Destruction of the Twin Towers

1

Destructionof the Twin Towers

2

The Event

3

The Event

AA-11 & UA175 Flight Paths

Alleged flight paths (lost to radar for part of trip)

4

The Event

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

5

The Event

AA-11 Impact on WTC-1

One landing gear

6

The Event

QuickTime™ and a decompressor


7

The Event

UA-175 Impact on WTC-2

Landing gear, engine, fuselage section

8

The Stage

9

World Trade Center

The Buildings: Layout

North Tower

South Tower

Building 7

N

10

World Trade Center

The Buildings: Heights

N

110 stories

47 stories

11

WTC 1-2 Construction

47 central core columns, 244 perimeter columns

Columns

12


Basement, first 10 floors of WTC1

in Progress

13


14”x36” near bottom, various smaller forms near top

47 Central Core Columns

14


3-column-3-floor assemblies alternating across 3 floors, connected by welded/bolted spandrel plates

244 Perimeter Columns

Truss mounting

points

Diagonal- brace

mounting points

15

WTC 1-2 Destruction Features

Perimeter cross-link strength

Acting like a Roman arch over the hole

16

WTC 1-2 ConstructionFloor Support Trusses

17


Perimeter column

Floor Support Trusses

Core column

Main trusses: these were double

loops stick up into grooves on metal deck, act as shear studs

18


Floor Support Trusses

Transverse truss: at right angles to main trusses

19


“Hat” Truss

Floors 106-110:

Helps spread stress forces within core and between

core and perimeter, and supports

communications tower on top

20

The Reports

21

The Reports

• FEMA -- 2002

• 9/11 Commission -- 2004

• NIST: National Institute of Science and Technology -- 2005

22

FEMA Investigation/Report• Carried out by “volunteers” from the American Society of Civil

Engineers• Bush administration agency (Katrina)• Headed by man who headed Okla.City bombing study• No “authority to impound pieces of steel before they were

recycled”• No subpoena powers -- couldn’t get blueprints• “The ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA ... is a half-baked

farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure” -- Fire Engineering Magazine

• Basic theory: Impact and fire caused a “pancake” collapse

• Report+comment: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

23

Conclusion: Pancaking

FEMA Investigation/Report

(PBS)

24

• Chairmen: "fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.”

• Provided intensely detailed description of situation in buildings and actions of emergency personnel

• Mentioned that the buildings collapsed (period)

9/11 Commission Report

25

NIST Report

26

Problems with NIST Report• Institutional -- NIST was politicized• Coverage -- Only covered what they claim

happened up until the beginning of “collapse;” virtually no analysis of what “inevitably” then happened -- wasn’t part of their assignment

• Evidence -- Used questionable computer model, used little (and ignored) real evidence

• Reality -- the “collapse” displayed too many features inconsistent with a gravity-driven model.

27

NIST Problems:

Institutional

NIST had become “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm...scientists lost scientific independence and became little more than ‘hired guns.’...By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures... Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office and assessed for political implications before being released,” and was also scrutinized by the NSA, OMB, and the Commerce Department headquarters. -- whistleblower (former NIST employee)

28

So, what did NIST say?

29

NIST’s approach

A Computer Model(ignored much physical evidence)

30

NIST: Computer model approach

• Set up three scenarios with assumptions representing different degrees of damage

• See which one creates collapse• If none do, tweak the worst one further

and divorce it further from empirical evidence by denigrating that evidence.

• Example: South damage range was 3-10 damaged columns, only using 10 did job

31

NIST: Computer model approach• "Upon a preliminary examination of the

middle case, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing...[so] the most severe case ... was used for the global analysis of each tower.” -- NIST Final Report

• "To the extent the [severe-case] simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports, the investigators adjusted the input.” -- NIST

32

• "[A] fundamental problem with using computer simulation is the overwhelming temptation to manipulate the input data until one achieves the desired results. Thus what appears to be a conclusion is actually a premise... NIST tweaked the input and the buildings feel down” -- architect Eric Douglas

NIST: Computer model approach

33

NIST’s sequence• Plane impact

– Severed some core columns– Removed fireproofing from most core columns and much of

floor-supporting trusses

• Fires created tremendous heat– weakened core columns– Caused floor trusses to weaken and sag, pulling in the

perimeter columns, reducing peripheral support

• Global collapse commenced– Top of tower above damage acted as pile driver– Floors below couldn’t resist– Out of thousands of pages, they only devoted a paragraph

to this, with no indication of analysis of the process

34

NIST: Severed Core Columns

• North: 6 severed, South: 10 -- but:– North hit higher, where columns weaker– Only engines capable of such damage,

but North hit head on, South off to side, so should have been other way around

• There is no actual visual record– All NIST has is a computer model– Only 256 pieces of steel out of thousands

saved

35

NIST: About that steel...

