Of course, this is all just speculation.
Just found this article by Morgan Reynolds, a Texas A&M professor and economist in the first Bush administration, arguing that the World Trade Center towers collapsed from a controlled demolition (i.e., explosives planted in the building) rather than jet fuel melting the steel beams. This isn't new, but it puts the arguments together nicely. First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. Reynolds wants to know why the steel was so rapidly shipped to China and melted before engineers had a chance to do "forensics" on it. This January 2002 article from Fire Engineering magazine suggests it was because the Port Authority didn't want lingering evidence of shoddy construction or fireproofing. Another possibility is, maybe the PA just wanted Silverstein, the building's owner, to get some cash.
Reynolds also wonders why all the concrete in the buildings was pulverized into fine dust by the force of the collapse. He says that only happens when explosive charges are used. And he wonders, can jet fuel really melt steel? A German engineer says burning kerosene isn't hot enough. And another issue:Progressive pancaking [of falling floors] cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. But then, that seems to be contradicted by the next paragraph:If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up. Also suspect are Reynolds' apparent assertions that planes did not hit the towers. Were all the videos and eyewitness accounts supposed to be faked? He doesn't say. It is weird that more attention wasn't paid to recovering the plane wreckage. The TWA plane that crashed in '96 was recovered from the ocean floor and reassembled piece by piece in an aircraft hangar; the WTC plane wreckage was apparently just hauled away with the rest of "ground zero" debris (and whose idea was it to call iit "ground zero"--where a nuke hits?)
Reynolds links to many books and web resources on the controlled demolition topic. Obviously 9/11 was a boon to Bush's childish "payback to Saddam" agenda; the case against a government conspiracy mainly comes down to: if they were that smart, why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Why are they bungling Iraq so badly? Because of the quick destruction of so much evidence, conspiracy theory becomes hard to separate from simple facts of engineering. My own minor contribution to the evidence: I've watched two big buildings fall in my life, the Cotton Exchange in Dallas in the early 90s, a controlled demolition, and the North Tower of the WTC, which I saw from a sixth floor apartment window in Jersey. They sure looked the same to me.
I love me a Reichstag Fire!
Here are a couple of "establishment" explanations of the collapse. One from Nova, one from ASCE. In the ASCE report, chapter 2 focuses on the collapse.
I don't know much about WTC 7, but these explanations for the tower collapses are plausible to me. It's a combination of the novel contruction technique, the initial damage of the impact, and the deformation caused by the intense fire. Take away any of these elements, and the buildings would have survived.
Here's the conspiracy that I think deserves attention: was BushCo lax on the known al Qaeda threat because they wanted a trigger event for their invasion of Iraq?
Thanks. I've read some of the Nova--lord, it is establishment, so reassuring, so Mr. Voice of Science. I have to have a break from it. The beams are gone! This guys is speculating just as much as Reynolds, but his lack of an alarmed tone I find just as upsetting as Reynolds' fever pitch.
I just find the odds against this freakish combo of events happening in three different buildings, each with different impact scenarios, within minutes of each other, in a situation where the pancaking had never happened before, in a scenario where there are a hundred other unanswered questions, and missing evidence, to be well, remarkably high without some other causation.
The world is awash in conspiracy theories without merit.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't trying to kill you. Here's an earlier thread where we discussed the "pulling" of WTC 7. I mean the alleged pulling.
Come on. In 1993 they attempted to bring the towers down with a huge truck bomb. If you have ever watched the controlled demolition of a building on TV, it is apparent that it is not easy to and would require the kind of access that would set of alarms everywhere. Further, the towers collapsed from the top down when the structural floor members failed because of the intense heat from the fire. I wouldn't preclude a failure in the "insullation" but I seriously doubt even that mattered. Why would all the concrete in the buildings pulverize into fine dust? I was in LA after the Northriodge earthquake and saw lots of pulverized concrete under the collapsed freeways. As for those fuel tanks - there was no fire there until after the collapse.
This kind of stuf is nothing but junk science.
My point (and I do have one) is that if the evidence was hauled away and melted, the science is all mostly speculative. I don't consider Fire Engineering magazine to be a refuge for the tinfoil hat crowd. Also, what is your source for the statement that the fuel tanks in WTC 7 caught fire after the building collapsed? This NY Times story says otherwise.
