Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

Commentary :: Government & Elections

WTC 1 Collapse - The First Moments

This paper analyzes the first moments of the WTC 1 collapse on 9-11. Phenomena are documented that is impossible to explain by a natural gravity collapse and point to the use of high explosives. Discussion focuses on the top 13 floors, 110-98, and the collapse of floors 97, 96, 95, and 94. Features of the fires, the behavior of collapse, and the produced clouds are looked at in detail.
WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS



THIS PAPER IS NOT COPYRIGHTED
WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS
By Wayne Trumpman9 September 2005Version:
0.4
 
This paper analyzes the first moments of the WTC 1 collapse on 9-11. Phenomena
are documented that is impossible to explain by a natural gravity collapse and
point to the use of high explosives. Discussion focuses on the top 13 floors, 110-98,
and the collapse of floors 97, 96, 95, and 94. Features of the fires, the behavior
of collapse, and the produced clouds are looked at in detail. It would be helpful for you to review the NIST final
report before
continuing since this paper assumes you have some knowledge of the WTC 1 collapse.
You can find this on the Internet for free. See the References section at the
end of this paper for internet links.
 
INTRO
WHAT HAS BEEN RULED OUT
Although a widely promoted theory in the Mainstream Media, airplane
impact and jet fuel fireball did not cause the WTC 1 to collapse. They have
been attributed to SOME dislodging of fireproofing on SOME columns, and SOME
damage to the building structure, but that is as far the government or anybody
of repute will venture to assert. This leaves only the possibility for collapse being either
random office fires or some other cause.
 
FIRE ANALYSIS
FIRE DATA
Below is a compilation of fire statistics. Raw data came from picture charts
in a 2005 NIST report. The limited photographs I had access to appear to corroborate
the data. I want to point out that in the
original report data there are errors such as contradictions between the composite
fire charts (of all time periods) and individual time period charts. Where there
was a contradiction I relied on the individual time period chart.
FIRE COVERAGE
Floors 98-94 By WindowComposite of All Time Periods, By Building Side,
By FloorBuilding Side Area: 58 * 5 = 290 windowsBuilding Total Area:
290 * 4 = 1160 windows



EAST




Floor


Total Burned


Not Burned


Burned Out


Burning at Collapse




98


57


1


7


50




97


50


8


39


11




96


57


1


57


0




95


21


37


21


0




94


48


10


45


3




Totals


233


57


169


64




Percent


80%


20


58


22




NORTH




Floor


Total Burned


Not Burned


Burned Out


Burning at Collapse




98


52


6


49


3




97


37


21


37


0




96


41


17


34


7




95


22


36


10


12




94


34


24


31


3




Totals


186


104


161


25




Percent


64%


36


55


9




SOUTH




Floor


Total Burned


Not Burned


Burned Out


Burning at Collapse




98


58


0


34


24




97


58


0


40


18




96


52


6


29


23




95


29


29


24


5




94


15


43


7


8




Totals


212


78


134


78




Percent


73%


27


46


27




WEST




Floor


Total Burned


Not Burned


Burned Out


Burning at Collapse




98


58


0


19


39




97


58


0


58


0




96


44


14


44


0




95


52


6


12


40




94


54


4


27


27




Totals


266


24


160


106




Percent


92%


8


55


37




 




Grand Totals


897


263


624


273




Percent


77%


23


53


24



FIRE COVERAGEFloors 98-94 By Window By Floor, By
Building Side, By Time PeriodNumbers signify fires burning during time period
Time Periods:A - 8:47 am to 9:02 amB - 9:04 am to 9:18 amC -
9:20 am to 9:34 amD - 9:36 am to 9:58 amE - 10:00 am to 10:18 amF
- 10:20 am to 10:28 am
Floor Area One Side: 58 windowsFloor Area Total: 58 * 4 = 232 windows



FLOOR 98




 


A


B


C


D


E


F




East


21


12


10


28


33


50




North


0


0


5


40


16


3




South


0


0


16


30


37


24




West


0


0


0


47


58


39




Total


21


12


31


145


144


116




Percent


9%


5


13


63


62


50




FLOOR 97




 


A


B


C


D


E


F




East


21


12


10


13


14


11




North


28


26


4


0


0


0




South


2


12


27


26


25


18




West


30


58


32


47


0


0




Total


81


108


73


86


39


29




Percent


35%


47


31


37


17


13




FLOOR 96




 


A


B


C


D


E


F




East


0


27


26


18


29


7




North


14


12


11


17


7


7




South


24


26


27


28


17


23




West


0


6


19


27


2


0




Total


38


71


83


90


55


37




Percent


16%


31


36


39


24


16




FLOOR 95




 


A


B


C


D


E


F




East


4


2


6


14


0


0




North


10


0


0


0


6


12




South


2


11


19


22


2


5




West


0


0


0


0


45


40




Total


16


13


25


36


53


57




Percent


7%


6


11


16


23


25




FLOOR 94




 


A


B


C


D


E


F




East


22


18


30


26


3


3




North


5


13


26


18


5


3




South


0


0


1


3


0


8




West


0


0


0


29


26


27




Total


27


31


57


76


34


41




Percent


12%


13


25


33


15


18




 