• NIST, 2003: "adequate for purposes of the Investigation. Regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation.”andsteel analysis "includes...estimating the maximum temperature reached by available steel."

BUT• NIST, 2005: Steel is merely “sufficient for

determining quality and mechanical properties”

36

• Fire retardant coating good for 2 hours• So have to assume massive dislodging of

fire retardant by impact.• NIST: of 47 core columns, FR dislodged on

43 in North, 39 in South. How know?• No evidence, just 15 shotgun blasts at flat

plates (not beams) in a plywood box.

NIST: Fire weakens steel

Fire Retardant

37

• Building is an interconnected grid of thousands of tons of steel

• Steel conducts heat (though not ideal)• Therefore, building sucks heat away from any

place that has heat locally applied to it• Therefore, it takes a LONG time before steel

temperature reaches local air temperature.• But jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes, and

office fires tend to burn out in any one area after about 20 minutes.


Temperature Behavior

38

• Model: 1000°C only 15-20 mins in any one place, otherwise 500°C

• NIST: physical evidence indicates max temp of any steel (not necessarily columns) was 600°C

• NIST: examination of perimeter steel indicated max was 250°C

• Core had less oxygen than perimeter, so likely not as hot, and no evidence that it actually did get that hot

• Structural steel begins to soften at 425°C• Kinda problematic for a claim of weakened columns


Temperature claims

39

• Basic idea (I’ve seen two quoted)– Sagging pulls in the

perimeter columns– Sagging doesn’t

pull in the perimeter columns, but when they cool and contract, that happens

• Were they trusses or girders?

NIST: Fire weakens steelFloor trusses sag

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/wtc/they-lied-about-trusses.htm









40


41

• (Creep note: happens at ~30% of melting point, in this case ~920°C, so shouldn’t have happened)

• Sag per model: w/creep: 44”, w/out creep: 24”• Problem: NIST paid UL $250K to test truss

behavior, max deflection was 4”• NIST: UL tests weren’t representative, all had

fireproofing• Actually, all had LESS fireproofing than build specs• This is a complex issue, and I’ve seen a lot of

different takes on it.


42

NIST: Fire weakens

steel

Sagging trusses pull wall inward

43


Sagging trusses pull wall inward

44

Non-NIST Observation

Sagging floors?

Trouble is, the floors at the perimeter walls could not have sagged if the trusses were able to pull in the

walls.

45

Let’s get technical !

1. for NIST’s “pile driver” to cause collapse?

2. to expand the large, fast dust clouds?

3. to throw heavy beams fast and far?

Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available from a GRAVITY DRIVEN collapse

46

Mind-numbing analytical details and calculations moved to the end of the presentation, where they may never be seen again . . .


47

So we got technical !

1. NIST’s “pile driver” theory of collapse

2. expansion of the large, fast dust clouds

3. Heavy columns thrown far and fast

And guess what?There was not ENOUGH ENERGY available

for any of these theories or observations:

48

If gravity didn’t have what it takes,

What did?

49

TheAlternative

Theory

50

The Alternative Theory:

Definition

Controlled Demolition

the bringing down of a building by the use of explosives/incendiaries to simultaneously remove critical supporting structure

51


Immediate Objections

• How on earth could “they” have moved enough explosives into those towers without being detected

• Too many people -- someone would have told

• The government might do some bad things, but it would never commit that heinous a crime

52


Primary Response

A demonstrated fact should not be ignored or denied simply because there is no immediate explanation of its history (e.g., Jupiter’s moon Titan has methane in its atmosphere; we can demonstrate this, though we have no idea how it got there)

53

The Alternative Theory:Calling a Spade a Spade (WTC7)

QuickTime™ and aH.264 decompressor


Danny Jowenko, a Danish demolition expert not dependent on U.S. reputation and government contracts

55

The Alternative Theory:Features Consistent with Explosives,

Inconsistent with Fire1. Fall

A. Rapid onset of destruction at jet impact point

B. Straight-down symmetrical collapse

C. Near-freefall acceleration through path of greatest resistance

D. Large proportion of debris outside footprint

2. Explosives/incendiariesA. Dismemberment of steel framework

B. Lateral ejection of steel members up to 600’

C. Pyroclastic (suspension) clouds of pulverized concrete

D. Evidence of high temperatures (molten metal, iron microspheres

E. Chemical evidence of thermitic material

56


57


Sudden onset of destruction at point of impact

QuickTime™ and aMotion JPEG A decompressor


WTC 1

58


Sudden onset of destruction at point of impact

WTC 2QuickTime™ and a

Motion JPEG A decompressorare needed to see this picture.

59


Straight-down Symmetrical Collapse

WTC 1QuickTime™ and aH.264 decompressor


60


Straight-down (almost) Symmetrical Collapse

WTC 2 (slow)



61


• Many different versions– some (even 9/11 Commission) claiming 10 secs– Jim Hoffman’s video timeline indicates 15 secs

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/timeline/videos.html

• Even 15 too fast for overcoming obstacles at each story:– destruction of the structural integrity– pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs, and other non-metallic

objects– acceleration of the remains outward or downward.

