
of the initial length. 2/ The shortening phase allows for the
same failure load to be applied until the vertical deformation
reaches 3% at which point the column begins to form buckle
points. 3/ The third phase shows a rapid decrease in the load
requirement to continue deformation, this load necessarily being
less than the failure load. This phase lasts until the total
vertical deformation equals the original length. In other words
the column is bent in two. To shorten the columns of the first
impacted storey by 3%, sufficient to complete the plastic
shortening phase, a distance of about 0.111 metres, and allowing
a constant speed of 8.5 metres per second, would take a minimum
of 0.013 seconds. The speed of the propagation wave through a
medium is given by the general formula for wave propagation
Velocity = Square root ( Bulk modulus / Density ), and for
structural steel is of the order of 4500 metres per second. The
propagation wave of the impact force would therefore travel a
distance of 58.7 metres in a time of 0.013 seconds. This means
that during the time taken in the plastic shortening of the
impacted columns, the same force would be felt at a minimum
distance of 58.7 metres, or approximately 16 storeys, from the
impact. These storeys would thus suffer an elastic deflection in
response to, and proportional to, the failure load applied at
the impacted floor. These deflections would themselves take time
and allow the propagation wave to move further downwards again
affecting more storeys. We can estimate the elastic deflection
of these 16 storey columns as being in the range 0 to 7mm. The
full elastic deflection of a 3.7m column, using the generally
accepted figure of 0.2% of its original length is 7.4mm. The
columns in the uppermost of these storeys would suffer almost
their full elastic deflection since their failure load is
similar though slightly greater than that of the first impacted
storey. Those storey columns more distant from the impact would
be of a larger cross section, requiring higher loads to cause
full elastic deflection. Using only half of the maximum elastic
deflection, 56mm (16 * 7 / 2), is, again, an assumption in
favour of collapse continuation. The elastic deflection of lower
storeys would increase the distance through which the falling
section would have to move in order to load the impacted column
and complete its 3% plastic shortening. The time taken, again
using a constant velocity of 8.5 m/sec would increase to about
0.02 seconds, and thus allow the propagation wave to move
through and affect a further 8 storeys. Journal of 9/11 Studies
34 June 2006/Volume 1 Because these columns suffer a vertical
deflection, the attached floors move downwards and they will
therefore have a velocity and momentum. Energy Losses: A simple
conservation of momentum calculation, ignoring these movements,
would have, 16 falling storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec before
impact, changing to 17 storeys moving at (8.5 * (16/17)) = 8
m/sec after impact. This does not reflect the fact that a
minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards
at varying speeds. To estimate and illustrate the further
momentum changes we can assume that the storey which is 25
storeys from the impact remains static and the velocity of the
24 affected storeys will vary linearly from the velocity of the
falling section to zero. Momentum before impact = 16 storeys
moving at 8.5 m/sec Momentum after impact = 17 storeys moving at
V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving at 23/24*V2 m/sec + 1 storey moving
at 22/24*V2m/sec +
+ 1 storey moving at 2/24*V2 m/sec + 1
storey moving at 1/24*V2m/sec 16*8.5 = V2 (17 + 11.5) V2 = 16 *
8.5 / 28.5 = 4.8 metres per second. The speed of the upper
section would be reduced by the collision from 8.5 m/sec to a
speed of less than 4.8 m/sec rather than the 8 m/sec derived
from a momentum calculation which does not include this factor.
Note also that this reduction in speed would again give more
time for the propagation wave to travel downwards through the
tower columns and allow that more and more storeys are so
affected. The kinetic energy of the falling section would be
similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared
relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more
pronounced. K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors
moving at (8.5 m/sec) K. E. of falling section after impact = 17
floors moving at (4.8 m/sec) Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 *
4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66% This is an underestimation of the
energy loss, since the deceleration would allow more time for
travel of the propagation wave and so allow more floors to be
affected but even this shows an energy absorption of some 66% of
the total kinetic energy of the falling section. Energy Balance:
Since there was only some 2.1 GJ available at the point of
impact of the first collision, a loss of 66% would reduce this
figure to 714 MJ. The kinetic energy would be augmented by
potential energy released in the further downward movement of
the falling mass and if we assume that this falls through the
full distance of the 3% Journal of 9/11 Studies 35 June
2006/Volume 1 shortening phase of the impacted floor and the
elastic deflection of the lower storeys, then the additional
potential energy is 58*10* g * (0.111 + .056) = + 95MJ. The
strain energy consumed by the impacted storey columns in the
elastic phase and plastic shortening phase can be calculated
using the failure load. The failure load used throughout this
analysis is derived using the mass above the impact, 58 000
tonnes, and a safety factor of 4. Examination of the column
geometry with reference to the Euler equations show that this is
an underestimation both of the failure load and the distance
over which it would have to act before failure, and this gives a
gross assumption in favour of collapse continuation. A factor of
0.029 is included to reflect the load profile over the 3%
plastic shortening phase. The load profile exhibits a linear
rise from zero to failure load at 0.2% of the length, followed
by a constant failure load over the next 2.8% of the length.
Plastic strain energy: 58*10kg*4*g*3.7m*0.029= -244MJ. A similar
though slightly smaller figure would be required for the first
impacting storey in the upper falling section. Because this
storey carried a lower load, 15 storeys, than the impacted
storey, 17 storeys, its designed capabilities would be
proportionately smaller. Using this knowledge an estimation can
be made that the energy consumed by this storey would be, (244
MJ * 15 / 17) = -215MJ . The elastic response of the lower
storey columns within their elastic range would make further
demands on the energy available by absorption of energy in the
form of strain energy. This can be estimated, using a safety
factor of 4, a mass of 58000 tonnes, a distance of 0.056metres,
and a factor of 0.5 to reflect the load profile
58*10kg*4*g*0.056metres*0.5= -64MJ. The downward movement of
these floors in response to the impact will release additional
potential energy due to their compression and using the same
deflections as above and a value for mass proportionate to the
number of storeys, this will release 58*10kg * 24/16 * g *
0.056metres / 2 = + 24 MJ. Further energy losses are evident in
an analysis of the compression of storeys within the upper
falling section. These storeys manufactured from columns with a
smaller cross section than those at the impact, would be unable
to withstand the failure load present at the impact front and
would suffer plastic deformation beyond their elastic limit, but
for simplicity, it is assumed that they suffer only their full
elastic deflection. This is another large assumption in favour
of collapse continuation. The total deflection would be 15
storeys multiplied by the elastic deflection of 7.4mm, and
strain energy consumed can be estimated as,
15*7.4*10*4*58*10*g/2= -126MJ. Movement of the storeys within
the upper section will release additional potential energy due
to their compression and consequent movement. It is likely that
this energy would manifest itself as failures within the upper
section, but has nevertheless been added as an energy available
for collapse continuation. The uppermost storey will move
downwards by 15 times the elastic deflection whereas the lowest
will remain static, both in relation to the impact point, giving
additional potential energy as, Journal of 9/11 Studies 36 June
2006/Volume 1 15*0.0074*58*10*g/2= +32MJ A considerable amount
of energy would be required to pulverise the concrete into the
fine dust which was evident from the photographic and other
evidence. To quantify this energy it is necessary to use the
fracture energy value, but this has a variable value dependent
on, among other factors, the size of the concrete piece, and its
constituents, most notably, aggregate size. There is no typical
value. In order to assess the energy consumed I will refer to
the work of Dr. Frank Greening 2]. It should be noted that Dr.