Totals


183


235


269


433


325


280




Percent


16%


20


23


37


28


24



The government fire data only represents fires that were visible through
the windows. However, since random office fires are "random", it would
be acceptable to infer that interior fires unseen, if they existed, were similar.
Most of the oxygen available to fires was at the building perimeter. When the
collapse occurred the air volume from the floors were all smoky. Any interior
fires that were able to thrive in these fire unfriendly conditions would not

outperform fires that were seen. With this reasoning the paper treats 2-dimensional fire data as representative of 3-dimensional fires.
To understand the logic, imagine a fictional WTC 1 with all its windows on the
front face. All 232 windows of a floor would be on one building side. This fictional
building would be very wide to accommodate the windows. The depth of this building
will have to be shallow in order to make the building the same volume as the original
WTC 1. Because of the rearrangement of windows, each window now conveniently
represents an equal size building area. So when a fire is seen in a window,
this repesents the volume of 1/232 of a floor. This is how the 2-D
data is turned into 3-D data. Because it is highly probable that the interior of the building had
less fires than the perimeter, the results
of going from 2-D to 3-D creates a bias where more fire is represented than what existed
in reality. This paper accepts this bias as its intention is to keep analysis
on the conservative side.
So what does the data show? When tracing behavior of fire over time, I estimate
there were over 30 fire groups. These were made up of one or more individual
fires, or were sections of a larger fire. Fires were dynamic- they started,
moved around, and burned out. Fires wormed their way throughout the building
looking for fuel (office materials). Fires did not stay in one place longer
than about 45 minues, and typically did not stay in one place
longer than 30-45 minutes. No fires on a single floor ever covered more than
63% of the floor at any one time, and on average only covered 25% of a floor. The south side area of the building (floors 98-94), where collapse initiated, had the second
smallest burn area, 73%. At collapse
only 27% of the south side area was burning. Fires peaked during
the time period 9:36 to 9:58 a.m., when fires covered a maximum of 37% of the
building area (floors 98-94, all building sides), then diminished until the collapse at 10:28 a.m. Only 24% of the
building area was on fire when collapse occurred.
Floor 97, the floor where collapse initiated, had no more than 47% of its
area on fire at any one time. It only had 13% of its area on fire at the
time of collapse. 13% of the floor never had fire. The other 74% was burned
out. Fires on floor 97 did not burn longer than about 45 minutes.
What the data shows is that it is very unlikely that fires caused floor 97
to collapse. But it was the first floor to collapse. The 30 or so fire groups
were not as widespread as thought, they were not singularly large, they did
not burn consistently, equally, or long enough, or hot enough. Fires had to
be able to do all these things and more in order to cause a near simultaneous
symmetrical collapse. Otherwise the collapse would not occur, or not be simultaneous,
or be asymmetrical at best. In addition, Underwriter Laboratories (UL) ran tests
on the WTC steel and concluded columns could have easily withstood 45-minute
fires (this is an industry standard minimum fire-rating time). None of the fires
lasted longer than about 45 minutes.
I want to point out that the government fails to do this basic analysis even
though it created the data. This fire data establishes: 1) where fires burned;
2) for how long; and 3) the temperature (color of flames and smoke). It is irrefutable
picture data. But the government chooses to establish extent of fire based on hypothetical
models and speculation. Comments about its "modeling" will be made
later in this paper, but let me give an example of the speculation used. In
its final report the government asserts multiple times that fires weakend and
"bowed" columns. On page 148, "The south perimeter wall was first observed
to have bowed inward at 10:23 a.m. [5 minutes before collapse] The bowing appeared
over nearly the entire south face of the 94th to100th floors. The maximum bowing
was 55 in.[1.4 m] on the 97th floor." Take a look at the picture on page 33
of the final report. This the government's best evidence. Can you corroborate
the government's findings about "bowing"? Of the 59 columns of the
south face, one can
only see about 16 columns that appear to be "bowed". And this "bowing"
phenomenon is only seen on 3, maybe 4 floors (98-95), not the 7 floors asserted. The
government's overstatements amount to 800% reality. Why? In addition, it cannot
be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed"
and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from
picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns. In these pictures
and others there are places where the aluminum facade has been removed exposing
the steel columns underneath. The exposed steel columns are ALL straight. If
exposed steel columns were straight, how can it be asserted that deformed aluminum
facade is an irrefutable indicator of bent columns? This is nonscientific. In
addition, if
columns were bent as much as 1.4 meters spanning 7 floors and across an entire
building face, where is the evidence of structural fatigue and failure
caused
by
the 40,000 tons of building above? How can load bearing columns bend significantly
but horizontal floors maintain their position and rigidity during the
same fire? In addition, the fires that burned in the "bowing"
area were all young, less than 6-25 minutes old. Can random office fires less
than 25 minutes old be able to make floors systems sag and bend steel columns
with intact fireproofing? Science says no way. For one of the largest public safety events in history,
this type of substandard research by the government is a mistake. The American
people deserve better than this.
It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons. This figure is
inferred from a 2002 FEMA report and corroborated by data about other hi-rise buildings
built around the 1970s such as the Sears tower and the Hancock building. I want
to point out that the government's providing of basic architectural information
about the WTC has been piece-meal at best. NIST mentions in a 2005 presentation
that the WTC 1 had 100,000 tons of steel. In a 2004 presentation NIST asserts that the 47
core columns had a factor of safety of about 2.25. The 236 perimeter columns had
a factor of safety of about 5.0 (it has been asserted that the higher factor of safety for the perimeter columns was to handle wind loads).
It has been asserted that the core
columns, the main load bearing columns, carried 60% of the building load, and the
perimeter columns supported 40% of the building load. This was a
big building, like a rock in Lower Manhattan for 30 years.



COLUMN STATISTICS




Type


Column Count


Factor of Safety


Load Bearing




Core


47


2.25


60%




Perimeter


236


5.0


40%



The factor of safety is based upon the dead load
(building materials) of the building and the intended live load (people, office furniture, and similar).
The dead load of a floor was 1,818 tons. The floor area was rated 40-150 psf (1.9-7.18 kPa), depending
on what the area was going to be used for. Higher load ratings generally were
for areas that would support larger than normal loads such as mechanical equipment. Below are floor
load estimates based on a review of WTC data contained in a 2005 NIST report. This
report contained select scanned images of original WTC specification documents. Because
of contradictions in the NIST final report this paper relied on the
original WTC specification documents. Data was incomplete so inferences had to be made.
The load rating for columns in the perimeter area was 50 psf.
The load rating for the core area was up to 100 psf. This comes out to
be an estimated 75 psf average for an office floor. The load ratings for floors 110-94
average out to be about
82 psf (3.9 kPa) per floor. On average, a floor's design
live load was 1,488 tons. The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load
plus live load, is 3,306 tons. Add the factor of safety and the building structure
could
handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons
before failing.
To visualize, imagine 5,500 2-ton cars stacked in a square about 1/3 of a city
block.