Time of Descent




62


Near-Freefall Acceleration

WTC 1QuickTime™ and aMotion JPEG A decompressor


63


FEMA report: WTC1-2 Debris

Debris Outside Footprint

Heavy debris,perimeter columns

Lighter debris

X Perimeter columns outside debris radius

64


Dismemberment: Debris Pile

65


Dismemberment: Debris Pile

66

WTC 1-2 Destruction Features Debris

• Bone Fragments– 2006: 750 found on roof of Deutsche Bank

(250’ from WTC 1&2), each less than 1/2” long– 2010: 72 found in 2 dump trucks of debris

being sifted by forensics experts– 2012: reports of some still being found

• Victims (as of May 2002)

– 2823 victims– 289 whole bodies recovered as of May 2002– 1053 individuals identified

67


Dismemberment: Core Obliteration

Massive 1000’ structure of cross-braced thick steel columns were dismembered (North tower section survived only temporarily)

68




Dismemberment: Core Obliteration

69


Large pieces of the structures thrown horizontally long distances at high velocities (40-60 mph)

LateralEjection

perimeter column sticking out of the corner of WTC 3

70


• “Pyroclastic” is used to describe volcanic dust clouds– Fine particles (solids suspended in air)– Hot inside– Heat drives rapid expansion– Little mixing with ambient air

Pyroclastic Dust Clouds

71


Concrete was pulverized before it hit the ground, as destruction progressed.


Note also the dust’s explosive mushrooming upward and outward (many times the size of the tower)

72


* Fine dust suspended* Rapid expansion* Little mixing with air




73


Dust reached ground 10 seconds after start

Core “spire” still standing here, fell at 29 seconds

Cloud has reached out 700’

Speed: 700/19 = 37 feet/sec = 25 mph


74


Dust reached ground 10 seconds after start

Core “spire” still standing here, fell at 29 seconds

Cloud has reached out 700’

Speed: 700/19 = 37 feet/sec = 25 mph

Expanding Dust Clouds

75


Damage line remains in place for a while while roof-top starts to descend, appears to disintegrate before the “collapse” begins.

Destruction Above Impact Zone: WTC1

QuickTime™ and aMotion JPEG OpenDML decompressor


76


Equal-time frames, angle changes from 1 to 2, not from 2 to 3, cessation of rotation violates conservation of angular momentum, unless mass is being destroyed

Destruction Above Impact Zone: WTC2

77


Dust and debris are ejected before fall -- South tower top is only tipping

Early ejections

78


Ejections of dust far below destruction -- pressure might be distributed that far down due to pile-driver compression, but where does the dust come from, and why only in specific places?

Squibs

79

Explosions: Witness Reports

In NYFD oral histories, hidden by NYFD until NY Times forced release in 2005, about 120 out of 500 reported explosions


80


Firemen and WTC1-2 explosions




81


Firemen hearing it; post-WTC1-2 explosions




82

High Temperatures

• Remember:– Office fires: Usually max 1100°F– Iron/steel melt at about 2800°F

• Metallic microspheres– Metal sprayed into air so surface

tension can pull into near-spherical shapes

– Iron (2800°F), lead (3180°F),molybdenum (4500°F)

• Vaporized steel


83

High Temperatures

NASA heat image from several weeks after 9/11 -- temperatures in excess of 1000°F on the surface


84

Iron-rich MicrospheresWTC 1-2 Destruction Features

85

Iron-rich Microspheres

• RJ Lee (2003, 2004)– Studied Deutsche Bank dust contamination– Iron particles: 6% of WTC dust (>> .04%)– Lead oxide coated -> vaporization (3180°F)

• US Geological Survey (2005)– WTC Particle Atlas– Iron-rich spherules

• NIST mentions neither


86

Vaporization of Steel• FEMA Report, Appendix C (WTC7) authors

– 1” column -> 1/2”, razor sharp, gaping holes like swiss cheese

– “partly evaporated at extremely high temps– Thinning due to high temp (1800F) corrosion– Eutectic mixture w/sulfur (lowers melting point)

accelerates intergranular melting

• NIST ignored this– In Q&A, claimed sulfur came from wallboard– Never experimented, doesn’t happen

WTC 1-2 Destruction Features Vaporization of Steel

87

WTC 1-2 Destruction Features Vaporization of Steel

From FEMA Report, Appendix C (WTC7)

88

• Question:What could generate sufficient heat to melt steel?

• Answer:– Thermite -- an incendiary mixture of iron oxide

(rust) and aluminum OR– Thermate -- the above combined with sulfur

(lowers the melting point of iron/steel and would help explain the FEMA report’s sulfidation

• BUT . . .