Greening, like Dr. Bazant, does not, as yet, support the
contention that the tower collapse was caused by anything other
than the damage caused by aircraft impact and subsequent and
consequent fires. The tower, using Dr. Greening's figures,
contained approximately 50000 tonnes of concrete, and the
assumption is made that only 10% of this was pulverised to a
size of 60 micrometres. One kilogram of concrete at this
particle size will have a surface area of 67 m^2. We can now use
Dr. Greening's figure for concrete fracture energy of 100J/m^2
to show that the energy requirement for one floor would be
50*10^6kg / 110floors * 67m^2 * 100J/m^2 * 10% = - 304 MJ. It
may be considered unlikely that a low velocity impact would
expend large energies on pulverisation of materials, and this is
more likely in later stages of the collapse. However, the large
expulsions of dust were visually evident at early stages of the
collapse. Energy Summary: The energy balance can be summarised
as Energy available; Kinetic energy 2105MJ Potential energy
Additional downward movement 95MJ Compression of impacting
section 32MJ Compression of impacted section 24MJ Total Energy
available 2256MJ Energy required; Momentum losses 1389MJ Plastic
strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ Plastic strain
energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ Elastic strain energy in
lower storeys 64MJ Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ Pulverisation
of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ Total Energy required 2646MJ
Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ Conclusion: The energy balance of
the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening
phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be
insufficient energy available from Journal of 9/11 Studies 37
June 2006/Volume 1 the released potential energy of the upper
section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision.
The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour
of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling
section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3%
shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02
secondsafter impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not
continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that
the energies expended during the time period of the plastic
shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is
sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and
thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of
the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next
immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent
would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the
buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure
mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case
of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional
storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand
of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres.
This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an
expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if
this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be
exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys
affected. The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the
energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six
storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section
through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would
also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be
elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering
the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged
that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of
storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticably
slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall
by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but
not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that
this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a
point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy
demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism,
such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections,
spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy
demands which must then be satisfied. Assumptions and disregards
: A buckling failure is notable because of the characteristic
reduction in load required to continue failure after yield is
reached, being distinct from a compressive failure where the
load to continue failure after yield is substantially greater
than the yield load, and will reach a maximum at the Ultimate
Load. In the immediate time period after impact the force
applied by the falling section will manifest as such a
compressive load. Euler calculations show that columns of the
dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to buckling
over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a
compressive failure mode. The load would increase to yield
levels, and due to the work hardening which would be present
here but not in a buckle failure, thereafter increase towards
the Ultimate Load level and this would manifest as plastic
compression or shortening, until such time as enough length of
column to satisfy the minimum length requirements of buckling,
had been Journal of 9/11 Studies 38 June 2006/Volume 1 exposed
to the load. The tower columns when viewed individually had
dimensions which would dictate a minimum length for buckling of
three or more storey heights. When the bracing of the spandrel
plates and corners of the perimeter columns, and the horizontal
and diagonal bracing is taken into regard the minimum buckling
length would extend over many storey heights. At this point the
load would continue to manifest as plastic compression or
shortening, but also as a tendency to buckle the column, rather
than continue in compression failure. The energy profile would
thereafter become that of a buckle failure.The analysis would be
justified in using the greater energy demand characteristics of
a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the
collapse, but I have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode
has the lowest energy demand. The assumption of constant
velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration
which would be felt by the falling mass. As an example, if we
asumed that the velocity was halved over the distance covered in
this analysis the time would be extended by one third, giving
more time for the energy to dissipate to more remote points. The
analysis assumes a linear distribution in the elastic
deflections and velocities of the affected floors during
calculation of the momentum transfer and elastic strain energy.
Since most of the column sections involved would have undergone
almost their full elastic deflection, this treatment
underestimates the energy demands within those calculations.
Only a second iteration has been used to show the number of
floors taking part in the momentum and velocity changes of the
collision. A full iteration would give about 30 storeys, and
allowing that the falling mass was decelerated to half of its
original velocity would allow time for the propagation to extend
loading to more than 40 storeys below the impact. My assumptions
have the affect of reducing the number of storeys which take
part. This together with the assumption that only a portion of
the elastic deflection will apply underestimates the energy
requirements of this task. The characteristic of steel to show
an increase in Young's modulus in response to an impact load is
acknowledged as a further energy demand but is not quantified.
It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as
momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the
energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the
total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist
irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after
collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials.
The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting
mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now
moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting
mass. The only source of energy which is available to the
falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is
released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will
come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load
columns further down the tower the energy will spread through
lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable,
unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates,
the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the
elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the
elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys
will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will
unload, or bounce. The towers were best Journal of 9/11 Studies
39 June 2006/Volume 1 characterised as being a series of springs
and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow
moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.
Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order
to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys
which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to
move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase
and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and
accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted
that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality
several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and
especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the
upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that
damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at
points remote from the collapse front. An initiation mechanism
involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing
ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under
full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not
credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the
energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy
demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the
velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in
favour of collapse continuation. This analysis also assumes that
each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption
has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No
account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower
perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large
amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy
requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.
This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage
caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor
disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of
floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account
is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial
fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be
a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.
References: 1] Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 9/13/01,
Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01) Why Did the World Trade
Center Collapse?Simple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow
ASCE, and Yong Zhou |
20.
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager |
Propping Up the War on Terror
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters
Laboratories
KEVIN RYAN
March 28, 2006
"Already there is near-consensus as to the
sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade
Center."--Shankar Nair, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune,
September 19, 2001
Turn on C-Span, or "Meet The Press," or any
other media program presenting federal officials. Whatever the
issue, it always comes back to the same thing. Our government
really has nothing else to offer us but protection from another
9/11. It uses this painful story to cut public services,
eliminate our basic rights, and plunder the national coffers.
But for many of us, it is not entirely clear from whom we most
need protection.1 As our debt explodes and our freedoms
diminish, it would be wise to maintain focus on the origins of
our War on Terror. No matter where this war leads us, we will
need to keep the beginning in mind if we ever hope to see an
end.
The Point of Origin: The Collapse of the WTC
Many have found that the 9/11 Commission not
only failed to help us understand what happened; it also omitted
or distorted most of the facts.2 But if we really want to zero
in on the exact turning point around which we plunged into
chaos, we need to focus in particular on the collapse of the
World Trade Center buildings. This is where our hearts were
wrenched and our minds were made ready for never-ending war,
torture, and apparently the end of everything that was American.
If we are ever to emerge from this insanity, we need to know how
three tall buildings collapsed due to fire, all on the same day,
when no such thing has ever happened before.
The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate
description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and
construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the
buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the
greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted
that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent
capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed
from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the
perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength
whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than
2,000% before failure occurs."4
One would expect that any explanation for the
destruction of such buildings would need to be very solid as
well. Four years after 9/11, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) finally did give us their version of "why
and how" two of the buildings collapsed, but its explanation may
be even less effective than the 9/11 Commission report.5 Now
that the official story has been given, however, we can see just
how weak and ill-defined our basis for this War on Terror has
been all along. Additionally, we can track the evolution of
official comments about collapse and see who was involved.
Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players
Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is
quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government
depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but
always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the
investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like
escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those
few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the
unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged
in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started
with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading
hypotheses." Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who
contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for
which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships
with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a
surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For
example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite
Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal
government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40
million.6
Others who worked so hard to maintain the
official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction
expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a
source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a
witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing
investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE
investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with
less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would
have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples
or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was
ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very
versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the
pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a
reporter during an NIST media session.8
There was really no need for phony media
coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to
the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations,
or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One
example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of
September 11th," which aired on the History Channel. Corley took
the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times
reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is
probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that
the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested
2500 F) that they were turned into "licorice." Other
self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar
theories.9 They will probably come to regret it.
This is because the results of physical tests
performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a
ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The
temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500
F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even
un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been
calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not
24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have
claimed---were sprayed into an open-air environment over several
floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of
concrete and steel.
Another expert who served on NIST's advisory
committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton
and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was
reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized
decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on
Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He
was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel.
Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it in my
mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the
floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity,
floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk clunk clunk, the
load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable.
Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core
columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12
This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the
most widely accepted version of what happened.
The Pancake Theory was promoted by an
influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why the Towers Fell," in
which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary
commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing,
and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled
outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a
number of false claims, including exaggeration of the
temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the
incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the
North Tower) were completely severed. NIST's report now
indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were
severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for
ourselves.13
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories
evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor
assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous
expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST
reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results
that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that,
therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly
stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The
results established that this type of assembly was capable of
sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a
substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires
in any given location on September 11th."15
At the time of the floor tests, I worked for
Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the
progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive
questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a
very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard,
surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few
weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used
in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be
proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such
intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us,
including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts
surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as
particularly important.
Over the next two years, however, I learned
more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the
steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings
have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of
the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department
made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that
day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning
and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words
of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the
structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The
NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson.
But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design,
was only a junior member of the firm Worthington, Skilling,
Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the
engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death,
Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane
crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure
would still be there."18
By 2003, all of this information was available
to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt,
difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters,
and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in
November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed.
If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of
steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire
Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would
have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were
sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message
to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he
was doing to protect our reputation.
Knoblauch's written response contained several
points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the
steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He
pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC
construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours
for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start,
his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in
56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come
down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement
in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the
sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the
required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19
This response was copied to several UL
executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire
Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader
in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make
any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor
assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the
misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But
even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few
important organizations supporting codes and specifications
because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly
ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions
tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to
clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component.
This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we
crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we
be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the
investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7"
was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of
these activities."21
For the most part, I did wait, although I
shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit
in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news
release on our position, but this did not happen and I never
heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly
models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top
management job in my division, Environmental Health
Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months
later, NIST released an official update that included the floor
test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel
temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated
the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not
occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice
at the temperatures discussed.
After reviewing this update, I sent a letter
directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my
experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC
investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST
had planned at the time to release its final report in December,
with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter
to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and
then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.
Other than UL's involvement in testing the
steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported
publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were
considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was
fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief
statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to
make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps
due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its
commitment to public safety.
For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous
statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited"
role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring
Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said
there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used
in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not
only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but
had also spoken and written about it for several years without
anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only
other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public
Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety
issue of our lives.
My experiences give a taste for the delicate
nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we
should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical
tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST
perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much
of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off
due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead,
NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out
the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial
parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had
initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results
that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed
their final analysis using another set of parameters they called
"more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced
video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings
collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.
Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to
make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His
comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of
value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said,
"requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing
to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on
the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero
floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few
floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a
more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test
results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to
prove them.
Other than the video, NIST left us with only
some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly
destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty
core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than
non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur,
especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw
increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it
never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns
could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the
outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed
again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were
never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the
documents that would support testing of the steel components,
along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire
analysis, could not be found.26
Ultimately, NIST failed to give any
explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about
how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both
buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building
section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued,"
as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet
has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which
was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that,
after more than four years, it is still impossible for the
government even to begin to explain the primary events that
drive this War on Terrorism. So much has been sacrificed, and so
much has been invested in this story, that we all have a need
for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers, all
our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where
scientific results are reversed to support politically correct,
pre-determined conclusions. That critical point of divergence,
where our lives were turned upside down and all logic followed,
has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert
accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be
imagined at all.
Some of us remain hopeful that we can still
achieve a critical mass awareness of the need for truth, and in
doing so pull the support out from under what John McMurtry
calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for
peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we
should remember how we got this story and how it was propped up
despite all the evidence against it. Because whatever happens
next, after the smoke clears, our children may have a need to
know.
NOTES
1] Richard Heinberg, "Gφtterdδmmerung,"
Museletter, No.144, March 2004
(http://www.museletter.com/archive/144.html).
2] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission
Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton: Interlink Books,
2005). Griffin summarizes the omissions and distortions in "The
9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie," 911 Visibility Project,
May 22, 2005
(http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php).
3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life
of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for
110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964:
48-49.
5] Jim Hoffman, "Building a Better Mirage:
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,"
911Research.wtc7.net, December 8, 2005
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).
6] Website for Teng & Associates
(http://www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp).
7] Website for National Directory of Expert
Witnesses
(http://national-experts.com/members2/witness.asp?d_memnum=07572&d_lnum=2).
8] Archived webcast video of NIST press
briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm),
01:15:10.
9] Sheila Barter, "How the World Trade Center
Fell," BBC News, September 13, 2001
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).
10] Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance
Study," May 2005, Chapter 2.
11] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the
Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York:
Times Books, 2003), 330.
12] Karl Koch III with Richard Firstman, Men
of Steel: The Story of the Family that Built the World Trade
Center (New York: Crown Publishers, 2002), 365.
13] Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions: An
Analysis of the September 11th Attack (Goleta, Calif.: Endpoint
Software, 2002), 27.
14] Table of results from Underwriters
Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST
in October 2004
(http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25.
15] NIST, Final Report of the National
Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade
Center Towers(Draft)
(http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195.
16] Silverstein's statement is contained in
"America Rebuilds," PBS documentary, 2002 (www.pbs.org/americarebuilds).
It can be viewed (www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or
heard on audio file (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3).
17] "Structures Can Be Beautiful, World's
Tallest Buildings Pose Esthetic and Structural Challenge to John
Skilling," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 124.
18] Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, 138.
19] Underwriters Laboratories email
correspondence, December 1, 2003.
20] Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural
Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20.
21] Underwriters Laboratories email
correspondence, December 1, 2003.
22] Kevin Ryan, "The Collapse of the WTC,"
911 Visibility Project, November 11, 2004 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).
23] John Dobberstein, "Area Man Stirs Debate
on WTC Collapse," South Bend Tribune, November 22, 2004
(http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856).
24] NIST, Final Report, 196.
25] Comments from Underwriters Laboratories
on NIST WTC report, NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/comments/ULI_Ganesh_Rao_8-5-05.pdf).
26] Archived webcast video of NIST press
briefing, NIST News Release website, June 23, 2005 (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_june2305.htm),
01:18:50.
27] NIST, Final Report, 197.
28] NIST presentation on WTC7 collapse
investigation, NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf).
29] John McMurtry, "9/11 and the 9/11 Wars:
Understanding the Supreme Crimes." In David Ray Griffin and
Peter Dale Scott, eds., 9/11 and the American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006). My
present essay will also appear in this volum
|
21.
Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich
Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007 |
Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite,
Thermate, Iron- Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and
the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World
Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 By Jerry Lobdill June 15,
2007 Acknowledgments I am indebted to Dr. Dale Huckaby of Texas
Christian University and Dr. Richard Sisson of Worcester
Polytechnic Institute for reference information pertaining to
phase diagrams and to Dr. Frank Legge for critical review.
However, the responsibility for this paper rests solely on me.
