World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War Against Terrorism ZIP

[Dancing_Dave]

Peter Meyer's "The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-called Against Terrorism" may be the most influential and thorough Scientific criticism of the Official 9/11 Myth so far. Now you can download it as a Zip as well as view it as an Html page.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc_mirror.htm

It is difficult and dangerous for the author to keep up these very damaging revelations about the Bush Regime, so he would prefer we download the zip and mirror it for ourselves.

It begins with a chilling quote from a Nazi who would obviously fit right in in the Bush Administration:

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

As poker players say, read 'em and weap.

[DeadBroke]

1. Numerous misrepresentations; here's just one:

The "influential and thorough Scientific criticism" contains numerous misrepresentations of fact; including, but not limited to, those in the following excerpt:

quote: "Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.

Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.

Thirdly, there is photographic evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams." end quote.

From my very own personal hands-on experiences working at the Trade Center I can state that the outer walls and core were connected by steel trusses. There were some steel beams used at the atrium entries, and these beams very clearly appear in photographs from the early construction phase - but those photos are not representative of the whole building. FYI: Steel beams were also employed for the motor room floors. They were needed to support heavy objects such as water tanks, and served as 'belly bands' to assist with wind dampening - but the there were trusses everywhere else.

A steel beam has a web and a flange, and if viewed from an end, it will appear to look like the letter I. A steel truss has rod-like diagonal bracing connecting it's top chord to the bottom chord. Comparing a beam to a truss of equal strength one will find that the size of the diagonal bracing between the chords of a truss is always greater than the web of a beam. If beams were used as claimed the Trade Center would have been two much much shorter buildings.

The first thing everyone who worked on the constant never ending renovations at the Trade Center noticed when they stepped off the elevator were the trusses.

Statements suggesting there were no trusses and that beams were used instead are untrue.

[Dancing_Dave]

16. These are obviously relevent issues

But I think you might misunderstand what Peter Mayer is trying to say. He doesn't mean to imply that there were no trusses, he just wants to point out those steel beams involved in wind dampening, which you call the "belly bands". They are certainly structurally important, and also contributed to the amount of steel present to dissipate the heat from the fires.

[HarryLime]

22. Nice try, Deadbroke

"Statements suggesting there were no trusses and that beams were used instead are untrue."

Deadbroke, you have to do more than this to claim the article has "serious misrepresentations". The author starts by saying that the Official Story has it that the trusses were vulnerable to collapse. If you claim the author is wrong for under-reporting the strength of the trusses that still doesn't explain the Official Story.

Can you defend the Official Story of what happened to the Twin towers? Mere nitpicking isn't the same thing as supporting what the government and media told us.

[DeadBroke]

23. My bad

As Dancing_Dave pointed out I misunderstood the point being made by the author in regards to the use of trusses and steel beams at the Trade Center. From my insipid post it's obvious I very clearly completely misunderstood what he was saying. It's really no excuse, but the other times I have seen his report referenced and mentioned, in other similar forums, it has been improperly excerpted, no - butchered, to support other theories; one for example suggesting that there were absolutley no trusses. Now that I have read the whole untampered unredacted version I finally understand his view and true intent. My bad.

[HarryLime]

24. OK DB

DeadBroke, thanks for the honesty. That's very rare today. However, the issue being discussed is of maximum importance. So, if you find the article credible then please tell others. If you don't, please tell us.

Silence = consent. We've got to be committed to discussing this subject with others.

peace.

[LARED]

25. Re:

DeadBroke, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that the "influential and thorough Scientific criticism" contains numerous misrepresentations of fact; Let me address the ones you brought ot our attention


"Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses.

This statement is just silly and hopefully born of ignorance. Look around the internet and you will find architectural and structural engineering sites that discuss the basic design parameters of the WTC’s structure. Anyone that states there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core is blowing smoke up someone butt because it’s just plain BS. Designing a structure like the WTC is an incredibly difficult task and unless the author of that statement is an experience structural engineer I’m not buying it.