WTC 1-2 Destruction Features Residues

89


• Objection:– Many: Thermite can’t cut through beams– NIST: Thermite can cut through a beam, but takes

a while, so it isn’t fast enough to explain the rapid collapses.

• Answer: – In fact, existing patented technology addressed

this and other NIST objections, OR – Nanothermite -- thermite composed of particles

on a nanometer (4 ten-millionths of an inch) scale.

• BUT . . .

90


• Objection:Forget about nanothermite. All the devices for directing the thermite blast would be found in the wreckage

• Answer: – Nothing was found in the wreckage of that sort

-- no desks, cabinets, furniture -- just concrete powder and structural steel

– But in any case, self-destructing devices DO exist...

91


92


• Objection:Well, there'd at least be miles of wiring tangled up in the debris.

• Answer:Actually, wireless detonators were even available that can be connected to a programmed set of detonation instructions -- leaving open the possibility of an instantly reprogrammable set of instructions to match any given situation, such as

where a plane hits. . .

93


94


• Objection:I still don't believe thermite is fast enough, and even if it were, you'd need TONS of it.

• Answer:That's why I suggested nanothermite.

95


• Objection: There’s no such thing (in many forms!)• Answer:

“At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry [hydrocarbon matrix] ... has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties ... These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale ... In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these ‘nanostructures’ are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these ‘nanocomposite’ materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods.”-- “Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives”, in Science and Technology Review, October, 2000, published by Lawrence Livermore Lab

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

96


from Lawrence Livermore Lab: “Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives”

97


• Objection:What does that article have to do with WTC?

• Answer:– Physicist Steven Jones found metallic chips in the WTC

dust: red on one side, gray on the other– Their amount was not insignificant– The red side consisted of nano-scale particles and flat

platelets, and contains, among other things, aluminum, iron, and oxygen, in a carbon-containing matrix

– When heated to ~420°C, there was a sudden release of heat and production of iron-rich microspheres

– The analysis team pubished a paper on this in 2009

• BUT . . .

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

98


Red-gray (nanothermite?) chips

99


Nanothermite particles?

100


• Objection:– The red layer was obviously protective paint coating

(there are persuasive chemical analysis arguments to this effect)

– They should have heated it in the absence of air -- thermite has its own oxygen and paint doesn’t

• Answer:– Paint doesn’t have nano-scale particles– Paint does not burn hot enough to create iron-rich

spheres– Nils Harritt stated on the record that they obtained

samples of WTC protective paint and the chemical signature was not the same.

101

Conclusion

• We know the official story is not true(this is only the tip of the iceberg)

• We can surmise, but don’t know, what happened• The 9/11 Commission was compromised

– Wrong goal: how did the attacks succeed– Staff head Philip Zelikow NOT independent

• We need a new, truly independent investigation with subpoena power– NYCCAN attempting to get a NYC investigations

103

Appendix 1:

WTC Steel Removal

104

WTC7 Steel

• Only one piece examined by FEMA (App C)– liquid iron/oxygen/sulfur eutectic moved along

intergranular boundaries, weakening the beam– eutectic mixture evidenced only 1000C, much lower

than expected for melting steel• Possibilities raised by FEMA

– long-term heating in the ground– pre-collapse, accelerated steel weakening

• FEMA calls for further investigation, NIST doesn’t do it• Raises the larger question of WTC steel removal

105

Removal of WTC SteelNot all bite-sized pieces

Indicates not total dismemberment, but confuses issue of what melted prior to collapse

106

Removal of WTC SteelWhy is it an important issue?

• Largest crime in U.S. history

• Law requires preservation of evidence

• 350,000 tons removed (acc. to FEMA)

• Bloomberg: looking at steel doesn’t tell anything, need computer models

• Yet said to be “highly sensitive”

107

Removal of WTC SteelReasons given

• WTC1-2: Needed to find survivors• WTC7

– Needed to find survivors (but evacuated)– Putting pressure on Verizon building (but

could have just moved that part)

• In any case, could have labeled, docu-mented location, and saved elsewhere

108

Removal of WTC SteelWhat happened to it?

• Thousands of pieces trucked to 4 landfills• Immediate result:

– Most sent to Asia– Some used to build warship U.S.S. New York– 150 pieces saved (in off-limits hangar at JFK)

• Only parts from underground and lobby area• Who decided?

• Later (January 2007) found more– 2 columns, 3 connected perimeter columns

(under road excavated for human remains)– 1 burned column at edge of site (city: was cut off)

109

Removal of WTC SteelWhat did FEMA look for?

• Exterior column trees & interior core columns from 1 & 2 above the impact zone or exposed to fire and/or aircraft-impacted

• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections,

single shear plates, and column splices.• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured,

and/or that appeared undamaged.• Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, other components.• Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be

useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.

110

Removal of WTC SteelWhat about FEMA?