FLOOR LIVE LOAD RATINGS




Floor


Rating




110


75 psf




109


150




108


75




107


100




106


100




105


75




104


75




103


75




102


75




101


75




100


75




99


75




98


75




97


75




96


75




95


75




94


75



CALCULATION:200000 / 110 = 1818 tons = 1818000 kgCALCULATION:200
* 200 = 40000 40000 * 82 = 3280000 lbs = 1487783 kg = 1488 tonsCALCULATION:1818
1488 = 3306 tonsCALCULATION:60 * 2.25 = 13540 * 5 = 200135
200 = 335 335 / 100 = 3.35
The perimeter columns essentially had
enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The
core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80%
of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns
and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would
have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This
was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75%
of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way. Add the fact that
the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority of
the columns still had fireproofing. Add the fact that fires burned at most about
45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse no fires existed
on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face,
and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see
the impossibility of 200 columns being harmed catastrophically by heat
of fire.
In fire, the behavior of steel is as follows. It heats up. It weakens. It
fatigues. It fatigues more. Failure is gradual. Steel does not go from undetectable,
immeasurable fatigue to catastrophic failure like a flick of a light switch.
This is corroborated by documented fires of other hi-rise buildings throughout history
and by lab tests with steel, including the tests the government has done for its
"modeling". Do you have a piece of steel rod and a welding
torch? You can try this experiment (please exercise safety). Warm up the steel
hot with the torch. Note how stiff the steel is. Now heat it up so it glows
orange hot in the middle- put over 2000 C on it. Note how stiff the steel is-
it bends. Now let the steel cool so it is only hot again. Note how long it takes
to recover from being orange hot. Did it take 30 seconds or less? Now note how stiff the
steel is. Feels the same as it was at the beginning of the experiment, does
it not? This is very similar to what was happening to steel columns in WTC 1 as the
fires burned then burned out.
It is a well known fact that steel is an excellent conductor material. The WTC 1 had a 100,000
ton steel frame. This was like a giant heatsink. When fires heated
up steel columns, heat got drawn away from the heat source by the cooler parts
of the building frame. A portion of the fire heat is not going to stay local.
Add the fact that on average fires did not cover more than 25% of any one floor.
Add the fact that fires lasted at most about 45 minutes and one can see how
steel members as part of a giant 100,000 ton heatsink were not heating up like
the isolated steel pieces in laboratory tests as part of the government's
"modeling". What this shows is that the steel in the WTC 1 easily
withstood the 45 minute fires as the effective damage by fire was of a shorter
duration.
The government has asserted weakening by fire is a primary cause of collapse. From its "modeling" the government concludes fires MAY have heated
columns 500-600 C and made them weaken and bow. But NIST commissioned Underwriter
Laboratories (UL) to conduct tests on the recovered physical WTC steel and UL found that
most columns did not reach 250 C. This corroborates that the building was acting
as
a giant heatsink, or that fires did not reach 500-600 C temperatures. The government
has repeatedly asserted since 2002 that the recovered steel adequately represents
the two towers. The government contradicts itself. It is unable
to explain why its hypothetical modeling is superior to physical data. The government
goes so far as to avoid discussion of this data in its final report and most of its public presentations. It
is quite unscientific to ignore irrefutable data that contradicts the theory
you are trying to peddle.
However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could
have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns
bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever.
The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL their
fire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact
is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when
they were at their weakest state. After the fires burned out, the columns cooled.
When heated steel cools, it regains strength. There is nothing "magic" going on here. Since
columns had a factor of safety of at least 2.25 this means that column strength during cooling was above 100% of the building load.
Those columns had reserve capacity. 87% of the columns on floor
97 were either untouched by fire or were cooling when the collapse occurred.
So how could all these columns fail symmetrically and simultaneously by fire?
Science says no way.
If a column's strength fell below 100% of the building load then it would
have started to fail. It is averaged that 80% of the perimeter columns had to
fail in order for what is documented to be caused by a natural gravity collapse.
In the picture data, do you see 189 bent perimeter columns at floor 97? No.
Can you observe changes to the building structure from all this failing such
as widespread misalignment of floors? No.
In summary, fire could not have weakened the necessary number of columns
to failure to create what has been documented. This refutes a natural
gravity collapse theory. The government has been unable to reconcile the irrefutable
data.
 
COLLAPSE ANALYSIS
Below is a summary of the WTC 1 collapse sequence by time instance. Keep
in mind that each instant during the collapse occurred for only a fraction of
a second. It would be helpful for you to review available videos of the WTC
1 before continuing as it will allow you visualize the descriptions in
this paper. You can find these on the Internet for free. See the References section at the
end of this paper for internet links.
COLLAPSE SEQUENCE

Building is motionless with smoky fires.
Collapse sequence begins.
Tower antenna moves slightly east and south.
First Row of explosions at floor 97 is seen.
Upper building above floor 97 moves downward, Second row of a dual set
of explosions at Floor 97 are seen.
Upper building moves downward, clouds expanding.
Floor 98 impacts floor 97, clouds expanding.
More explosions, upper building moves downward in unison, clouds expanding.
Floor 97 impacts floor 96, expulsion of clouds, clouds expanding.
Floor 96 impacts floor 95, expulsion of clouds, clouds expanding.
Collapse continues...

Below are select observations from video of the WTC 1 collapse.
OBSERVATIONS

Individual floors collapsed in a demolition-like manner. All columns
collapsed in near-unison and all four corners of the building fell in near-unison.

There was no detectable fatiguing or bending of perimeter columns prior
to collapse. What one sees is a motionless building rigidly retaining its
shape, then suddenly goes into catastrophic, out-of-control collapse. There
is no in-between state that would be typical of steel in fire.
The building's first point of collapse appears to be from the south
side of the building.
Columns on floor 97 did not bend prior to the observed explosions.
Only floor 97 collapsed in the first moments.
Floor 97 has dual rows of explosions around its perimeter at the top
and bottom of its columns.
When the upper building impacted and collapsed lower floors, upper building
floors did not buckle.
There was no significant pause in collapse when the upper floors impacted
floor 97, then floor 96.