But as a mechanical engineer I feel comfortable offering some insight into how the structure functions based on my experience and actually reading what my peers have to say. So here goes.

The perimeter walls were designed to be the principle structure to take up wind loading. The core of course takes up a certain percentage of a wind load, but its main function is the gravity load. If you look at the design of the perimeter box beams that are interconnected with the large spandrels plates at every floor you can see how it would make for a very stiff and resistant structure to wind loading. This is because the walls perpendicular (or orthogonal) to the wall or walls under wind loading will not flex much in a shearing load because of the spandrel plates stiffening the wall. Think of how much strength a wooden frame gets when a single piece is nailed diagonally to the frame or a piece of plywood covers the frame.

This is why there is little need for many heavy steel beams connecting the core and perimeter that are designed to take up compressive wind loads from the perimeter wall to the core structure. It also should be noted that the cumulative effects of the many steel trusses connecting the perimeter columns to the core count for something when transferring any wind loads to the core.

Next

. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.

If the author would state why the impact or the fires would not have affected a steel girder I could perhaps figure out what he means. Of course the premise is that if these girders existed in numbers that the author believe they did, then the WTC would not have collapsed. First off there is no evidence that I have seen to indicate there were girders in large numbers between the perimeter and the core. The pictures on his web site are of levels at or near the bottom of the structure not 80 or 90 floors up. Big deal. Meaningless. Secondly, even if these girders did exist there is nothing to indicated the collapse would have been avoided. Even the official story state no one is sure about the failure mechanism. How does this guy know what would have happened? He can’t. It's all bluster.

Next

Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.

Hardly even worth commenting on. He has no way of knowing that 1/3rd of the mass of structure is missing.

[LARED]

2. I'm Curious

What exactly is so difficult and dangerous for the author to keep up these very damaging revelations about the Bush Regime?

This web page has been around for a long time. Is he risking life and limb just to tell the world about his large array of speculations, sophistry and strawmen.

[jmcgowanjm]

3. Who told Giuliani to evacuate WTC7?- Curiouser n/t

[LARED]

5. It is most likely a safe assumption

that common sense dictated to evacuate other WTC buildings and other high rise building that day.

I live near Philly and remember that the high rise office buildings there were evacuated. I suspect that many large cities did the same thing.

[demodewd]

7. re: common sense

Common sense will tell you that the Pentagon should have been evacuated but it wasn't.

[LARED]

8. That's debatable

The Pentagon is a five story building. The mindset was planes were flying into high rise buildings.

Plus, if the Pentagon was evacuated the conspiracy crowd would be jumping up and down stating this is evidence that 'they knew.' You guys can't have it both ways you know.

[demodewd]

9. drivel

The final destinations of two planes were unaccounted for and headed towards DC. That in itself should have been enough to evacuate all prominent DC area government structures. It was a gross misjudgement and makes one wonder what the Pentagon leadership was doing. "The mindset was planes were flying into high rise buildings." What "drivel".

[LARED]

10. What "drivel"

What are the quotes for? Are you using drivel in some other context?

Also you should be nicer and have some respect for others opinions. Lord knows you post some of the most silly stuff around here and I manage to be civil.

With hindsight it is always easy to figure out what should and should not have been done.

Do you think the fact the WTC 7 was evacuated and the Pentagon was not have some significance? If you do what is it?

[demodewd]

11. driveling on..

You have referred to one of my previous posts as "drivel" so I reciprocated. That's not nice but you weren't either. The Pentagon should have been evacuated. If I would have been in charge it would have been. Apparently your "hindsight" tells you that the powers to be were only looking for planes to crash into skyscrapers...what silly rubbish.And you think I'm silly. HAHA!! The WTC was evacuated due to the fires in the building...n'est pas?.. but the building didn't collapse until hours later. The judgement to evacuate the Pentagon would have been determined on a different set of circumstances. I do believe that the people were kept there deliberately and the ONI were planned victims but of course I have no way of proving it.