• 62 trips to landfills Oct-Feb

• No access to Ground Zero

• No permission to collect or store steel

• No subpoena power to obtain building plans (to make intelligent choices)

• Their observation of anomalies dropped

111

Removal of WTC Steel“Highly sensitive”

• Nov 26: Trucks monitored by GPShttp://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

– Sept: alleged criminal scheme to divert steel– Oct: found 250 tons of scrap in LI and NJ– “Geofenced” zones, “geofenced” corridors– Improved efficiency and gridlock

• Driver behavior monitored, checked, analyzed (1.5hr lunch -> firing)

• “Loads consisted of highly sensitive material”

http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

112

Appendix 2:

Energy:A Technical Discussion

113





Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available

114

Forces and Momentum

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Dr. Gordon Ross, June 2006http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

115

Forces and Momentum

Previous momentum analyses treated floors as individual items hanging in space, instead of being interconnected, with forces moving and distributing through the structure below.

Basic idea

116

Forces and Momentum

1. Elastic phase -- load increases to failure load, at which point column is shortened 0.2% of its length; can recover (“bounce”)

2. Shortening phase -- failure load then shortens column, up to 3% of its length

3. Buckling phase -- buckling points appear, much less force needed to continue

4. Pressure wave -- moves at 4500 m/sec

Compression of Steel ColumnsWhat you need to know about . . .

117

Forces and Momentum

• Top 16 stories of North Tower (as a chunk) free-falls through a “disappeared” story

• Hits at 8.5 m/sec• At that speed, it takes .013 sec to shorten

next story by 3% (to commence buckling)• .013 sec is time for force to propagate

~60m, or 16 stories down, so all these are “moving” and thus have momentum

What happens 1

118

Forces and (conserved) Momentum

• Now 16+1 stories falling, cuts speed from 8.5 to 8 m/sec . . . BUT

• The 16 stories below are also moving slightly, and their combined momentum slows the top chunk to about 5 m/sec

• This gives additional time for the propagation wave to involve additional floors

What happens 2

119

Forces and Momentum

... and after many detailed calculations of kinetic and potential energy, elastic and plastic strain energy, and concrete pulverization energy...

120

Forces and Momentum

Energy Summary

121

Forces and Momentum

• Initial drop -- Assumption of unimpeded drop is unrealistically favorable to continued collapse

• Elastic springback -- robs some kinetic energy• Ejections -- mass is lost by material thrown

outside the tower perimeter, and energy required to move that mass outward

• The “chunk” -- energy also absorbed by damage sustained by lighter columns in “chunk”

• Other damage -- energy needed to sever floor/column connections and destroy other structural elements and floor contents

But that’s an underestimate

122

Forces and Momentum

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 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 favor 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 seconds after impact.

Conclusion

i.e., Collapse stops after 1 floor drop

123

2. Dust Cloud Expansion

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

Jim Hoffman, January 2004 (v. 3.1)http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

124

Dust Cloud Expansion

But before we get into the expansion of the dust cloud,

what about all that dust?

125


• Concrete in tower: 90,000 tons• Pulverize concrete to ~2mm size: 1.5KWh/ton

http://www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

• Energy to pulverize to 2mm: 135,000 KWh• But energy to pulverize inversely proportional to sqrt

of particle diameter, dust 0.06 mm (or less)http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

• Sqrt 2 = 1.4, sqrt .06 = .24 --- factor of 6• So dust creation requires ~ 6x135,000=800,000 Kwh

Pulverization Energy



http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

126


• Somewhere between 135,000 and 800,000 KWh needed

• FEMA’s report: Tower 1 construction stored more than 111,000 KWh potential energy

• So not enough energy to pulverize concrete not as fine as observed, much less distribute it in fast-moving large clouds

• But forget that. There’s more ....


127


The amount of thermal energy needed to expand the North Tower dust cloud as observed 30 seconds after collapse is far greater than the gravitational potential energy available from the height and mass of the tower. How?

Basic idea

128


1. expansion of gases due to heat

2. vaporization of liquids and solids3. chemical reactions resulting in a

net increase in the number of gaseous phase molecules(since this last can only be due to explosives, we’ll ignore it)

What can produce expansion?

129


1. Estimate cloud volume at given specific time before diffusion occurs

2. Factor out mixed-in air to get volume of particles of the contents originally in tower

3. Establish ratio of this to the original volume -- i.e., the volume of the tower?

4. How much energy is needed to generate that ratio of expansion for different levels of gas-expansion and liquid/solid vaporization?

Analysis steps

130

Dust Cloud ExpansionThe picture (30 seconds later) The ref points

The cylinder:Height: 200’Radius: 800’

131


• Cylinder volume: 402 million ft3

– ~1/4 is buildings, so dust = 300 million ft3 – assume 1/3 is mixed-in air (unlikely -- see

next slide) so conservative estimate ofCloud Volume = 200 million ft3

• Speed of advance observed: 25 mph

Parameters at 30 sec

132


• 25 mph is too fast for advance to be diffusion• Outside features of cloud were relatively

stable, not diffused by m/d• Sinking sections replaced by clear air• Reports of people being picked up and

carried by “solid” wall of hot dust

Due to mixing/diffusion?