I want to point out that if you analyze the collapse videos, it is going
to take more than a cursory look to confirm some of the findings, such as the
dual rows of explosions. I also want to note that in this paper I make a distinction between
a collapsing and a falling floor. A collapsing floor refers to a floor's columns
failing and the impact of upper floors. The floor above that is causing the collapse
would be considered a falling floor. Example, floor 97 was the first floor
to collapse. But floor 98 fell to create the observed collapse. The WTC 1 collapse
had two parts: 1) a falling part; 2) a collapsing part. Keep this in mind and
you will not become confused by the discussion which will sometimes refer
to floor 97 or floor 98 when talking about the same section of the
collapse.
FALL MEASUREMENTS
It is estimated that each floor of WTC 1 was 3.8 meters high. For floor 98 to
drop to floor 97 would have taken at least 0.88 seconds in the best case scenario-
this is free fall in a vacuum. For comparison, it would have taken 9.2 seconds for
110 floors to fall in a vacuum. Below are the best-case fall times for
floors 98 through 95.



FREE FALL SPEED OF FLOORS




Floor 98


with Floor 97


with Floor 96


with Floor 95




0.88 sec


1.25


1.53


1.76



CALCULATION:distance = (1/2) * gravity * time^2time = SQR(distance
/ 0.5 * gravity)time = SQR(3.8 / 4.9) = SQR(0.776) = 0.88 sectime =
SQR(7.6 / 4.9) = SQR(1.55) = 1.25time = SQR(11.4 / 4.9) = SQR(2.33) = 1.53time
= SQR(15.2 / 4.9) = SQR(3.1) = 1.76
Below are measured fall times for the same floors taken from video. I took 12 good readings
then discarded the lowest and highest value, and averaged. I simply used tape,
pencils, a stopwatch, and my eyes. I placed narrow strips of tape on the monitor
screen along the vertical edges of the building in the videos. I then marked
the floor locations on the tape. I then replayed the collapse repeatedly, taking
notes and measurements. The government has also done low-tech analysis of pictures
to get data. Anybody can do this and it is credible.



MEASURED FALL TIMES OF FLOORS




Floor 98


with Floor 97


with Floor 96


with Floor 95


Video Used




0.85 sec


1.33


1.71


1.91


wtc1-demolition-2.avi




0.86 sec


1.31


1.68


1.99


wtc1-demolition-4.avi




Averaged


 




0.86 sec


1.32


1.70


1.95


 



The upper 13 floors took about 0.86 sec to reach floor 97 and 1.32 sec to
reach floor 96. What these times show is that the WTC 1 collapse resembled the
behavior of free fall the first few floors. If the times are reasonably accurate, it shows that the
building was "pulled down" in its first moments of collapse. This
faster than free fall slowed once the upper floors met resistance with the lower
structure.
Because of the behavior of steel as its weakens over time by fire, a slow-motion
progressive fatigue of floor 97 should have occurred. Here is an experiment
you can do. Take two books the same size and stand them on their ends. Take
a third book and lay it flat across the two standing books. These represent
two columns and a floor. Now slowly push against the books until they go into
collapse. Did you notice how the collapse started out slow then accelerated?
This stage of fatigue before failure is missing from the WTC 1 collapse at floor
97. Now take two of the books, stand one vertical, and balance the other across
the top to make a 'T'. This is a floor and column. Now quickly, remove the vertical
book. Did you notice how quickly the top book fell? That is what floor 98 did
on 9-11.
There is no video data showing a fatigue period of the columns. Steel does not
simply snap and buckle suddenly in a fire. Here is an experiment you can do
with a steel rod and a torch (please exercise safety). Hold the rod in one hand
vertical and press down on it- this is a WTC column. Now take the torch and
heat the rod simulating fire. What happens? Did you observe a snap-of-the-fingers
"pancake" failure? No. How then does one explain the hundreds of steel
columns in WTC 1 doing it? If you think it can be explained by the large weight
of the upper floors, think again. Increased weight merely causes steel to fatigue
sooner when weakened by fire- but the steel would still have a distinct period
of progressive fatigue before failure.
Here is a riddle for you. I have a building with 110 floors. Columns have
a factor of safety of at least 2.25. For some reason floor 97 collapses, at which
time floor 98 and the other upper floors impact floor 97 with enough force to
make floor 96 collapse. This collapsing behavior continues to the next floors. It is known that each one of the lower floors can handle more
building load than any of the upper floors. Why did floor 98 not buckle when
it impacted lower floors?
I just pointed out a problem. When two objects of different strengths
smash, science says the weaker object will yield. Floor 98 did not buckle when
it hit the lower structure for at least 8 floors. To overwhelm these lower floors requires the mass
of the upper building section. So when floor 98 allegedly hit these lower
floors to apply the energy of that falling mass why did the columns of floor 98 not
absorb some of the impact?
There is another problem. The WTC 1 collapsed "pancake" style at
floor 97 but
the columns had varying load capacities. The perimeter columns essentially had
enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The
core columns could carry 135%. There is a large variance of load capacities
between columns, over 30% difference. How could columns with such differing
load capacities fail at the same time by random office fires? Science says no
way.
There is another problem. The first point of collapse was the south side
of the building. The government has made this admission. As will be shown
later in this paper, the lower floors did not provide much resistance to the
collapse. What this means is that there was no significant counterforce to stop
a circular momentum. So why did the 40,000 ton upper building not continue
to topple over in the south direction during the WTC 1 collapse?
A "truss theory" promoted by the Mainstream Media attempts to explain away
some of these impossibilities. The theory basically says that fire made floors
sag and this caused inward pulling of columns and made them buckle easily. Fire also caused weak bolts to break and this initiated the collapse. Besides this theory ignoring certain
facts about the WTC towers and its general lack of evidence, there is also a problem with its logic. If weak bolts broke
to cause the collapse, how is it that these same weak bolts were strong enough to pull on
the hundreds of massive steel columns and make them bow? How can weak bolts withstand
fire, but entire floor systems droop and sag? How can weak bolts during
fire be strong
and weak at the same time?
In summary, the WTC 1 did not collapse as science predicts it should have.
This refutes a natural gravity collapse theory. The government has been unable
to reconcile the irrefutable data.
 