[LARED]

12. Lets compare drivel

My drivel per you

The mindset was planes were flying into high rise buildings.


Your drivel per me

I do believe that the people were kept there deliberately (the Pentagon) and the ONI were planned victims but of course I have no way of proving it.

I guess I'm biased, but my statement is more opinion than anything else as no one can really know the mindset of those tasked with figuring out what to do that day, while you make a clear definitive statement that is based on well -- nothing but imagination.

[demodewd]

13. Yes...let us compare.

My statement is opinion....well reasoned opinion based on an alternative plane(with explosives) theory.. Yours is an enfeebled attempt at explaining gross and stupefying ineptitude at best..the vilest treachery at worst.:kick:

[LARED]

14. well reasoned ???????????

Please elaborate. A well reasoned opinion is typically based on at least some facts that have some relationship to the opinion. Something you have none of?

[demodewd]

21. All I know is...

.....that the President sat on his ass while he should have ordered the evacuation of all government buildings in DC and surrounding areas and he didn't. That's either gross incompetance or something very devious. It's not "well lets see ,the first two buildings hit were skyscrapers...and I can assume then that if there are any more hits that they will be on tall buildings and there are so many...deary me...what should I indeed do...oh well I guess I just sit here and read this darling little goat story with my politically correct audience,I mean I don't want to show that I'm alarmed cause I really don't know what to do...dear me.."

[Dancing_Dave]

15. The evacuation facts may be politically significant

I've studied the response patterns of the WTC complex and the Pentagon in some detail, and their is indeed some POLITICAL significance, though it's difficult to get all relevent information about the conflicts in those institutions....well, it's always difficult to find the truth about what happens at the Pentagon and why, it's certainly one of the most secretive institutions on the planet.


I believe that where the Pentagon was hit, and those who were not warned or evacuated, is best understood in relation to internal conflicts between the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz neo-con clique in the Pentagon and others employees and military leaders who had been there before them. Check out the article http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article9523.html
and the Rumsfeld quotes in it, you can find the quotes in the original English at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately, the only English language forum which had much enlightening discussion of this important issue is the now disappeared Peoples Investigation of 9/11 site.

Not long after the North Tower explosions and fires began, a decision was made to evacuate the whole 7 building WTC complex. This indicates some foreknowlege that whole complex was in much greater danger than would be posed by a random aircraft collision with the North Tower. Planes have hit steal skyscrapers many times before, without ever causing a series of explosions and complete disintigration of 4 buildings (including WTC 3 which actually exploded and collapsed early 9/12)such as happened to the WTC complex. The whole WTC complex was totalled out, and the early decision to evacuate the whole complex no doubt saved many lives. Both WTC 7 and WTC 3 were completely evacuated before they disintigrated. Unfortunately, the South Tower collapsed before it could be evacuated, and the top floors of the North Tower were not evacuated because of thick smoke in the stairwells.

[Abe Linkman]

38. WTC 7 evacuation & Pentagon non-evacuation

"Do you think the fact the WTC 7 was evacuated and the Pentagon was not have some significance? If you do what is it?"

WTC 7 was evacuated because it was going to imploded.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Brother, can you spare a lick of sense?

WTC 7 was evacuated because it was going to imploded.

Portions of the Pentagon, the world's largest office building, were evacuated - those portions that were endangered. Other entire wedges were not in danger and those were not evacuated because there was no need.

WTC 7 was evacuated because two 110 story buildings across the streets were on fire and then collapsed!

The amount of common sense you are willing to avoid to hold onto your fantasies is astounding, Abe. I begin to wonder if you believe any of the stuff you're putting out here. Honestly, what's your motivation for ignoring so much evidence to state nonsense like the italicized statement above?

[demodewd]

40. prior to

The Pentagon should have been evacuated 30-40 minutes prior to the crash.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. What's your basis for that statement?