133


• Tower volume:1368’ x 207’ x 207’ = 58.6 million ft3

• Cloud volume: ~200 million ft3

• Expansion ratio: 3.41 (conservative)

Expansion in 30 sec

134


• If pressure and amount (mass) stay the same, volume is proportional to absolute temperature (PV = nRT)

• If start temp was room temp (300oK), 3.4 x that is 1020oK, an increase of 680o.

• Raising air that far requires 499,500 KWh (remember: available energy = 111,000)

• But it gets worse . . .

1. Gas expansion by heat 1

135


• Such tiny dust particles (10-60 microns) will reach temp equilibrium with surrounding air very fast

• So you have to raise them 680o too• The 90,000 tons of concrete dust would

require > 11 million KWh• And if there’s water, it gets worse, but

we’ll skip that and treat water separately


136


• 3.4 expansion means 2.4 x tower volume would be created steam: 2.4 x 58 million ft3 = 141 million ft3 = 4 billion liters

• Volume at 100oC: steam = 1680 x water• So 2.4 million liters of water needed to

produce the entire cloud volume of steam• Conversion would require > 1.5 million KWh• Plumbing + concrete + people: not enough

2. Vaporization of water

137


• Heating of gases: would require 780oC– Ground level not that hot– High heat apparent higher in cloud (next slide)

• Water-to-steam: requires too much water, needs additional heat to get to 100oC first

• If combined: steam conversion would add to the energy requirement of gas heating, additional head needed for concrete dust

• Reduction? Early dust settling would reduce needed heat, but cloud behavior contradicts that

How much of which?

138


“Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse.

“Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue.”

High Temperatures

139


Conservative figures

Summary: Energy Sources and Requirements

140


• They are based on an estimate of dust cloud volume at a time long before the cloud stopped growing.

• They use a liberal estimate of the contribution of mixing to the volume (1/3).

• They ignore thermal losses due to radiation.• They ignore the resistance to expansion due to the inertia

of the suspended materials, and energy requirements to overcome it.

Why conservative?

141


Conclusion

The massive discrepancy between the gravitational energy available and the heat energy needed to drive the expansion of the dust cloud render the gravity explanation for the collapse of the North Tower (and similarly, the South Tower) untenable.

142

3. Beam Ejection

143

Beam Ejection

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpgPhotograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpg

144

Beam EjectionStructure of Perimeter Columns

(FEMA)

145

Beam EjectionWell, maybe not 600,000 lbs...

NIST, via Gregory H. Urich *B.S. Elect/Computer Engineering

MINnear top

MAXnear bottom

AVGscaled

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

146

Beam Ejection

World FinancialCenter 3

147

Beam EjectionDistance from North Towerto World Financial Center 3

about 480 feet(NASA photo & scale from FEMA report)

148

Beam Ejection

• Building: WFC3 American Expresshttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

• Horizontal distance: 480 ft / 160 m• Column weight: 3.5K / 12K / 23K lbs• Vertical distance (conservative): 325 m

– North Tower -- use top: 400 m– WFC3 24th floor: 75 m

• Air resistance: negligible (heavy, spearlike)

Parameters

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

149

Beam Ejection

• fall time = sqrt (vert-distance / 1/2 gravity) = sqrt ( 325 m / 4.8 m/sec2 ) = 8.14 sec

• horizontal speed = horiz-distance / time = 160 m / 8.14 sec = 71.1 m/sec = 44.2 mph

• Force to accelerate 4 - 11 tons to 44 mph ??

Calculation

150







151


• “Pyroclastic” is used to describe volcanic dust clouds– Fine particles (solids suspended in air)– Hot inside– Heat drives rapid expansion– Little mixing with ambient air

Concrete Pulverization

154

Appendix 1:

WTC Steel Removal

155

WTC7 Steel

• Only one piece examined by FEMA (App C)– liquid iron/oxygen/sulfur eutectic moved along

intergranular boundaries, weakening the beam– eutectic mixture evidenced only 1000C, much lower

than expected for melting steel• Possibilities raised by FEMA

– long-term heating in the ground– pre-collapse, accelerated steel weakening

• FEMA calls for further investigation, NIST doesn’t do it• Raises the larger question of WTC steel removal

156

Removal of WTC SteelNot all bite-sized pieces

Indicates not total dismemberment, but confuses issue of what melted prior to collapse

157

Removal of WTC SteelWhy is it an important issue?