Introduction It has been established through a study of the
photographic and video evidence that there were a number of
instances of white-hot areas that produced glowing liquid flows
from window openings on the 80th to 82nd floor of WTC 2 that
persisted for quite a number of seconds. According to the NIST
FAQ1 these events came within the last 7 minutes before WTC 2
began its collapse. White-hot temperatures cannot be produced by
ordinary fires. These observations have therefore been
conclusively shown to be incendiary events. This fact is
inconsistent with any theory of collapse except controlled
demolition. Yet the official story remains that the buildings
were brought down by fires and damage to the structural members
of the buildings resulting from the impact of the planes. The
WTC 7 wasnt even hit by a plane, yet it is claimed that it was
brought down by fires. All three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC
7 were subjects of many video documents that remain today as
some of the very best evidence for controlled demolition that we
have. It is clear from the videos that explosives were used. The
evidence for incendiary cutting of steel consists of the video
evidence, the forensic evidence in the dust and rubble, and the
testimony of eyewitness early responders and survivors who saw
glowing molten metal flowing out of window openings. This paper
deals with the incendiary events and the forensic evidence that
remains to prove that the official story is wrong. Specifically,
this paper discusses the chemistry of iron-aluminum-rich
microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the
chemical content of these microspheres and the physical
chemistry of the iron-sulfur-oxygen system since sulfur is one
of the omnipresent elements in the iron-aluminum-rich
microspheres and was also found in a metallurgical study of
structural iron from the WTC 72. 1 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm,
2 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm,
by Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, R. D. Sisson, Jr. of
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 2 Dr. Steven Jones discovered
the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres and has analyzed their
elemental composition using XEDS analysis.3 This discovery, of
recent date, is a very important addition to the body of
evidence that disproves the official story. At the present time
the interpretation of these microspheres is still under
discussion as is the composition of the incendiary they imply.
This paper brings the subject of physical chemistry into the
investigation and suggests some new possibilities that should be
considered to enhance the scientific basis of the claim that
incendiary devices were employed in the demolition of the WTC
buildings. Physical chemistry is a subject that bridges physics
and chemistry. It involves the study of the interactions between
matter and energy. Whereas chemistry is concerned primarily with
the material changes that occur in reactions, and physics may be
regarded as a study of energy and its transformations, physical
chemistry is concerned with both of these subjects. The
influence of physical factors such as temperature, pressure,
concentration, electricity, and light, both on the reacting
substances and the reactions is studied in physical chemistry to
better understand the fundamental nature of chemical change. The
thermodynamics of changes in matter is an area we will discuss
in this paper in connection with 9/11. We will also be
interested in surface tension. It is important that an alternate
theory of the demise of the WTC towers be consistent with
physical chemistry principles, and it is to that end that this
paper is dedicated. About Thermite The evidence is overwhelming
that thermite or a thermite-like mixture was used in the WTC 2
tower very shortly before the building fell. What was the
purpose of this? Thermite has been used to weld railroad rail
sections together and also to cut structural steel. It has also
been used for military purposes such as destroying guns and
other weapons, disabling engines, and to rapidly destroy
cryptographic machines. It appears that in the WTC it was used
to cut structural steel in an early phase of controlled
demolition. This use implies that whatever the task, it had to
be completed in the last minute or so before the building began
to fall. Any chemical process that continued after the primary
task was completed is simply an unavoidable sequela of the
primary purpose. An excellent article on thermite is posted in
wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Types. There
are a number of possible reactions that could produce large
amounts of heat that could be used to melt (cut) steel. For
example, Fe2O3 + 2Al Al2O3 + 2Fe 3FeO + 2Al Al2O3 + 3Fe 3
Revisiting 9/11/2001Applying the Scientific Method, by Dr.
Steven Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, V 11, May 2007 3 3Fe3O4 +
8Al 4Al2O3 + 9Fe 3CuO + 2Al Al2O3 + 3Cu These reactions all
produce a free metal and release a large quantity of heat that
leaves a residue of very hot molten metal. It is not the purpose
of this paper to analyze each of these reactions (and others)
that could be used to cut structural steel. We are not
interested here in comparing the relative merits of these
reactions. We will restrict our attention to the first reaction
and show how to determine how much thermite is needed to cut a
given amount of structural steel. One thing to notice about
these equations is that they produce no gas that could be used
to force the molten metal against the solid structural steel to
be cut. That is a problem if vertical surfaces are to be cut (as
in the WTC). Engineering Considerations and the Use of Thermate
Spectre Enterprisess patent for a linear pyrotechnic cutting
device shows a stack of charge containers that are cylindrical
with a slit nozzle in the wall parallel to the axis of the
cylinder. The cylinder height is much smaller than the diameter.
The molten liquid is forced out of the nozzle into contact with
the steel object to be cut. This would seem to imply that there
are additives in the charge that produce hot gas to provide the
pressure to force out the liquid.4 The gas is provided by an air
filled empty space in the reaction chamber in the patent for
Thermate- TH35. Other methods of providing the required gas have
also been used. About Thermate When sulfur is added to thermite
the result is called thermate. Other reaction enhancing
chemicals may also be added. Thermate is said to have superior
steel cutting capabilities compared with thermite for reasons
that have not yet been fully explained. In this section we will
discuss what is known about the properties of thermate that may
have some bearing on its cutting properties. What does the
addition of sulfur do? Ignition of thermite causes the reaction
mix to be heated to white-hot temperatures (~ 2500 C).
Monoclinic sulfur melts at 119.25 C and boils at 444.6 C.
However, sulfur and iron are miscible, and research has shown
that the Fe-S binary system at one atmosphere of pressure forms
a liquid at temperatures as high as 1800 C, far above the
boiling point of sulfur alone. The phase behavior of this system
has been studied extensively. Figure 1 is the phase diagram of
the Fe-S system at 1 atmosphere of pressure. 4 "Thermite
mixtures of metals and fuels such as aluminum, zirconium,
magnesium, boron or titanium; oxides such as iron oxide, common
chemical oxidizers such as nitrates and perchlorates, halogen
containing polymers and other gas producing materials, such as
fluorocarbon (e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene) are typical." From
Patent detail, Spectre Enterprises. See post by Ferric Oxide,
March 23, 2007 at http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/viewtopic.php?mforum=stj911&t=50&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40&
mforum=stj911 5 http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744
4 Figure 1Phase Diagram, Fe-S Binary System For our purposes we
consider Fe-S mixtures that contain 31.4% by weight sulfur (the
point x in Figure 1) or less. At 31.4% sulfur and 994 C6 the
system is at the eutectic point; i.e., the lowest temperature at
which liquid can exist in a mixture of S and Fe. In the liquid
state the mixture (at any concentration) is homogeneous.
However, the solid state is heterogeneous and the character of
its heterogeneity at any given concentration may be dependent on
the history of its solidification process. Certain domains of
the solid mixture in the phase diagram are characterized by
different crystal structures. Figure 1 assumes that no other
elements are in contact with the Fe-S system. If there is any
space above the surface of the mix in the closed system that
space will contain gaseous sulfur. A complication occurs if the
system is open to the air. In that case we have a ternary
system, Fe-S-O. This was the case in the WTC situation. Of
course, oxygen is a diatomic gas, O2, at all temperatures of
interest here. Solid sulfur will ignite rather easily in air.
Its flash point is 207.2 C, and its self ignition point is 237.2
C. So our system contains solid, liquid, and gaseous phases. We
have not only a ternary system, but one which forms compounds,
FeO and FeS under various conditions of temperature and
concentrations of Fe, S, and O. And we know that FeO and FeS
form a binary eutectic system7, so that it is possible to have
heterogeneous mixtures 6 Other measurement data shows a eutectic
temperature of 988 C. The exact value is not critical for our
discussion. 7 Thanks to Dr. Richard D. Sisson, Jr. for this
information. 5 of solid FeS, FeO, Fe, and S. The phase diagram
for FeO and FeS is given in Figure 2. The temperature scale is
Celsius. Figure 2-- FeO-FeS Phase Diagram A further complication
is the fact that FeO and FeS are non-stoichiometric compounds.