Sorry, I should have said, "if they caught/fueled the fire it would have been after the collapse" Stuff breaks when something heavy falls on it. Also, you don't need much steel to do the science. All these conspiracy speculatios will continue for years, that doesn't make them true.
I understand what you said, but the Times article says the burning fuel tanks melted the trusses and caused the collapse.
As for not needing much steel, I guess that's why the editor of Fire Engineering magazine was so concerned about it being hauled away--because they didn't need much of it.
The point of the post is to separate fact from "conspiracy theory." Sorry you're not interested in helping with that.
metropolis magazine had (as in used to have) a good section on the engenering side of things online. but thats gone now. i did find this cross section of the floor truss system.
The article at that link conflates tensile and compression loads on the floor trusses in the two towers. Asking questions is fine, but I have difficulty taking these alternate theories seriously when they lack rigor. Just being geeky about the thing.
Wacky. I have a degree in economics from Texas A&M. If you see a photo of Morgan Reynolds, send it to me. I'm sure I took one of his classes. My yearbook is too full of sports photos to have any of the faculty.
Barry, his photo is on the same page as the article I linked to in the main post. I'm still reading the Nova and other mainstream articles--I'm really all ears to learn how this wacky structural anomaly happened in three different buildings with three different impact scenarios and got the exact same result of "pancaking" on the exact same day, all on the same block, when it never happened before and hasn't happened since! That's gonna be some hellacious science! I realize I'm repeating myself but the "conventional wisdom" is what seems weird to my ears.
It was the Magik of God's Will what done it....
Lecture televised on CSPAN 2 by Professor David Ray Griffin questions many assumptions about 9/11 that allow George and others to sleep at night. Warning: controlled demolition theory flagrantly advocated. One question he mentions as "frequently asked" is one I'd like to hear the answer to: if a missile or military plane hit the Pentagon, where the heck is Barbara Olsen supposed to have gone?
|
Of course, this is all just speculation.
Just found this article by Morgan Reynolds, a Texas A&M professor and economist in the first Bush administration, arguing that the World Trade Center towers collapsed from a controlled demolition (i.e., explosives planted in the building) rather than jet fuel melting the steel beams. This isn't new, but it puts the arguments together nicely. Reynolds wants to know why the steel was so rapidly shipped to China and melted before engineers had a chance to do "forensics" on it. This January 2002 article from Fire Engineering magazine suggests it was because the Port Authority didn't want lingering evidence of shoddy construction or fireproofing. Another possibility is, maybe the PA just wanted Silverstein, the building's owner, to get some cash.
Reynolds also wonders why all the concrete in the buildings was pulverized into fine dust by the force of the collapse. He says that only happens when explosive charges are used. And he wonders, can jet fuel really melt steel? A German engineer says burning kerosene isn't hot enough. And another issue:But then, that seems to be contradicted by the next paragraph:Also suspect are Reynolds' apparent assertions that planes did not hit the towers. Were all the videos and eyewitness accounts supposed to be faked? He doesn't say. It is weird that more attention wasn't paid to recovering the plane wreckage. The TWA plane that crashed in '96 was recovered from the ocean floor and reassembled piece by piece in an aircraft hangar; the WTC plane wreckage was apparently just hauled away with the rest of "ground zero" debris (and whose idea was it to call iit "ground zero"--where a nuke hits?)
Reynolds links to many books and web resources on the controlled demolition topic. Obviously 9/11 was a boon to Bush's childish "payback to Saddam" agenda; the case against a government conspiracy mainly comes down to: if they were that smart, why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq? Why are they bungling Iraq so badly? Because of the quick destruction of so much evidence, conspiracy theory becomes hard to separate from simple facts of engineering. My own minor contribution to the evidence: I've watched two big buildings fall in my life, the Cotton Exchange in Dallas in the early 90s, a controlled demolition, and the North Tower of the WTC, which I saw from a sixth floor apartment window in Jersey. They sure looked the same to me.
- tom moody 7-07-2005 2:13 am
I love me a Reichstag Fire!
- Abraham Kalashnikov (guest) 7-07-2005 5:09 am
Here are a couple of "establishment" explanations of the collapse. One from Nova, one from ASCE. In the ASCE report, chapter 2 focuses on the collapse.
I don't know much about WTC 7, but these explanations for the tower collapses are plausible to me. It's a combination of the novel contruction technique, the initial damage of the impact, and the deformation caused by the intense fire. Take away any of these elements, and the buildings would have survived.