• Largest crime in U.S. history

• Law requires preservation of evidence

• 350,000 tons removed (acc. to FEMA)

• Bloomberg: looking at steel doesn’t tell anything, need computer models

• Yet said to be “highly sensitive”

158

Removal of WTC SteelReasons given

• WTC1-2: Needed to find survivors• WTC7

– Needed to find survivors (but evacuated)– Putting pressure on Verizon building (but

could have just moved that part)

• In any case, could have labeled, docu-mented location, and saved elsewhere

159

Removal of WTC SteelWhat happened to it?

• Thousands of pieces trucked to 4 landfills• Immediate result:

– Most sent to Asia– Some used to build warship U.S.S. New York– 150 pieces saved (in off-limits hangar at JFK)

• Only parts from underground and lobby area• Who decided?

• Later (January 2007) found more– 2 columns, 3 connected perimeter columns

(under road excavated for human remains)– 1 burned column at edge of site (city: was cut off)

160

Removal of WTC SteelWhat did FEMA look for?

• Exterior column trees & interior core columns from 1 & 2 above the impact zone or exposed to fire and/or aircraft-impacted

• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections,

single shear plates, and column splices.• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured,

and/or that appeared undamaged.• Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, other components.• Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be

useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.

161

Removal of WTC SteelWhat about FEMA?

• 62 trips to landfills Oct-Feb

• No access to Ground Zero

• No permission to collect or store steel

• No subpoena power to obtain building plans (to make intelligent choices)

• Their observation of anomalies dropped

162

Removal of WTC Steel“Highly sensitive”

• Nov 26: Trucks monitored by GPShttp://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

– Sept: alleged criminal scheme to divert steel– Oct: found 250 tons of scrap in LI and NJ– “Geofenced” zones, “geofenced” corridors– Improved efficiency and gridlock

• Driver behavior monitored, checked, analyzed (1.5hr lunch -> firing)

• “Loads consisted of highly sensitive material”

http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive/

163

Appendix 2:

Energy:A Technical Discussion

164





Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available

165

Forces and Momentum

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Dr. Gordon Ross, June 2006http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

166

Forces and Momentum

Previous momentum analyses treated floors as individual items hanging in space, instead of being interconnected, with forces moving and distributing through the structure below.

Basic idea

167

Forces and Momentum

1. Elastic phase -- load increases to failure load, at which point column is shortened 0.2% of its length; can recover (“bounce”)

2. Shortening phase -- failure load then shortens column, up to 3% of its length

3. Buckling phase -- buckling points appear, much less force needed to continue

4. Pressure wave -- moves at 4500 m/sec

Compression of Steel ColumnsWhat you need to know about . . .

168

Forces and Momentum

• Top 16 stories of North Tower (as a chunk) free-falls through a “disappeared” story

• Hits at 8.5 m/sec• At that speed, it takes .013 sec to shorten

next story by 3% (to commence buckling)• .013 sec is time for force to propagate

~60m, or 16 stories down, so all these are “moving” and thus have momentum

What happens 1

169

Forces and (conserved) Momentum

• Now 16+1 stories falling, cuts speed from 8.5 to 8 m/sec . . . BUT

• The 16 stories below are also moving slightly, and their combined momentum slows the top chunk to about 5 m/sec

• This gives additional time for the propagation wave to involve additional floors

What happens 2

170

Forces and Momentum

... and after many detailed calculations of kinetic and potential energy, elastic and plastic strain energy, and concrete pulverization energy...

171

Forces and Momentum

Energy Summary

172

Forces and Momentum

• Initial drop -- Assumption of unimpeded drop is unrealistically favorable to continued collapse

• Elastic springback -- robs some kinetic energy• Ejections -- mass is lost by material thrown

outside the tower perimeter, and energy required to move that mass outward

• The “chunk” -- energy also absorbed by damage sustained by lighter columns in “chunk”

• Other damage -- energy needed to sever floor/column connections and destroy other structural elements and floor contents

But that’s an underestimate

173

Forces and Momentum

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 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 favor 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 seconds after impact.

Conclusion

i.e., Collapse stops after 1 floor drop

174

2. Dust Cloud Expansion

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

Jim Hoffman, January 2004 (v. 3.1)http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

175


But before we get into the expansion of the dust cloud,

what about all that dust?

176


• Concrete in tower: 90,000 tons• Pulverize concrete to ~2mm size: 1.5KWh/ton


• Energy to pulverize to 2mm: 135,000 KWh• But energy to pulverize inversely proportional to sqrt

of particle diameter, dust 0.06 mm (or less)http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

• Sqrt 2 = 1.4, sqrt .06 = .24 --- factor of 6• So dust creation requires ~ 6x135,000=800,000 Kwh




http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm

177


• Somewhere between 135,000 and 800,000 KWh needed

• FEMA’s report: Tower 1 construction stored more than 111,000 KWh potential energy

• So not enough energy to pulverize concrete not as fine as observed, much less distribute it in fast-moving large clouds

• But forget that. There’s more ....


178


The amount of thermal energy needed to expand the North Tower dust cloud as observed 30 seconds after collapse is far greater than the gravitational potential energy available from the height and mass of the tower. How?