That is, they do not contain exactly as many atoms of one
element as they do of the other. This means that the crystal
structure is not regular, but has unpredictable irregularities
that cause granularity. There can be interfacial areas that are
cationic and others that are anionic, contributing to corrosion
of Fe over time. The corrosion rates are unknown.8 One must also
consider time scales for phase transformations in an environment
where temperature gradients are severe and heat is conducted
rapidly. The phase diagrams depict equilibrium states, and we
have already noted that the heterogeneous structure of the solid
that results upon cooling when ambient temperature is reached
may depend on the rapidity of cooling. The efficiency of cutting
steel depends on effective heat transfer as well. We know
empirically that when a white-hot liquid thermate reaction
mixture is sprayed from a nozzle against steel at 8 See Footnote
2, Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson 6 room temperature it cuts
through the steel more easily than does reacting thermite that
is simply in contact with the steel. In addition to sulfur,
other chemicals such as Ba(NO3)2 may be added. It is said that
the reaction is speeded up as a result of adding KMnO4. These
chemicals may decompose due to the heat and form compounds that
may act as catalysts, not as a source of extra oxygen for, say,
the purpose of providing gas for propelling the thermate
mixture. A catalyst does not react in its role. It remains
unchanged after the reaction has gone to completion. The
observations of Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson (BB&S) (See
Footnote 2) describe sulfidation of some structural steel from
WTC 7. They say: Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result
of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular
melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the
eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the
temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This
strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the
steel beam approached ~1000 C, forming the eutectic liquid by a
process similar to making a blacksmiths weld in a hand
forge.9 And they conclude: The severe corrosion and subsequent
erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this
is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the
collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the
phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the
weakening of the steel structure. We should take note of the
fact that they are saying they have no idea of the rapidity of
the sulfidation and oxidation processes or when they began. They
also seem to be aware of the fact that there were large volumes
of red hot metal below the rubble piles. (This is rather
interesting since NIST, their sponsor, claims they are unaware
of any such thing. )11 Now consider the problem of the molten
metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested
that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Lets
discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut
from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes
with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by
gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at
S < 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S%
in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases
until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic
mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which
measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%,
the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows
downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten
mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the
eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid
gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a 9 See
Footnote 2. 10 From WTC 7 and WTC 1 or 2, respectively. 11 John
Gross, Video presentation at UT Austin, http://www.pnacitizen.org/john_gross_nist_pnac.php
7 microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically)
31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has
solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a
plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was
orange-hot liquid (~1000 C). However, if the thermate contained
only 2% S by weight (as specified for Thermate-TH3)12, that
would not be enough to even produce a eutectic mixture using all
the Fe produced in the thermate reaction, let alone all the
added Fe from the cut column. It is not likely that the amount
of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the
eutectic mixture; however any substantial amount of sulfur will
usefully lower the melting point of the attacked steel by
sulfidation. About the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres Dr.
Jones13 found these microspheres in WTC dust that deposited in
an apartment about 100 yards away from one of the towers. They
contain Fe, Al, S, K, Mn and other elements in small
percentages. Iron is a major component of these objects. The
spherical shape of the microspheres is caused by surface tension
acting on tiny molten droplets. This is the only mechanism by
which the spherical shape can be explained. Therefore, these
microspheres are proof that molten iron was produced in the
process that caused the demise of the WTC towers, a remarkable
fact that does not fit the official story. Some of these
microspheres are hollow, and Dr. Jones has determined that the
inside surface of these spheres contain sulfur. This is
consistent with a molten droplet containing some gaseous sulfur.
The physics of this situation is the same as for bubbles. The
surface tension and the internal gas pressure cause the radius
of the bubble to adjust to balance these two forces. Thermite
Heat Balance Analysis It is all well and good to compare heats
of reaction for various thermite analog reactions. But for
purposes of cutting steel one needs to know how much thermite is
needed to cut a particular size of steel column successfully.
The cutting charge must melt the steel and heat the molten mass,
including the reaction products, sufficiently to allow it to
flow away from the cut before it solidifies. We cannot precisely
determine how hot the molten mass must be through analysis, but
we can determine the amount of thermite needed to heat the
molten mass to its highest temperature. This analysis is useful
for charge size estimation purposes. I have computed the amount
of steel that can be cut away per gram of Fe3O4-Al thermite
given a desired final temperature of the molten mix. This is
done using chemical engineering thermodynamics methods. In doing
the heat balance I assume that all quantities are in
stoichiometric proportions. I also assume that the heat of
reaction is consumed in heating all the products of the reaction
at 100% efficiency. 12 See Footnote 5. 13 See Footnote 3 8 The
calculations and data for this heat balance are a bit
complicated and have been relegated to the Appendix. Figure 3
gives the results of the heat balance calculations. The higher
the maximum temperature reached by the molten mix, the longer it
will remain molten as it flows away from the cut. But we pay a
price to increase that maximum temperature. Addition of sulfur
decreases the temperature at which the molten mix solidifies and
increases the time available for the molten mix to flow away
from the cut. Adding sulfur would decrease the required maximum
temperature, and thus, decrease the amount of thermite needed to
do a particular job. Only experimentation can determine what the
optimum proportion of sulfur would be to minimize the amount of
thermite needed to accomplish the desired cut. Amount of Steel
Cut Away Per g Thermite vs Final Temperature y = 7E-07x2 -
0.004x + 6.5597 R2 = 1 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1500 1600 1700 1800
1900 2000 Temperature, deg C g Fe Cut From Column/g Thermite
Figure 3Amount of Steel Cut Away Per g of Thermite vs Final
Temperature of the Molten Mix 9 Conclusions This paper has
discussed some physical chemistry aspects of thermite and
thermate and shown how science explains the existence of
iron-aluminum-rich microspheres, why some microspheres are
hollow, and why the metallurgical forensic study produced the
results it did. The thermodynamic analysis has provided an
understanding of how much thermite is needed to cut away a given
amount of steel at 100% efficiency. The complexity of the
chemistry involved has been illuminated. These analyses enhance
our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of
incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC buildings. 10
APPENDIX A Table A-1Chemical Data Used in Heat Balance
Calculations Heat of Reaction, cal/g mole 203513.384
cal/gram-mole cal/Joule 0.239005736 (http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm)
Cp of Fe Equation 1 cal/K/gram-mole Cp of S/g Equation 2
cal/K/gram-mole Cp of Al2O3/g Equation 3 cal/K/gram-mole Heat of
Fusion, Fe 59.09882213 cal/g Heat of Fusion, S 9.2 cal/g 115.21,
wiki temp, CRC 78th Ed. http://www.speclab.com/elements/sulfur.htm
Heat of vaporization, Fe 340 kJ/mole, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron
Heat of vaporization, Fe cal/g 1455.003586 cal/g Heat of
vaporization, S cal/g 335.4100333 cal/g, 444.6 C Heat of
Transition (rhombic--> monoclinic) 2.900268197 cal/g (at 94.9 C)
To 25 degC At Wt Fe 55.85 At Wt Al 26.98 At Wt S 32.066 M P S
(rhomb) 112.8 deg C M P S (monoclinic) 119.25 deg C M P S (wiki)
(not used) 115.21 deg C B P S 444.6 deg C M P Fe 1538 deg C B P
Fe 3000 deg C Mol Wt Fe2O3 159.7 g Mol Wt Al2O3 101.96 g
Equation 1: (Fe) (Source 2 p. 221) 4.13 + 0.00638T T = 273 to
1041 K Crystalline, a 6.12 + 0.00336T T = 1041 to 1179
Crystalline, b 8.4 T = 1179 to 1674 Crystalline, g 10.0 T = 1674
to 1811A-1 Crystalline, d 8.15 T = 1811 to 1873 Liquid 8.15 T =
1873 to 2773 Liquid (assumed) Equation 2: (S) (Source 2 p. 224)
3.63 + 0.00640T T = 273 to 368 K Crystalline, rhombic 4.38 +
0.00440T T = 368 to 392.35 Crystalline, monoclinic (Unknown) T =
392.35 to 717.7 Liquid (Unknown) T = 717.7 to 2773 gas A-1
Chemical Engineers Handbook shows 1803 K. Accepted value of Fe
melting point is 1811 K (2007) 11 Equation 3: (Al2O3) (Source 2
p. 219) 22.08 +0.008971T 522500/T2 T = 273 to 1973 Crystalline
(Unknown) T = 1973 to 2773 Crystalline Sources: 1. Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, 39th Ed., 1957, 78th Ed., 1996 2.