Here's the conspiracy that I think deserves attention: was BushCo lax on the known al Qaeda threat because they wanted a trigger event for their invasion of Iraq?
- mark 7-07-2005 8:11 am
Thanks. I've read some of the Nova--lord, it is establishment, so reassuring, so Mr. Voice of Science. I have to have a break from it. The beams are gone! This guys is speculating just as much as Reynolds, but his lack of an alarmed tone I find just as upsetting as Reynolds' fever pitch.
I just find the odds against this freakish combo of events happening in three different buildings, each with different impact scenarios, within minutes of each other, in a situation where the pancaking had never happened before, in a scenario where there are a hundred other unanswered questions, and missing evidence, to be well, remarkably high without some other causation.
- tom moody 7-07-2005 8:32 am
The world is awash in conspiracy theories without merit.
- George (guest) 7-07-2005 6:01 pm
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't trying to kill you. Here's an earlier thread where we discussed the "pulling" of WTC 7. I mean the alleged pulling.
- tom moody 7-07-2005 6:48 pm
Come on. In 1993 they attempted to bring the towers down with a huge truck bomb. If you have ever watched the controlled demolition of a building on TV, it is apparent that it is not easy to and would require the kind of access that would set of alarms everywhere. Further, the towers collapsed from the top down when the structural floor members failed because of the intense heat from the fire. I wouldn't preclude a failure in the "insullation" but I seriously doubt even that mattered. Why would all the concrete in the buildings pulverize into fine dust? I was in LA after the Northriodge earthquake and saw lots of pulverized concrete under the collapsed freeways. As for those fuel tanks - there was no fire there until after the collapse.
This kind of stuf is nothing but junk science.
- George (guest) 7-07-2005 8:13 pm
My point (and I do have one) is that if the evidence was hauled away and melted, the science is all mostly speculative. I don't consider Fire Engineering magazine to be a refuge for the tinfoil hat crowd. Also, what is your source for the statement that the fuel tanks in WTC 7 caught fire after the building collapsed? This NY Times story says otherwise.
- tom moody 7-07-2005 9:36 pm
Sorry, I should have said, "if they caught/fueled the fire it would have been after the collapse" Stuff breaks when something heavy falls on it. Also, you don't need much steel to do the science. All these conspiracy speculatios will continue for years, that doesn't make them true.
- George (guest) 7-07-2005 10:54 pm
I understand what you said, but the Times article says the burning fuel tanks melted the trusses and caused the collapse.
As for not needing much steel, I guess that's why the editor of Fire Engineering magazine was so concerned about it being hauled away--because they didn't need much of it.
The point of the post is to separate fact from "conspiracy theory." Sorry you're not interested in helping with that.
- tom moody 7-07-2005 11:24 pm
metropolis magazine had (as in used to have) a good section on the engenering side of things online. but thats gone now. i did find this cross section of the floor truss system.
- bill 7-08-2005 12:01 am
The article at that link conflates tensile and compression loads on the floor trusses in the two towers. Asking questions is fine, but I have difficulty taking these alternate theories seriously when they lack rigor. Just being geeky about the thing.
- mark 7-08-2005 2:45 am
Wacky. I have a degree in economics from Texas A&M. If you see a photo of Morgan Reynolds, send it to me. I'm sure I took one of his classes. My yearbook is too full of sports photos to have any of the faculty.
- barry (bloggy.com) (guest) 7-08-2005 2:54 am
Barry, his photo is on the same page as the article I linked to in the main post. I'm still reading the Nova and other mainstream articles--I'm really all ears to learn how this wacky structural anomaly happened in three different buildings with three different impact scenarios and got the exact same result of "pancaking" on the exact same day, all on the same block, when it never happened before and hasn't happened since! That's gonna be some hellacious science! I realize I'm repeating myself but the "conventional wisdom" is what seems weird to my ears.
- tom moody 7-08-2005 6:20 am
It was the Magik of God's Will what done it....
- Abraham Kalashnikov (guest) 7-09-2005 7:56 am
Lecture televised on CSPAN 2 by Professor David Ray Griffin questions many assumptions about 9/11 that allow George and others to sleep at night. Warning: controlled demolition theory flagrantly advocated. One question he mentions as "frequently asked" is one I'd like to hear the answer to: if a missile or military plane hit the Pentagon, where the heck is Barbara Olsen supposed to have gone?
- tom moody 8-06-2005 10:08 am