Why should the Pentagon have been evacuated 30-40 minutes before the crash?

How could anyone know (other than in a MIHOP situation, a condition not yet granted to you in this discussion) that the plane was heading for the Pentagon? The Capitol building or the White House were just as legitimate a target - even the Washington Monument was a legit target, as were any recognizable feature of DC from the air. Should every building in the possible path of Flight 77 have been evacuated? Could such a thing have been possible?

Should WTC 7 have been evacuated before the WTC crashes? If not, why are the two situations being compared at all?

The whole CT situation being put forward is ill-concieved and hopelessly irrational.

[demodewd]

44. All

They all should have been evacuated . All high profile government buildings in the DC area should have been immediately evacuated after knowlege of #175 and #77 as probable hijackings. There was good reason to predict that #77 was heading towards Washington after its 180 at the Ohio border...a reasonable possibility. >Should WTC 7 have been evacuated before the WTC crashes? If not, why are the two situations being compared at all?< They aren't comparable...obviously the Pentagon situation entails foreknowlege that there were at least two probable hijackings still in the air.

[Abe Linkman]

41. I'm interested in countering disinformation from spinners

What's YOUR motivation? hummmm?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Really? That's my motivation!

I'd suggest using truth to counter disinformation, rather than more disinfo. Fighting disinfo with disinfo leaves everybody confused. Try sticking to rationality and provable statements. Claiming a sinister plot behind the evacuation of WTC 7 is irrational, as I pointed out above.

Your CT isn't even consistent! You see something significant in WTC 7 being evacuated, but not the Pentagon. Since you're advocating MIHOP, why would the MIHOP conspiracy evacuate one building and not both? They would have done all or nothing - what reason the inconsistency?

And who says WTC 7 was evacuated anyway? Under the circumstances of the day, I'd say WTC 7 was abandoned after the attacks and especially after the collapse of WTC 2 and 1. No similar circumstances threatened the Pentagon - there were no buildings that were in danger of collapsing onto the Pentagon.

What person in their right mind would have stayed in WTC 7 on 9/11?

[LARED]

45. Ok

You believe WTC 7 was evacuated because it was going to be imploded?

Your are certainly entitled to your opinion even if it is based purely on speculation.

Commom sense would tell most folks that evacuating WTC7 made sense because WTC 1 & 2 had jets flown into them. Call it a basic safety precaution one takes when the buildings next to you are on fire.


But you forgot this part of your answer

Why was the Pentagon not evacuated?

[DeadBroke]

46. "Evacuation" of 7 World .....

..... is being much too loosely used by posters here; and it is too broad a term to accuratley describe what happened, when it happened, and why it happened on 9-11. If one takes the time to read newspaper accounts - stories of the eye witnesses and of the people involved - evacuation of 7 World on 9-11 certainly can not be used to suggest the presence of some political motivation or hint at some sinister plot.

The building had 5 types of occupancies. The first were office tenants - such as Soloman Bros., the second were tenant services - cafeteria, newspaper & shopping vendors, the third were government offices - EEOC, Army Fraud, offices for Southern NY District Federal Court, the fourth was NYC's OEM(*), and the fifth was ConEd's generation plant.

(*) NYCOEM was located at 7 World for several reasons. That building had an excellent location, close - walking distance to numerous City, State, NY NJ Bi-State, and Federal buildings and agencies; had easy access to/from other boros, was close to heliports, seaports, tunnels, bridges, and an unlimited power supply. The building had ample MODERN space and services available; much was needed - OEM, Office Of Emergency Management was the nerve center for disaster control. Expected to unify command over riots, blackouts, blizzards and so on every City agency - Fire, Police, EMS, Health and Hospital, Sanitation etc had representatives and logistical people on staff to handle large scale emergencies. Quasi-public-private agencies like the Port Authority, MTA, ConEd and so on were also represented.