Chemical Engineers Handbook, 3rd Ed., 1950 and 6th Ed., 1984 3.
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, by J. M.
Smith, McGraw-Hill 1949 Thermite Heat Balance Fe2O3 + 2Al
Al2O3 + 2Fe + 851.5 kJ/mol The yield for stoichiometric
quantities is summarized in Table A-2. Table A-2Mass of
Reaction Products per Gram of Thermite For 1 g thermite Chemical
N moles g/mole g (molar portions) g % of molar Fe2O3 1 159.7
159.7 0.7474 0.47% Al 2 26.98 53.96 0.2526 0.47% Al2O3 1 101.96
101.96 0.4772 0.47% Fe 2 55.85 111.7 0.5228 0.47% Heat of
Reaction Thermite is formulated as 159.7/53.96 = 2.960 parts
Fe2O3 to 1 part Al (by weight). If 159.7 g of Fe2O3 is used,
851.5 kJ is liberated. If 0.7474 g of Fe2O3 is used, then
0.0047*851.5 kJ is liberated. Converting kJ to cal, multiply by
239.0057. So, 0.7474 g of Fe2O3 (1 g thermite) produces 956.51
cal of reaction heat. Problem A-1 When thermite reacts, if there
is no excess Fe in contact with the molten reaction product, the
reaction heat will be used up to heat only the reaction
products. However, we want to produce molten Fe from not only
the thermite, but also from the cutting of the structural steel
column. How much structural steel liquid could be produced at,
say, 1800 C per gram of thermite? Solution The reaction must
heat the reaction products from a reference temperature of 25 C
to 1800 C and melt X grams of structural steel whose original
temperature is 25 C into molten Fe at 1800 C. Since the Fe is
being transformed from the solid state at 25 C into the liquid
state at 1800 C the heat of fusion of Fe at 59.1 cal/g, must be
added to convert the Fe from solid to liquid. The Al2O3 12
remains in the same crystalline state throughout the process, so
it has no heat of transition component as the reaction products
and the molten Fe from the cutting operation come to equilibrium
at 1800 C. The enthalpy of the nth component due to temperature
change, DHT(n), depends on the mass, m, of the component, the
heat capacity per gram, cp, of the component, and the
temperature difference, (T2 T1). The equation is DHT(n) = m(n)
cp(n)(T2 T1) A-1 Table A-3 Heat absorbed by Reaction Product
Fe Fe T (deg C) T (deg K) Cp, cal/deg/g-mol cp, cal/deg/g DH,
cal/g H cal/g 25 298.1 6.032 0.1080 0.0000 50 323.1 6.191 0.1109
2.7357 2.7357 100 373.1 6.510 0.1166 5.6857 8.4214 200 473.1
7.148 0.1280 12.2281 20.6495 300 573.1 7.786 0.1394 13.3704
34.0199 400 673.1 8.424 0.1508 14.5128 48.5326 500 773.1 9.062
0.1623 15.6551 64.1877 600 873.1 9.700 0.1737 16.7975 80.9852
700 973.1 10.338 0.1851 17.9398 98.9250 767.9 1041 10.772 0.1929
12.8323 111.7573 767.90001 1041 9.618 0.1722 0.0000 111.7573
905.9 1179 10.081 0.1805 24.3374 136.0947 905.90001 1179 8.400
0.1504 0.0000 136.0947 1400.9 1674 8.400 0.1504 74.4494 210.5441
1400.9 1674 10.000 0.1791 0.0000 210.5441 1537.9 1811 10.000
0.1791 24.5300 235.0741 1537.9 1811 8.150 0.1459
NewsFollowUp.com 0.0000 235.0741 1800 2073.1 8.150 0.1459
38.2474 273.3215 cal/g Fe 273.3215cal/g Fe Heat of Fusion Fe
59.0988cal/g Fe g Fe/g Thermite 0.5228 cal/g thermite 173.7893
NOTE: The heats of transition from a--> b-->g-->d crystalline
forms are assumed to be zero in the absence of data. This
assumption probably introduces only a very small error. 13 Fe,
Enthalpy vs Temperature y = 0.1576x - 9.5837 R2 = 0.9987 0 50
100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Temperature, deg. C
Enthalpy, cal/g Fe Figure A-1 Curve fit of Enthalpy vs
Temperature, Fe 14 Table A-4 -- Heat absorbed by Reaction
Product Al2O3 Al2O3 T (deg C) T (deg K) Cp, cal/deg/g-mol cp,
cal/deg/g DH, cal/g H 25 298.1 18.8745 0.1851 0.0000 107 380.1
21.8734 0.2145 16.3855 16.3855 214 487.1 24.2476 0.2378 24.2004
40.5858 321 594.1 25.9293 0.2543 26.3286 66.9145 428 701.1
27.3066 0.2678 27.9337 94.8482 535 808.1 28.5293 0.2798 29.2980
124.1461 642 915.1 29.6654 0.2910 30.5357 154.6818 749 1022.1
30.7491 0.3016 31.7004 186.3823 856 1129.1 31.7993 0.3119
32.8201 219.2024 963 1236.1 32.8271 0.3220 33.9105 253.1129 1070
1343.1 33.8393 0.3319 34.9809 288.0938 1177 1450.1 34.8404
0.3417 36.0373 324.1311 1284 1557.1 35.8332 0.3514 37.0835
361.2146 1391 1664.1 36.8200 0.3611 38.1223 399.3369 1498 1771.1
37.8020 0.3708 39.1553 438.4922 1605 1878.1 38.7803 0.3803
40.1839 478.6761 1712 1985.1 39.7557 0.3899 41.2091 519.8852
1800 2073.1 40.5562 0.3978 34.6580 554.5431 554.5431cal/g Al2O3
g Al2O3/g Thermite 0.4772 cal/g thermite 264.6280 Al2O3,
Enthalpy vs Temperature y = 5.069E-05x2 + 2.220E-01x - 8.180E+00
R2 = 1.000E+00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Temperature, deg C H, cal/g Al2O3 Figure A-2 Curve fit of
Enthalpy vs Temperature, Al2O3 15 From Tables A-3, A-4 the total
heat absorbed by reaction products in mix that ends up at 1800 C
is 173.789+ 264.628 = 438.417 cal. This leaves 952.51 438.417
= 514.093 cal to heat X g of Fe from the cutting of structural
steel. From Table A-3, 273.321 + 59.1 = 332.421 cal/g Fe is
required to heat it from 25 C to 1800 C. Since we have 514.093
calories available, X = 514.093/332.421 = 1.547 g structural
steel/g thermite roughly. Again, this is a little optimistic
since we do not have heats of transition for the different
crystalline forms of Fe. Now we do Problem A-1 for final
temperatures between 1540 C and 2000 C using the curve fit
equations given in Figures A-1 and A-2. These data are plotted
in Figure 3. Table A-5 Grams of Steel Cut Away per Gram of
Thermite vs Final Temperature (For Figure 3) Heat of Reaction/g
thermite = 952.51 cal g Fe/g thermite = 0.5228 g Al2O3/g
thermite= 0.4772 . T, deg C H/g, Fe H/g, Al2O3 H,/g Thermite H
for column steel g Fe from column 1540 230.35 453.92 367.93
584.58 2.02 1600 239.63 476.79 383.70 568.81 1.90 1700 255.11
515.71 410.37 542.14 1.73 1800 270.59 555.66 437.52 514.99 1.56
2000 301.55 638.58 493.28 459.23 1.27 |
22.
The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila |
The Destruction of WTC 7 Important news (see
the article for more details): - NIST published its final report
in November 2008 - NIST acknowledged: fires burned out in 20
minutes in any given location - several demolition experts and
structural design professors: WTC 7 was a controlled demolition
- Frank Legge (Ph.D.): the rate of descent of WTC 7 almost
equals gravitational free fall - Several witnesses to explosions
have come forward - Over 1,600 architects and engineers
challenge the official explanations for WTC destruction
World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper
destroyed on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by a plane. The
picture on the left shows WTC 7 after the collapse of the Twin
Towers, smoldering in the background.