Basic idea

179


1. expansion of gases due to heat

2. vaporization of liquids and solids3. chemical reactions resulting in a

net increase in the number of gaseous phase molecules(since this last can only be due to explosives, we’ll ignore it)

What can produce expansion?

180


1. Estimate cloud volume at given specific time before diffusion occurs

2. Factor out mixed-in air to get volume of particles of the contents originally in tower

3. Establish ratio of this to the original volume -- i.e., the volume of the tower?

4. How much energy is needed to generate that ratio of expansion for different levels of gas-expansion and liquid/solid vaporization?

Analysis steps

181

Dust Cloud ExpansionThe picture (30 seconds later) The ref points

The cylinder:Height: 200’Radius: 800’

182


• Cylinder volume: 402 million ft3

– ~1/4 is buildings, so dust = 300 million ft3 – assume 1/3 is mixed-in air (unlikely -- see

next slide) so conservative estimate ofCloud Volume = 200 million ft3

• Speed of advance observed: 25 mph

Parameters at 30 sec

183


• 25 mph is too fast for advance to be diffusion• Outside features of cloud were relatively

stable, not diffused by m/d• Sinking sections replaced by clear air• Reports of people being picked up and

carried by “solid” wall of hot dust

Due to mixing/diffusion?

184


• Tower volume:1368’ x 207’ x 207’ = 58.6 million ft3

• Cloud volume: ~200 million ft3

• Expansion ratio: 3.41 (conservative)

Expansion in 30 sec

185


• If pressure and amount (mass) stay the same, volume is proportional to absolute temperature (PV = nRT)

• If start temp was room temp (300oK), 3.4 x that is 1020oK, an increase of 680o.

• Raising air that far requires 499,500 KWh (remember: available energy = 111,000)

• But it gets worse . . .


186


• Such tiny dust particles (10-60 microns) will reach temp equilibrium with surrounding air very fast

• So you have to raise them 680o too• The 90,000 tons of concrete dust would

require > 11 million KWh• And if there’s water, it gets worse, but

we’ll skip that and treat water separately


187


• 3.4 expansion means 2.4 x tower volume would be created steam: 2.4 x 58 million ft3 = 141 million ft3 = 4 billion liters

• Volume at 100oC: steam = 1680 x water• So 2.4 million liters of water needed to

produce the entire cloud volume of steam• Conversion would require > 1.5 million KWh• Plumbing + concrete + people: not enough

2. Vaporization of water

188


• Heating of gases: would require 780oC– Ground level not that hot– High heat apparent higher in cloud (next slide)

• Water-to-steam: requires too much water, needs additional heat to get to 100oC first

• If combined: steam conversion would add to the energy requirement of gas heating, additional head needed for concrete dust

• Reduction? Early dust settling would reduce needed heat, but cloud behavior contradicts that

How much of which?

189


“Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse.

“Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue.”

High Temperatures

190


Conservative figures

Summary: Energy Sources and Requirements

191


• They are based on an estimate of dust cloud volume at a time long before the cloud stopped growing.

• They use a liberal estimate of the contribution of mixing to the volume (1/3).

• They ignore thermal losses due to radiation.• They ignore the resistance to expansion due to

the inertia of the suspended materials, and energy requirements to overcome it.

Why conservative?

192


Conclusion

The massive discrepancy between the gravitational energy available and the heat energy needed to drive the expansion of the dust cloud render the gravity explanation for the collapse of the North Tower (and similarly, the South Tower) untenable.

193

3. Beam Ejection

194

Beam Ejection

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpgPhotograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpg

195

Beam EjectionStructure of Perimeter Columns

(FEMA)

196

Beam EjectionWell, maybe not 600,000 lbs...

NIST, via Gregory H. Urich *B.S. Elect/Computer Engineering

MINnear top

MAXnear bottom

AVGscaled

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

197

Beam Ejection

World FinancialCenter 3

198

Beam EjectionDistance from North Towerto World Financial Center 3

about 480 feet(NASA photo & scale from FEMA report)

199

Beam Ejection

• Building: WFC3 American Expresshttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

• Horizontal distance: 480 ft / 160 m• Column weight: 3.5K / 12K / 23K lbs• Vertical distance (conservative): 325 m

– North Tower -- use top: 400 m– WFC3 24th floor: 75 m

• Air resistance: negligible (heavy, spearlike)

Parameters

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch7.htm

200

Beam Ejection

• fall time = sqrt (vert-distance / 1/2 gravity) = sqrt ( 325 m / 4.8 m/sec2 ) = 8.14 sec

• horizontal speed = horiz-distance / time = 160 m / 8.14 sec = 71.1 m/sec = 44.2 mph

• Force to accelerate 4 - 11 tons to 44 mph ??

Calculation

201







Destruction of the Twin Towers

Documents

Transcript of Destruction of the Twin Towers