The first to evacuate on 9-11 were the commercial tenants. Newspaper accounts told how managers in the building were going floor to floor clearing out employees, and how there were managers in the street turning away employees as they arrived or exited subway stairs unaware of what had happened. According to newspaper accounts and TV video this was a common thing going on downtown. Remember: NYC went to a lockdown as soon as the second tower was struck. All subways and ferries were ordered stopped, all bridges and tunnels into Manhattan were closed, and all off duty employees were recalled. That's when the mass exodus on foot began.

The evacuation of 7 World for commercial employees began as soon as the building and the glass enclosed walkway that connected it to the Trade Center were showered by debris. The tennants and their floor managers made those decisions to evacuate - no one waited for the police to come knocking.

NYCOEM was up and running with it's 24/7 staff and several Standard Operating Procedures - shutting subway service to and under the Trade Center for example and ordering off duty recalls. They were ordered out, but evacuated only when the backup plan could be initiated over at 1 Police Plaza. OEM was active all through 9-11 and the days after even though it's 7 Trade office was destroyed in the collapse. OEM made the calls for military, federal and FEMA assistance, ordered the lockdown, and coordinated with NJ, Long Island, and Westchester Counties for fill-in fire and police protection and EMS assistance. OEM for example had many NJ volunteer fire departments come in and take position in vacated NYC firehouses where they filled in responding to fires just as FDNY would. OEM made calls alerting hospitals outside of the city; and, following SOP even made calls for mortuary placements at out of area ME offices. OEM evacuated, but only after their plan B at 1 Police Plaza was up and running; but OEM wasn't the last to leave 7 World.

ConEd operated the powerstation beneath 7 World. The operators on duty were the last to leave the structure - even though it had been burning for some time and was in imminent danger of collapse. They remained on duty and maintained the electrical grid and threw the necessary switches to keep NY powered up and running. I believe officers normally assigned to FDNY Engine 229 made the last search of the building and assisted ConEd's crew with evacuation to the Federal Building on W.Broadway and Barclay.

Evacuation of 7 World to me is a broad term. It started early in the morning after the first plane struck with commercial tennants - the second wave was when OEM was relocated - the last wave was ConEd's people just minutes before the building fell. Everyone didn't just run.

Not only is it a broad term; but the actual events as I described above, which were all taken from newspaper accounts show that the evacutaion was managed as best possible under the circumstances and that those who were assigned to important/critical jobs at 7 World fulfilled their duty.

I don't see how the actual, real, how-it-happened evacuation of 7 World has a political relevance or is evidence of some sinister plot.

[LARED]

47. Thanks, Deadbroke

For an informative account of the evacuation.

I don't see how the actual, real, how-it-happened evacuation of 7 World has a political relevance or is evidence of some sinister plot.

Worth repeating

[DeadBroke]

19. On evacuation - my understanding

is that the Pentagon is a military post, and is one of 5 or 6 military posts worldwide that can not be evacuated without a direct order from the President. I worked at a military post many years ago, during the administrations of Ford and Carter, and we had to do annual reviews and updates to our 12-25 (evacuation) plan. Things certainly may have changed since, but the Pentagon, NORAD, Fort Knox, Pearl Harbor, someplace in Germany (the name of that post escapes me) and one or two others were expemted from evacuation plans. All personnel at these military posts were to remain at station under all circumsatnces. May have changed, but I doubt it.

[demodewd]

20. If that..

....is indeed the case,then the President should have ordered the evacuation. What good reason would there be to have the personnel remain there?

[Flightful]

26. Is there a better reason

to keep people at military HQ posted than the fact that a war just broke out?

[Abe Linkman]

48. Evacuations depended on who worked where

That seems reasonable to me. There weren't any Generals or other high-ranking officials or CEO's in the part of the Pentagon that sustained damage.

On the other hand, WTC 7 was chock full of sensitive offices & it might have been a little dicey to risk not letting certain people know about what was going to go down. (everyone has read about how the CIA is really ticked because of Rove's treasonous outing of the Ambassador's wife and how they're highly ticked about it over there at the "Company")
So, the only realistic thing to do at WTC 7 was to evacuate the entire building.