The final report on its collapse, postponed
several times, was published over 7 years after the event on
November 20, 2008.
This steel-framed skyscraper, completed in
1987, was located 110 meters (350 feet) away from the closest of
the Twin Towers ("WTC 1" on the map below). The building's
tenants included the CIA, the Internal Revenue Service, several
banks, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, and the U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission. A large number of records of
ongoing investigations of Enron and other companies were
destroyed with WTC 7.
No airplane hit WTC 7, but its south facade
was damaged by debris ejected from the North Tower, which
collapsed at 10.30 am. There is conflicting information about
the amount of damage. For example, in the pictures shown in a
preliminary official report the southwest corner is badly
damaged, whereas in the photograph taken by Aman Zafar in the
afternoon the same corner is intact see my photo comparison.
The building was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although
the fires seem to have started in the morning after the
destruction of the North Tower. The fires, whose origin has not
been determined, appeared on a number of floors, and the
evacuated building collapsed at 5.20 pm. A high-resolution video
of the collapse is available here. The video below shows the
totality and symmetry of the building's destruction.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA,
speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the
building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ...] the best
hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in
2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, gave in the America
Rebuilds TV program the famous "pull it" statement that many
have interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally
demolished.
Did WTC 7 collapse as a result of office
fires, or was it demolished with explosives? The answer can be
sought by examining the way in which the building collapsed.
Collapse Speed
As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's
collapse, after the roofline began its smooth descent, the
building fell to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds. This
is a phenomenally short time: a stone dropped from the top of
the building would have reached the ground (covering a distance
of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds if there were no air
resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should
be that from the top of the building to the top of the debris
pile, not to the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile
is not documented, it is more useful to examine the early stages
of the collapse, during which the debris pile does not need to
be taken into account.
According to the video analysis presented in
the 9-11 Eyewitness documentary, starting from the state of
rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. This results in an
acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding to a free fall.
To verify this, I examined the fall of a
corner of the building in one collapse video using Blaze Media
Pro video editing software. The corner fell 56 meters (=the
distance between the Start and End lines in the animation below)
in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3 m/s2,
which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the
structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of
the building's falling upper section.
I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2
for the middle part of the wide facade in the picture, which
means that the force of resistance of the structural supports
was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the falling upper
section (see the calculation in more detail here).
My measurements therefore support the
conclusion presented in 9-11 Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell
virtually unimpeded. The lack of structural resistance seems to
be explainable only by the destruction of the structural
supports through the use of explosives. WTC 7 dropped rather
than collapsed. It came down as if only air had separated the
roof of the building from the street below.
WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47
/ 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of
descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost
20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over
200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge
(Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate
of gravitational free fall, which combined with the uniformity
of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building
is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.
Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of
Engineering and accident researcher, has made detailed
calculations about the collapse speed of WTC 7. He concludes
that the short collapse time and low structural resistance
"strongly suggest controlled demolition". Kurttila notes that an
apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's roof would have taken
about 0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it took the
skyscraper to be completely destroyed.
Structural Features of the Collapse
A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is
symmetry. The collapse progressed evenly throughout the
building, and the debris piled up almost completely within the
foundations of the building (see the picture below).
The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all
of its steel supports 25 central and 58 peripheral columns
were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the
damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By
contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of
explosives would violate the principle of least resistance.
Local office fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in
any given location) and structural damage here and there could
not have weakened all the central and peripheral support
structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail
at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of
support structures throughout the building can, however, be
explained by controlled demolition.
Outside September 11th, highrises have toppled
in earthquakes, but no completed highrise has been totally
destroyed except in controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition is also suggested by
the drop of the center of the skyscraper moments before the
surrounding structures started to fall, as well as by the fact
that the outer walls were pulled inwards. In a controlled
demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying the
weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior
walls inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with
fires was reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have
undergone a traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom
floor. An emergency worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7
was interviewed on 9/11. He described hearing what sounded like
a "clap of thunder", followed by what looked like "a shockwave
ripping through the building", with windows busting out, and
"about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the rest
of] the building followed after that". The videos showing the
collapse support his description.
At least one high-resolution video of the
collapse of WTC 7 clearly shows one more characteristic of
controlled demolition: streamers of dust emerging out of the
building.
A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko
(right), who owns a demolition company and has been in the
business for almost 30 years, concluded in September 2006 that
WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. ...] A team of experts did
this. This is professional work, without any doubt." A number of
other demolition experts agree.
Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for
structural design and construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger: "In
my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by
controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jφrg
Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural
design and construction, interprets the existing videos as
indicating that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down
by explosives".
Fire Endurance of Steel
Steel is very fire-resistant material. In
tests conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, the
fire endurance of steel-framed parking garages was examined by
feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel. Steel beams and pillars
heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and the breaking of
steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance tests,
modelled on conditions in real buildings, unprotected steel was
subjected to temperatures of up to 1100 degrees Celsius (2012
F), but there was no collapse. Similarly, in the fire
experiments contracted by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), testing the pancake collapse theory by
modelling the fire exposure of WTC's floor assemblies, there was
no collapse. Although NIST ignored the results in its final
report, it acknowledged that the results "established that this
type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,
without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to
the duration of the fires in any given location on September
11th."
In the Windsor Building in Madrid, an almost
24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building. Moreover,
the fires in WTC 7 were small compared to the fires in Windsor
Building and most known skyscraper fires. The latest case is the
all-engulfing fire in Al Nasr Tower in 2006. Fires have never
collapsed a single steel-framed highrise to the ground.
In the picture of WTC 7 to the right, the
fires are limited to small areas, almost all windows are intact,
and no red heat indicative of temperatures capable of softening
steel is visible. The situation is largely the same in other
photographs taken of the building in late afternoon. In some
videos, such as this, a fair amount of smoke can be seen
emanating from the southern facade (some of the smoke appears to
be rising from WTC 5 and WTC 6 as well as from the remains of
the twin towers), and several windows were broken on a few
floors in the southern wall. In any case, WTC 5, which was badly
damaged by the collapse of the North Tower next to it, burned
much more powerfully. However, although this building had weaker
support structures than WTC 7, it did not collapse into a debris
pile, but remained standing as did all the other highrises
equally close to the Twin Towers, including the Verizon,
Deutsche Bank, and U.S. Post Office buildings.
In December 2007, it was acknowledged in the
advisory committee meeting of the NIST that the fires in WTC 7
were ordinary office fires and burned out in any given location
in 20 minutes. In such a short time, the temperature of
fire-protected steel members would have maxed out below 200
degrees Celsius (or ~400 degrees Fahrenheit). Such temperatures
have no effect on construction steel.
Characteristics of the Debris
The debris of WTC 7 was extremely hot for
weeks after the collapse of the building. Thermal imaging by
NASA showed that the top of the debris pile had a temperature of
730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse. Deeper, and
immediately after the destruction, temperatures were probably
considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be
explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven
collapse. When the potential energy of a building experiencing
an ordinary gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy,
the result is only a few degrees' average increase in
temperature.
According to several reports, molten metal
(also suggested by this video footage) was found under the
debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt structural steel,
temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are required. Such
temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In addition to
molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in the
debris of WTC 7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a
New York Times interview, the fires in the building could not
have produced temperatures capable of evaporating steel.
However, the use of explosives like thermite can produce
temperatures (even 3000 degrees Celsius) that can melt and even
evaporate steel.
FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work
in the collapse zone itself. They were allowed to examine the
debris of WTC skyscrapers only in landfill areas used as
temporary storage for the steel debris before its recycling. By
May 2002, when FEMA finished its preliminary report calling for
further investigation, almost all the steel debris had been sold
and shipped into the Far East. Only 236 pieces of steel had been
retained for examination, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were
from WTC 7. Even these may no longer exist.