CLOUD ANALYSIS
Below are selected observations from video of the WTC 1 collapse.
OBSERVATIONS

Five main types of clouds are seen: 1) dark grey sooty fire smoke; 2)
grey fire smoke; 3) light grey, dirty concrete dust; 4) white grey
dust; 5) pulverized debris (mixture of building/office materials).
At floor 97 there are two chains of fast explosions along
the 200 steel perimeter columns, starting from the south face of the building,
and moved in both direction around the building to the front. One chain
of explosions went off at the top of floor 97, the second at the bottom
of floor 97. There appears to be equal delay between each individual explosion.
Explosions are occurring before any observable signs of collapse.
Explosions originated from inside the WTC and expelled clouds outward.
The hundreds of closely spaced steel columns created a "comb"
effect of the expelled clouds. Explosions look like they occurred every
several columns. After expelling a few meters, the explosions blended together
into one continuous cloud.
Explosions can be seen going off on the west and east sides several
floors ahead of the collapse in video where the camera looks at the north
face head on. This unique view allows one to see building area that is masked
by expelled clouds in other videos. Explosions occur on floors 90 and below,
even though the collapse point was several floors above. These lower floors
suffered no damage from fire or plane impact.
Clouds of concrete dust are expelled before floor 98 impacts floor 97.
These clouds are denser than smoke and have the same color of pulverized concrete
created later in the collapse.

What can be observed suggests explosives, does is not? This is irrefutable
picture data. Take a look at it with your own eyes. I want point out that since
concrete clouds were being expelled before floor 98 impacted floor 97, this
means concrete was not being pulverized by impacting floors, but by some other
force.
I want to point out the importance of the clouds. Fires filled the building
with smoke. This marks the otherwise invisible air- like a color dye in water.
So when the floors collapsed, using thermodynamics and other physics, one can determine how much
air volume existed inside floor 97 when collapse initiated. If there is an abnormality
between what is measured and what should be, this would indicate use of explosives
because explosives creates overpressure. It is impossible for a floor to create
more air volume than what science will allow in a natural gravity collapse.
The government has asserted that the volume of air of a single floor is "approximated
as 200 ft [61 m] × 200 ft × 12 ft = 480,000 ft3". This gives us 13,592 cubic meters.
A researcher estimated that the air volume of the entire building was 1.5e6
cubic meters. From this we get 13,636 cubic meters of air per floor. This corroborates
the government data. Below are estimated air volumes for floors 97-94.



AIR VOLUME OF FLOORS




floor 97


with floor 96


with floor 95


with floor 94




13,592 m^3


27,184


40,776


54,368



Since not much more clouds came from the crash hole in relation to the clouds
expelled from the perimeter of the building, it is reasonable to conclude that
similar amounts of clouds were being ejected from all sides of the building.
This even distribution of clouds is corroborated by picture data from
different camera angles. This is also corroborated by the government's own assertions
in various reports.
Below are measured cloud volumes at different points of the collapse. Note
that clouds were not perfect circles and therefore adjustment has to be made
to get an easy-to-work-with diameter number.



MEASURED CLOUD DIAMETER


 




floor 97


with floor 96


with floor 95


with floor 94


Video Used




7.6 m


13.3


21.9


27.6


wtc1-demolition-2.avi




9.5 m


17.1


21.9


26.6


wtc1-demolition-4.avi




Averaged




8.6 m


15.2


21.9


27.1


 



Looking at the picture data the clouds expanded outward like an explosion.
For simplicity we will treat the average volume of the clouds along each building
side like a cylinder. Below are the estimated volumes of the clouds along the
perimeter of
the building at different points of collapse.



CLOUD VOLUME OF FLOORS




 


floor 97


with floor 96


with floor 95


with floor 94




Original Vol


13,592 m^3


27,184


40,776


54,368




Measured Vol


14,632 m^3


45,736


94,876


145,280




Diff


1,040 m^3


18,552


54,100


90,912




 




Floor 97 Diff


1,040 m^3


17,512


35,548


36,812




Percent Increase


8%


128


262


271




Floor 97 Vol


14,632 m^3


31,104


49,140


50,404



CALCULATION:cloud volume = 4 walls * wall length * cross area of cloud4
* (63 * (8.6/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 18.49 * 3.14) = 4 * 3658 = 14632 4
* (63 * (15.2/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 57.8 * 3.14) = 4 * 11434 = 45736 4
* (63 * (21.9/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 119.9 * 3.14) = 4 * 23719 = 94876 4
* (63 * (27.1/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 183.6 * 3.14) = 4 * 36320 = 145280
The numbers tell a story. That during the collapse of floor 97, large overpressure
developed. This compressed air was expelled by the collapsing floor but not
yet fully expanded. It then expanded as the collapse continued, first rapidly,
then slowing down. The numbers indicate that by floor 94, the air volume of
floor 97 was mostly
but not finished expanding.
We have enough information to estimate how much overpressure existed at
floor 97. We can visually measure the cloud volume of floors 97-94 from picture
data. Since most of the cloud volume of floor 97 was created by floor 94, to keep analysis
simple and on the conservative side we will assume that the air volume is 50,404
cubic meters as measured at floor 94.
Air turbulence plays a significant role in the creation of clouds. It has
been asserted that one takes about 1/3 off to account for expansion by air turbulence.
We end up with 33,603 cubic meters.
We need to consider air volume produced by heat caused by the collapse itself.
As each floor fell, it created energy. This energy had to: 1) overwhelm the floor
below it; 2) make this floor accelerate at the documented speed; 2) pulverize
a majority of the concrete of the floor; 3) create large volumes of air. Our
first step is to determine the energy of the collapse at each floor. We then
will subtract the energy sinks that absorb this energy.
From the free fall calculations and measured fall times we are able to approximate the velocity
of floors falling.