If the plan had been for "action" at the center of the Pentagon (rather than in that one relatively unoccupied wedge); it too, would have been evacuated.

[Dancing_Dave]

17. The whole 7 building complex was evacuated

Which is also curious, considering that the whole 7 building complex was totalled out, and Paul Gargano of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey arranged to profit from the demise of this usually unprofitable property. :think:

[DeadBroke]

18. Dave, I don't understand

what you mean by 'usually unprofitable property.' Can you please explain. I'm not getting it.

[jmcgowanjm]

4. Open Air Kerosene willnot burn hotter than 875 degrees

steel melts at 1450 degrees celsius.

[LARED]

6. I am now convinced.

Of what I'm not sure.

What is your point?

[Flightful]

27. More than just kerosene there

Have you ever been in a modern office? There's tons of paper, plastic, fabric, etc. Nobody ever claimed the steel melted, it's fairly easy to make it malleable. Blacksmiths have been doing it for centuries with nothing more than wood for fuel.

[number6]

28. thats iron, try putting steel in your camp fire and

working it ....

[Flightful]

29. Not a campfire

But a wood fire with a good draft is enough to do it. I've had campfires burn hot enough for the embers to glow white and steel rods glow orange. Steel has been around for centuries; armourers and swordsmiths didn't have blast furnaces.

[CaptainMidnight]

30. DUH! It wasn't HOT ENOUGH!

WEll, I would argue a campfire is simply not enuf to melt steel, much less weaken it.

So, let's use your campfire scenario. Let's blow that up a hundred fold. Look into the center of any good campfire. Hell, I'm looking at one right now. My neighbor, Roman, has provided us with a large outdoor ceramic fireplace for our shared patio. Verrrrrrry California, dude. Red hot, glowing embers. I virtual incinerator when I get her going. Ok.

That was simply NOT THE CASE in the WTC fires. You're asking us to believe that it was like a GIANT CAMPFIRE on those office floors of the WTC. Hardly. Yes, there was a big fire, but is was not GLOWING RED HOT LIKE DANTE'S INFERNO.

Paper was burning. Desks, computers, carpeting, wallpaper. You're telling me these were burning HOTTER thatn the Kerosene was burning? Look at the footage. Black Smoke. Oxygen-starved fire. Look at the second plane crash. Huge fireball out the other side. Plane hit the corner, almost missed. Almost all the fuel burnt out immediately in that huge fireball.

That's why so many firefighters died. The fire was going out. That's why they've kept the transcripts and the audio of the firemens' walkie-talkie chatter that day CENSORED. Like the black boxes. CENSORED. "No, no, it's just too horrifying, think of the victim's families." Right. I think just this past Friday, Mayor Bloomberg was prevented from handing this very information over to the 9-11 Commission.

9/11 panel subpoenas N.Y. files http://www.iht.com/articles/118580.html
WASHINGTON The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has issued a subpoena to New York City for a variety of police tapes and other material related to the attacks. The panel said that the city's refusal to hand over the material had "significantly impeded the commission's investigation."

That's why so many firefighters died. Over 300. These guys knew had to do their job. They wouldn't send men up there into RED-HOT GLOWING FIRE. If they thought the buildings might fall down on their own, they would NOT have risked their men needlessly. Never in history has a steel building completely collapsed due to fire. On 9-11, miracle of miracles! It happened to 3 buildings in the same location, 3 times in a row!

(Yeah, much like prior to 9-11, in the year 2001 alone, there were around 70 incidents where meandering jetliners, momentarily straying off their flight plans, were intercepted within minutes by Air Force jet fighters EVERY TIME. On 9-11 4 hijacked airplanes were allowed to fly around unintercepted for up to two hours! Miracle of miracles! Lucky, lucky terrorists!)