As WTC 7 was evacuated over six hours before
its destruction, there were no grounds for the rapid removal and
recycling of the steel debris. Quite the contrary: as WTC 7 was
one of the three greatest building disasters in recorded history
(the other two being the North and South Towers), the debris of
the building should have been meticulously examined. Many
individuals and publications, such as the Fire Engineering
Magazine, protested strongly, but in vain, against the rapid
destruction of the evidence.
Witness statements
Craig Bartmer, a NYPD officer, states that he
saw WTC 7 come down and heard a number of explosions in rapid
succession. He is convinced that the skyscraper was brought down
with explosives.
Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the
Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing
Authority, has given a detailed statement of explosions in the
evacuated WTC 7. As a result of a major explosion on the sixth
floor, he and his colleague were trapped inside the building for
about an hour and a half before the firemen were able to help
them out. The colleague was Michael Hess, New York Citys
corporation counsel, who confirmed to UPN 9 News that morning
that an explosion in WTC 7 had trapped him and Jennings inside.
Jennings emphasized that after the explosion, both of the twin
towers were still standing, a statement that is supported by the
time of Hess' interview in the morning. The men's statements,
combined with the time of Hess' interview, place the explosion
around 9:159:30, when the two were descending the stairs from
the Mayor's Emergency Management Centre on the 23d floor, to
which they had gone before the second plane struck the South
Tower, only to find the center deserted.
Several rescue personnel have also come
forward saying they were told that the building would be brought
down by means of explosives. One such statement can be heard in
this excerpt of Italian TV's documentary, in which one can also
hear explosions from WTC 7: in one scene, a loud explosion is
shown startling first responders, while a police officer says
"the building is about to blow up".
Final Words
Was WTC 7 destroyed as a result of controlled
demolition? Everyone can draw their own conclusions from the way
in which the building was destroyed and the temperatures
produced in the destruction.
If and when the building was demolished, it
must have been wired with explosives before September 11th. An
operation of that magnitude could not have been accomplished
during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why the official
hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation for
the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11
Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention
in a single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper
resulting from the terrorist attack in New York.
FEMA's work was continued by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, which finally published
its report on WTC 7 for public comment on November 20, 2008.
NIST claims that thermal expansion resulting from ordinary
office fires (not diesel fires) initiated a catastrophic chain
of events leading to the total collapse of the skyscraper. The
draft report was greeted with widespread disbelief and criticism
on the part of both the general public and many experts. A group
of architects, engineers and scientists refute NIST's
conclusions point by point. The creator of this blog also
approached NIST with his own comments.
Buried in the final report is NIST's
acknowledgement of a period of 2.25 seconds of total freefall,
covering a distance of approximately 8 stories. The implications
of the sudden total lack of structural support provided by 80
support columns over numerous stories are not discussed.
Perhaps NIST's report needs to be analyzed in
the light of how Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC
investigator, interviewed in New York Magazine, summed up the
state of the investigation back in 2006:
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on
7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement
east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh
floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really
know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
Courtesy Piano Video
Send email
Lδhettδnyt Truthseeker |
23.
The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect |
The NIST WTC Investigation-- How Real Was The
Simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1 By Eric Douglas, R.A.
nistreview.org December 2006 Abstract 1.0 Introduction 2.0
Physical Tests 2.1 Single Workstation Burn 2.2 Multiple
Workstation Burn 2.3 Floor Assembly Fire Resistance 3.0 Computer
Simulations 3.1 Aircraft Impact 3.2 Fire Dynamics Simulator 3.3
Structural/Thermal Response 4.0 Summary and Practical
Applications Appendix: Related Observable Data Journal of 9/11
Studies 2 December 2006/Volume 6 Abstract The NIST investigation
of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not
substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary,
many of NISTs tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore,
there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate
input data, and then certify its findings based upon the
inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input.
One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that
uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in
its findings. NISTs physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM
E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly
modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted
NISTs conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the
performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire
conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the
temperatures were generally too low, especially in the
ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests
showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood
the fires they experienced on 9/11. There were also flaws in
NISTs computer simulations, including its impact simulation,
its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation,
its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global
simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft
would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NISTs
subsequent scenario pruning was confused and unsubstantiated.
The decision to exclude the hat truss from the
structural/thermal response simulations was a significant
omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in
forces on the exterior columns is central to NISTs theory but
not explained or supported by simulation. This paper will
conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although
not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the
reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC
buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the
discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in
its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make
its raw data available to other researchers. Keywords:
Buildings, collapse, fire, large deflections, stability,
structural analysis, structural damage, structural response to
fire, World Trade Center. Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 December
2006/Volume 6 1.0 Introduction The destruction, on September 11,
2001, of the seven buildings that comprised the World Trade
Center (WTC) complex in New York City was arguably the most
significant series of structural failures in the history of
modern construction. As members of the building community, we
are keenly interested in understanding the cause of these
failures and the lessons to be learned from them. The first
official response to the WTC collapses, a report from FEMA (the
Federal Emergency Management Agency), did little to explain the
failures of WTC buildings. It was followed by several interim
reports, and then a final series of reports from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that expanded the
discussion of WTC 1 & 2, dealt with WTC 7 briefly, and ignored
the other buildings. (NIST has promised a full report on WTC7 by
early 2007.) NIST did not entirely accept FEMAs conclusions,
but, as this report will argue, did an unsatisfactory job of
validating its own. An important question in reviewing any
scientific study is Do the findings follow from objective
testing, or are the data and tests manipulated to fit a desired
outcome? This paper will show that NIST followed a pattern of
favoring data that supported its theories and rejecting valid
data that did not. It will also discuss how realistic and
conclusive the tests were that NIST performed. As we shall see,
NIST did very little physical testing, and, of that, much was
irrelevant or inconclusive. In fact, almost the entirety of
NISTs testing was actually computer simulation. In itself, this
is not necessarily problematic. What is disconcerting is that
NIST seems to attribute a level of certainty to its
computer-generated findings that may be grossly out of scale.
Since building codes, safety standards, and building design will
be influenced by the conclusions and recommendations of the NIST
WTC reports, it is important that a realistic assessment be made
of the foundation upon which they rest. This paper will attempt
to comment on all testing that NIST performed in its WTC
investigation and follow the order of the tests as one
informed the next. It takes no interest in the non-building
discussions. Only WTC 1 and WTC 2 will be addressed as these are
the only buildings discussed in NCSTAR 1 (the series of reports
considered herein). It should be noted that the intent of this
paper is to evaluate the validity of NISTs conclusions, not the
merit of the suggestions that derive there from. This report
takes no position at all regarding whether NISTs recommendation
for improving building safety should be implemented, and is not
intended as an effort to resist the improvement of building
safety standards. NIST should be recognized and applauded both
for the massive effort put forth to investigate these
extraordinary building failures and for its efforts to advocate
improved building safety. Unfortunately, despite its intensive
research, some internal conflicts remain unresolved. These
conflicts will be the focus of this paper and its intent is to
encourage their resolution. Furthermore, the author, lacking
resources, makes no attempt to provide parallel testing data or
simulations, but only attempts to suggest ways in which the
stated procedures could have been more rigorous. (Note:
Referenced materials are available online at www.wtc.nist.gov
and www.nistreview.org) Journal of 9/11 Studies 4 December
2006/Volume 6 2.0 Physical Tests The NIST WTC investigation
suffered from a paucity of physical testing. Effectively, all of
NISTs conclusions are derived from computer simulation. The
reasons for this are not entirely clear. NIST should have
performed destructive tests on mockups of key components of the
WTC structural systems. This was especially important since many
of the WTC buildings structural features were very innovative
for their time. |
|