FLOOR VELOCITY AND FALL TIMES




At Floor


Falling Floors


Free Fall Time


Free Fall Velocity


Measured Fall Time


Estimated Velocity




97


13


0.88 sec


8.63 m/sec


0.86 sec


8.8 m/sec




96


14


0.37


12.2


0.46


9.76




95


15


0.28


14.95


0.38


11.06




94


16


0.23


16.82


0.25


15.47



CALCULATION:distance = (1/2) * gravity * time^2time = SQR(distance
/ 0.5 * 9.8)time = SQR(3.8 / 4.9) = SQR(.775) = 0.88time = SQR(7.6 /
4.9) = SQR(1.55) = 1.24time = SQR(11.4 / 4.9) = SQR(2.33) = 1.53time
= SQR(15.2 / 4.9) = SQR(3.10) = 1.76CALCULATION:v = SQR(2 * 9.8 * h)v
= SQR(19.6 * 3.8) = SQR(74.48) = 8.63 m/secv = SQR(19.6 * 7.6) = SQR(148.96)
= 12.2v = SQR(19.6 * 11.4) = SQR(223.44) = 14.95v = SQR(19.6 * 14.44)
= SQR(283.02) = 16.82CALCULATION:0.88 / 0.86 = 1.02 * 8.63 = 8.8 m/sec0.37
/ 0.46 = 0.80 * 12.2 = 9.760.28 / 0.38 = 0.74 * 14.95 = 11.060.23 /
0.25 = 0.92 * 16.82 = 15.47
We want to determine the energy that was absorbed by the building. We can do this by taking the kinetic
energy (KE) of free fall, the maximum theoretical energy,
and subtract the measured kinetic energy. The difference is the amount of energy
that was used to overwhelm the columns, break up the structure, pulverized concrete,
make accelerated combustion, and other.



KINETIC ENERGY COMPARISON




At Floor


Falling Floors


KE Free Fall


KE Measured


KE Diff




97


13


445 kwh


462 kwh


-17 kwh




96


14


923


612


311




95


15


1436


842


594




94


16


1983


1758


225



CALCULATION:3306 tons = 3306000 kg3306000 * 13 = 42978000 kg = 42978 tons3306000 * 14 = 46284000 = 462843306000 * 15 = 49590000 = 495903306000 * 16 = 52896000 = 52896(for free fall
KE is same as PE)fall of one floor at various heightsPE joules = xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx mPE = 3306000 * 9.8
* 3.8 = 123115440 joules = 34 kwhPE = 3306000 * 9.8 * 7.6 = 246230880 = 68 PE = 3306000 * 9.8 * 11.4 = 369346320 = 103 fall of
13 floors at various heightsPE joules
= xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx mPE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 3.8 = 1600500720 joules =
445 kwhPE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 7.6 = 3201001440 = 889PE = 42978000
* 9.8 * 11.4 = 4801502160 = 1334PE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 15.2 = 6402002880
= 1778total energy of falling floors889 34 = 923 kwh1334 68 34 = 14361778
103 68 34 = 1983CALCULATION"KE joules = 1/2 * m * v^2KE
= 0.5 * 42978000 * (8.8)^2 = 21489000 * 77.44 = 1664108160 joules
= 462 kwhKE = 0.5 * 46284000 * (9.76)^2 = 23142000 * 95.26
= 2204506920 = 612KE = 0.5 * 49590000 * (11.06)^2
= 24795000 * 122.32 = 3032924400 = 842KE = 0.5
* 52896000 * (15.47)^2 = 26448000 * 239.32 = 6329535360 = 1758
If the numbers are reasonably accurate, they show that a lot of energy from the falling floors continued with the collapse
and were not absorbed by the building. In fact, at floor 97, no energy
was absorbed at all. This means that at floor 97 there should have been no overwhelming
of columns, no pulverizing of concrete, and no accelerated combustion.
But picture data shows
substantial energy was transferred to ALL floors. This contradiction between
what is observed and what is calculated has been pointed out
by other researchers and cannot be explained by a natural gravity collapse.
One researcher created a paradox to describe what was happening: How could floors
provide both extreme high resistance and extreme low resistance at the same
time?
We want to estimate how much energy it took to overwhem the columns of a
floor. Using the Work-Energy principle we can estimate the average impact force
of a falling floor. We are
going to create a situation where the impact stopped so we can isolate the impact
force. In reality, the collapse continued after impact. This does not effect
the final outcome of the calculations, but allows easier computation. A floor
would not have zero elasticity so we are going to use an arbitrary 0.01 meters for
the distance traveled after impact. We find that the falling of 13 floors one
story creates a force of 160,050,072,000 newtons.
CALCULATION:average impact force * distance traveled = change in kinetic
energyaverage impact force = change in kinetic energy / distance traveled
F = 1600500720 / 0.01 = 160050072000 newtons
Now we need to turn this into a pressure. We need to know the cross section
area of the building columns. In a 2002 report FEMA asserts "The core columns
were box sections fabricated from A36 steel plate and were 36 inches [91.44
cm] x 14-16 inches [35.56-40.64 cm] with plate thickness from 3/4 inch [1.91
cm] to 4 inches [10.16 cm]. Above floor 84, rolled or welded built-up I-shaped
sections were used." FEMA also says perimeter columns were "14-inch by
14-inch [35.56 cm]".
I want to stress that the government's providing of basic architectural design
information about the WTC has been very poor. This withholding of information
has been taken to the extreme by the government's refusal to release the WTC
blueprints and locking down information under nondisclosure agreements. It has
been asserted that the government is doing this as a anti-terrorism "security"
measure. But what security risk is created by releasing data on buildings
long gone and which will never be built again?
Below are estimates of I-shape beams for floors 97-94. The difference in
dimensions and thickness for floors 97-94 were less than a centimeter, so for
simplicity of analysis an averaged column is calculated. There was
a total of 2.28 square meters of steel for the core columns and 4.71 square
meters for perimeter columns. Total area of column steel is about 7 square meters. To simplify calculations we will assume that maximum impact occurred on the
columns before impact contributed to other aspects of the collapse.