The firefighters actually made it up to the crash sites. They radioed back that the fires were contained and under control. There were survivors up there that needed to be evacuated. Send more guys up. They did.

NY firefighters reached South Tower crash zone http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,769307,00.html
August 5: A tape recording found in the rubble of the World Trade Centre shows that two firefighters managed to reach the wounded on the 78th floor of the south tower, where the airliner struck, before it collapsed.

Straw man argument you're making. It was not a LARGE-SCALE GLOWING RED HOT CAMPFIRE WITH EMBERS inside those buildings. Even so, it's not enough to melt the steel. Sure, you had swordsmiths from centuries past working with steel. With crucibles and bellows. Those big leather, baggy contraptions they had to constantly pump to force air into the fire. And even then, did the steel just melt and bend on its own? NO! YOu had to take it out, put it on an anvil, and hammer the fucker, but only for a few seconds, as it then cooled off too quickly, then keep putting it back in the forge, repeat.

HELL, watch that sequence with Peter MacNicol and the blacksmith in DRAGONSLAYER! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082288/

On 9-11, in the Towers, there were no giant bellows blowing on the fires. The steel girders were not being pounded on a forge by some giant with a hammer. It was not a huge CRUCIBLE in there.

Look at your modern-day steelworkers. How do they work with steel? With WELDING EQUIPMENT. Pumping high concentrations of oxygen into a pinspot of flame to melt the steel. You have to. Trying to melt steel otherwise is like trying to get pancake syrup to stack up in a pan. You can't do it. The heat dissipates and spreads out.

Do you think Osama had a secret army of Al Qaeda Welders hiding up in the WTC Towers, just waiting to spring into action? Or may some element of Boilermakers & Welders Union Local #182 gone rogue?

Captain Mike

[LARED]

31. Why are

office buildings fire proofed, if normal office combustibles will not effect the integrity of the building?

[Llyr21]

33. Because,

Otherwise the steel would conduct the heat to other floors/areas of the building, igniting combustibles it is in contact with and thereby spreading the fire. Which is the FIRST thing you want to prevent.

[LARED]

36. Yes, that's part of it.

But one of its other primary functions is to protect the steel from excessive temperatures that diminish the strength of the steel quickly.

Preventing the spread of fire is typically the primary job of wall board, ceiling tiles and fire stops.

[DeadBroke]

37. WTC fireproofing ...

... was the best available at that time. It came in dry bags, water was added, and then it was sprayed onto the steel members. Photos from the Trade Center construction era often show several floors of the buildings encapsulated in tarps. Behind those tarps is where the fireproofing spray was being applied.

The tarps contained the overspray, but mostly allowed the spraying areas to be heated if necessary as fireproofing can only be sprayed on and allowed to cure above and below certain temperatures. Once the fireproofing was dry inspectors would test it by using a steel probe to measure it's thickness, and then do a pull test using a weight and test cup.

The test cup was about the size and shape of a cap from a can of spray paint. The inspectors would spray glue into the cup and push it into the fireproofing. After a few minutes they would hang a weight from the cup. The fireproofing could not come off the steel into that cup. If it did, the inspectors would mark the area with orange spray paint. The fireproofing crews would return, scrape and respray.

This type of spray fireproofing was tested by the FDNY, other city agencies and by the private sector of fire protection services when the NYC World's Fair was being demolished. Before the wrecking ball came several structures were stripped down to their steel frames and then sprayed with fireproofing - from different manufacturers and of different compounds and of different thicknesses - and then loaded with old wood pallets and hay bales and then set afire. They did the same type of tests at the old westside piers that were being demolished.

Prior to sprays, fireproofing was troweled on, much like plaster is. Prior to that type concrete was used; steel or iron columns and beams were wrapped in rebar and fitted with wood forms that concrete was poured into.

Modern spray-on fireproofing is much different than the type used on the WTC. It's much thicker, adheres better, and is fibre reinforced like modern concrete. If there is a problem with the spray on fireproofing used during the WTC building era is that over time it dries out and losses adhesion. It is prone to fall off in large pieces when the steel it's sprayed to is vibrated in some fashion. Out of sight and sealed behind ductwork, ceiling tiles and sheetrock it's never retested until a renovation of some sort begins, and then not in all cases.

[DeadBroke]

32. Oxygen-starved fires, etc

- I can't find anything suggesting the fires were oxygen-starved. All I can find is the opposite; that the fires drew air through the damaged exterior walls, and that the fires were also fed air by the pressurized stairwell system. Occupants who survived both the Ryder truck bombing and the 9-11 incident stated that the pressurized stairwell system was working on 9-11 during evacuation, and that it worked well. Evacuees stated that on 9-11 the pressurized air hit their faces and blew their hair when they entered the stairwells. This system did not work during the evacuation for the bombing; it had been damaged.

- The color of smoke really is not an indication of the fire's stage or of the fire's condition; it is the amount of smoke, and it's voracity that tells the story. On 9-11 people in NJ who did not know that the Trade Center had been attacked and was burning thought the smoke was just another big fire in the Meadowlands - until they were able to smell it. The smoke from the Trade Center looked just like the open air and sometimes wind swept fires that burn the dry NJ Meadowlands 4-5 times each year. I've been a firefighter since 1968; the only time the color of smoke told me anything was when a dye plant in Paterson, NJ burned. Seeing bright blue smoke I knew it was the old dye plant. On 9-11 I could look out my kitchen window and see the smoke from the Trade Center. I got a better view from my firehouse. Oxygen starved? No way, from the amount of smoke I saw and from it's voracity those fires were ripping.

- I can't find anything - and there's been tons of local news coverage about it - suggesting that the fire crews who reached the fires had the fires under control. Transcripts in newspapers, official audio tapes played on TV and radio, and unofficial tapes made from scanners and webcasts of FDNY operations on 9-11 do indicate firefighters reached the burning floors - the lower ones; but they also show that the crews did not have adequate manpower, did not have adequate water pressure or water flow, and that they had expended the air in their SCBA, self contained breathing apparauts.

- I can't understand why so many people are hung up on the M word - melt. Isn't it obvious that there was adequate heat and an adequate duration of heat to affect the steel? Why is melt an issue?

- I can't understand why comments such as, "Never in history has a steel building collapsed due to fire" are repeated over and over. It ignores the fact that the Trade Center was not a typical steel frame building - in that it relied on a truss system. Steel truss systems are prone to failure from fire. Hundreds of truss systems have failed from fires. Firefighters are trained not to enter buildings with steel truss systems. Firefighters use a term for structures with a steel truss system - disposable buildings. That is why cities worldwide are passing ordinances and laws that require structures with steel truss systems to have plain sight truss symbols on the exterior. Some cities have even gone as far as including residential homes with wood truss roofs in those laws. Just drive around any city with a good fire inspection program and you'll see all the truss warning symbols on the buildings. It isn't right to compare the Trade Center and it's design to other more typical steel structures. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[Abe Linkman]

34. Then why did the FF's go in?

"Firefighters are trained not to enter buildings with steel truss systems. Firefighters use a term for structures with a steel truss system - disposable buildings."

Wait, wait. I know. They violated that rule because it was 9-11. Right?

[DeadBroke]

35. All rules ....

.... usually go out the window when life safety is an issue.

Firefighters everywhere ignore 2in/2out, buddy systems, alarm bells on their emptying air tanks, and even direct orders when a life is in jeopardy. They went in because they were doing their jobs - honoring their silent oaths to save lives and to protect each other.

Abe, maybe you can find it funny and get some laughs from their duty to serve, their honor and ultimate sacrifice - I can not. They knew what they were getting themselves into and went in anyway. It wasn't about glory, about medals, it was simply about saving lives. The 1st plane hit just as the FDNY shifts were changing - look at how many firefighters that had just gone off duty responded, and then gave their lives. How do you find this funny?