COLUMN DIMENSIONS




Column Type


Width


Depth


Thickness


Cross Section Area




Core


91.44 cm


36.29 cm


3.07 cm


484.69 cm^2




Perimeter


35.56


35.56


3.07


199.49



CALCULATION:40.64 - 35.56 = 5.085.08 / 110 = 0.05 cm13 * 0.05
= 0.65 cm 35.56 = 36.21 cm14 * 0.05 = 0.7 35.56 = 36.2615 * 0.05
= 0.75 35.56 = 36.3116 * 0.05 = 0.8 35.56 = 36.3636.21 36.26
36.31 36.36 = 145.14 / 4 = 36.29 cmCALCULATION:10.16 - 1.91 = 8.258.25
/ 110 = 0.08 cm13 * 0.08 = 1.04 cm 1.91 = 2.95 cm14 * 0.08 = 1.12
1.91 = 3.0315 * 0.08 = 1.2 1.91 = 3.1116 * 0.08 = 1.28 1.91 =
3.192.95 3.03 3.11 3.19 = 12.28 / 4 = 3.07 cmCALCULATION:((2
* 36.29) * 3.07) (91.44 - (2 * 3.07)) * 3.07) = (72.58 * 3.07) (85.3 * 3.07)
= 222.82 261.87 = 484.69 cm^2((2 * 35.56) * 3.07) (35.56 - (2 * 3.07))
* 3.07) = (35.56 * 3.07) (29.42 * 3.07) = 109.17 90.32 = 199.49 cm^2CALCULATION:484.69
* 47 = 22780.43 cm = 2.28 m^2199.49 * 236 = 47079.64 cm = 4.71 m^2
Now let us calculate impact pressure of the falling floors. For 13 floors
falling one story this is 22,864 MPa.
CALCULATION:impact pressure = impact force / impact areaIP = 160050072000
/ 7 = 22864296000 N/m2 = 22864 MPa
Below is information on ASTM A36 steel used in calculations. Steel strength
is similar in compression and tension. To overwhelm ASTM A36 steel in
compression would take on average 475 MPa.



PROPERTIES OF ASTM A36 STEEL




Tensile Strength, Ultimate


400 - 550 MPa




Tensile Strength, Yield


250 MPa




Modulus of Elasticity


200 GPa




Compressive Yield Strength


152 MPa




Bulk Modulus


140 GPa




Shear Modulus


79.3 GPa



We need to account for weakening by heat. Earlier it was calculated that
the average air temperature on a floor with fire was 148 C at the time of collapse.
Using a general steel strength versus temperature chart, one finds that the
steel would have lost about 2% of its strength if it was heated to this temperature.
Adjusting our figure we get 466 MPa.
We also have to account for weakening by the plane impact. In a 2004 presentation
NIST asserts from its "modeling" that in the "Realistic Case",
3 core columns were severed, 10 were damaged. In this same presentation the
"Realistic Case" for the perimeter columns was 34 severed columns
and 5 damaged.



CORE COLUMNS




Columns


Damage




3


Severed




4


Heavy Damage




6


Moderate Damage




 


 




PERIMETER COLUMNS




Columns


Damage




34


Severed




3


Heavy Damage




2


Moderate Damage



CALCULATION:2/3 * 3 = 21/3 * 2 = 2/32/3 * 4 = 2 2/31/2 *
6 = 2
NIST used a three-level damage rating: Severed, Heavy Damage, Moderate Damage.
We will assume severed equals 100% damage, heavy damage is 2/3, and moderate
damage is 1/3. We find that the equivalent of total severed perimeter columns
is 36. We find that the equivalent of total severed core columns to be 8. Now
we need to determine average severed columns per floor. From a building damage
chart in a 2005 NIST report I count the following severed
perimeter columns:



SEVERED PERIMETER COLUMNS




Floor


Severed Columns




97


13




96


15




95


15




94


16



On average, about 15 perimeter columns were severed per floor. This is about
40% of the total severed perimeter columns. Using this percentage we can scale
and estimate how many severed columns per floor. We find that the equivalent
severed column average is 16 for the perimeter and 3 for the core per floor.
This means the perimeter was weakened 7% and the core weakened 6%. This corroborates
that the impact of a Boeing 767 at high speed did not cause overwhelming
structural damage to the WTC 1. The average
weakening of a floor comes out to be 6.4%. Adjusting our steel figure we get
435 MPa.
CALCULATION:40 * 7 = 28060 * 6 = 360280 360 = 640 / 100 = 6.4LCULATION:475
* 0.02 = 9.5475 * 0.064 = 30.4475 - 9.5 - 30.4 = 435 MPa
We have enough information to determine how much energy it took to overwhelm
the floor columns. Since we calculated an average column's dimensions, the result
will be the same for all floors 97-94. It took about 9 kwh to overwhelm the columns
of a floor. Not much energy compared to what the collapse created per floor,
200 kwh.
I wanted to walk through calculating how much energy the columns could handle because
I observed in my research that people mistakenly believe columns would
have resisted the collapse significantly. It is true, they
can support large loads. But they cannot handle that same weight dropped from a height. If you have
ever dropped a book on your bare foot, you know that the normally benign book
becomes painful when it falls. Likewise, the upper floors created
a lot more energy when moving.
CALCULATION:435 / 22864  = 0.02445 * 0.02 = 9 kwh
How much energy did it take to pulverize the concrete? Using an asserted
60/40 steel to concrete ratio, we find that the WTC 1 had 66,667 tons of concrete.
Other researches have made estimates upwards to 90,000 tons. Let us take a middle
of the road figure of 78,000 tons. This works out to be 709 tons per floor.
It has been asserted that the majority of the concrete in the WTC 1 was turned
into dust. We will assume conservatively that 40% of concrete was pulverized.
Using an asserted 1.5 kwh/ton it takes 426 kwh to pulverize the 284 tons of
concrete per floor that is documented as dust.
One finds that of the 2,836 tons of concrete of floors 97-94, 26%
was pulverized. Does this match what is documented in the picture data?
No. Documented are voluminous amounts of concrete clouds being created. This required
energy to BOTH pulverize the concrete AND expel it into clouds. Where is this energy coming
from?



AMOUNT OF CONCRETE PULVERIZED




At Floor


Falling Floors


KE Available


Concrete Pulverized


Percent of Floor




97


13


0 kwh


0 tons


0 %




96


14


302


201


28%




95


15


585


390


55%




94


16


216


144


20%



CALCULATION:709 * 4 = 2836CALCULATION:311 - 9 = 302594 -
9 = 585225 - 9 = 216CALCULATION:28 55 20 = 103 / 4 = 26%
The purpose of this series of calculations was to determine how much energy
of the collapse contributed to air volume. We were unable to get that far. We
ran into a problem of not having enough energy to pulverize concrete as documented.
Enough concrete was pulverized at floor 95, but what about the other three floors?
Picture data shows that concrete was pulverized at floor 97 and that large amounts
of concrete were pulverized at floors 96 and 94.
After you subtract energy for
other aspects of the collapse, there is really nothing left over to contribute to air volume.
From the fire data it can be inferred that 73% of the building area (floors
97-94) was burned out or burning at the time of collapse. Even if accelerated
combustion occurred, there was not much fuel available on these floors. In addition, most of the available oxygen that
would be used for combustion was expelled when floors collapsed.
But for sake of discussion, let us say the extra 159 kwh of energy at floor 95 created heat
to expand the air. The government asserts fires MAY have been 500-600 C. At the
time of colapse, fires only burned in 24% of the floors, 98-94. I will use
21 C as the ambient air temperature. The average temperature per floor with
fire works out to 148 C.
CALCULATION:246088 - 36913 = 209175CALCULATION:550 * 24 = 1320021
* 76 = 159613200 1596 = 14796 / 100 = 148C
Below is information on air. The makeup of air has been generalized to keep
analysis simple.



PROPERTIES OF AIR




Makeup


80% N2 (28 g/mol), 20% O2 (32 g/mol)




Average Atomic Weight


28.8 g/mol




Average Heat Capacity


0.24 cal/g



We first determine the weight of air inside floor 97 at ambient temperature.
Then we figure out heat created by the kwh energy. Then we figure out the air
volume caused by this heat. We use gas laws and its derivatives. We find that
159 kwh created 7,022 cubic meters of air volume. Subtract this from our unaccounted
air volume and we get 26,581 cubic meters. Subtract off the original air
volume of floor 97 and we get 12,989 cubic meters. We still have almost an entire
floor volume of air that is unaccounted for. In addition, we now have any unexplainable
for the large amounts of pulverized concrete clouds that there was no energy for. Where
is the energy coming from?
CALCULATION:13592 m^3 = 13592000 LPV = nRT(1 atm) * 13592000
L = n * 0.08 * (273 21) K13592000 L = n * 0.08 * 294 = 13592000 = n *
23.52n = 577891 mol577891 * 28.8 = 16643261 g CALCULATION:159
kwh = 136715391 calgrams air * heat capacity * number degrees = calories16643261
* 0.24 * T = 1367153913994382.64 * T = 136715391T =  34 KPV =
nRT(1 atm) * V = 566327 mol * 0.08 * (273 148 34) KV = 566327 * 0.08
* 455V = 20614303 L = 20614 m^320614 - 13592 = 7022 m^333603
- 7022 = 26581 m^3CALCULATION:26581 - 13592 = 12989 m^3
I want to note that in this paper I am not trying to create a detailed, exhaustive model
of the WTC 1 collapse. This will have to be done. But this does not prevent
me from pointing out obvious facts to you using a simpler model. I do cover
the major factors of the collapse and make estimates
conservatively to account for margin of error and to cover for factors not considered.
I have not
been paid for my time to do this research. The government has paid $16 Million
of your money to a bunch of hack scientists to use fantasy modeling and ill
logic to prove impossibilities. That is deception. If the government cares to pay volunteer researchers
like myself what it has paid to these hack in-house "scientists", a detailed thermodynamic
model of these explosions could be developed.
Floor 97 contained about 33,603 cubic meters of air
at the moment of collapse. That is a factor of almost 2.5 times the normal volume
of air inside floor 97. This finding corroborates the work of another researcher
who measured the entire cloud volume created by the WTC 1 collapse, not just of

a single floor as I am doing. In his research he estimated the building cloud
volume expanded over 3.4 times. Considering analysis of the entire building introduces
more error than analyzing the first floor of collapse, his estimates are credible. It begs the question: Where is all this air volume coming from?
Let us pause for a moment. This is simply a phenomenal amount of air volume. To
visualize, a floor of the WTC is about 1/3 of a city block. As one researcher put it, you don't need a wall of degrees to be an expert in
common sense.
Could a gravity collapse somehow explain this? Science says no way. There is no
phenomenon in a natural gravity collapse that can account for this large volume
of air. It is artificially produced. What phenomenon can produce this amount
of air?
It may be argued that air pressure inside the building was higher because
of fire. The WTC 1 generally had an open-floor plan. There was a large crash hole. Many
windows were broken. This is like a big bag of air with holes in it. If pressure
built up in the building where is it going to go? It will follow the path of
least resistance and go out the holes. Substantial pressure would not be able
to build up.
It may be argued that the additional air volume was created by the core collapsing
first. Take two paper plates and push them together. There is only so much air
between those plates, it doesn't mater if you push the plates in the middle.
There has to be another force, such as intense heat to expand the air to
the volume documented.
It may be argued that floor 98 was actually the first floor to collapse and
the upper floors contributed air volume. There is no supporting evidence for this.
No columns at floor 98 bent. Floor 98 did not buckle for at least 8 floors of
the collapse. In addition no clouds were expelled as floor 99 allegedly fell-
there was a whole floor of air volume from floor 98 that would have been expelled. This is
not documented in picture data.
It may be argued that the impacting upper building pulverized concrete
and created additional clouds. It has been calculated earlier in
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software