Transcript Destruction of the Twin Towers

Destruction
of the Twin Towers
1
The Event
2
The Event
AA-11 & UA175 Flight Paths
Alleged flight paths (lost to radar for part of trip)
3
The Event
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
4
The Event
AA-11 Impact
on WTC-1
One landing gear
5
The Event
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
6
The Event
UA-175 Impact
on WTC-2
Landing gear, engine,
fuselage section 7
The Stage
8
World Trade Center
The Buildings: Layout
Building 7
N
North Tower
South Tower
9
World Trade Center
The Buildings: Heights
N
110 stories
47 stories
10
WTC 1-2 Construction
Columns
47 central core columns, 244 perimeter columns
11
WTC 1-2 Construction
in Progress
Basement, first 10 floors of WTC1
12
WTC 1-2 Construction
47 Central Core Columns
14”x36” near bottom, various smaller forms near top
13
WTC 1-2 Construction
244 Perimeter Columns
Truss
mounting
points
Diagonalbrace
mounting
points
3-column-3-floor assemblies alternating across 3 floors,
connected by welded/bolted spandrel plates
14
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Perimeter cross-link strength
Acting like a Roman arch over the hole
15
WTC 1-2 Construction
Floor Support Trusses
16
WTC 1-2 Construction
Floor Support Trusses
Perimeter
column
loops stick up
into grooves on
metal deck, act
as shear studs
Core
column
Main trusses: these were double
17
WTC 1-2 Construction
Floor Support Trusses
Transverse truss: at right angles to main trusses
18
WTC 1-2 Construction
“Hat” Truss
Floors 106-110:
Helps spread
stress forces within
core and between
core and perimeter,
and supports
communications
tower on top
19
The Reports
20
The Reports
• FEMA -- 2002
• 9/11 Commission -- 2004
• NIST: National Institute of
Science and Technology -- 2005
21
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
22
FEMA Investigation/Report
Conclusion: Pancaking
(PBS)
23
9/11 Commission Report
• 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)
24
NIST Report
25
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.
26
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) 27
So, what did NIST say?
28
NIST’s approach
A Computer Model
(ignored much physical evidence)
29
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
30
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
31
NIST: Computer model approach
• "[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
32
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
33
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
34
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.”
and
steel analysis "includes...estimating the maximum
temperature reached by available steel."
BUT
• NIST, 2005: Steel is merely “sufficient for
determining quality and mechanical properties”
35
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Fire Retardant
• 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.
36
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Temperature Behavior
• 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.
37
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Temperature claims
• 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
38
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Floor trusses sag
• 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?
http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/wtc/they-liedabout-trusses.htm
39
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Floor trusses sag
40
NIST: Fire weakens steel
Floor trusses sag
• (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.
41
NIST: Fire
weakens
steel
Sagging trusses
pull wall inward
42
NIST: Fire
weakens steel
Sagging trusses
pull wall inward
43
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.
44
Let’s get technical !
Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available
from a GRAVITY DRIVEN collapse
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?
45
Let’s get technical !
Mind-numbing analytical details
and calculations moved to the
end of the presentation, where
they may never be seen again . . .
46
So we got technical !
And guess what?
There was not ENOUGH ENERGY available
for any of these theories or observations:
1. NIST’s “pile driver” theory of collapse
2. expansion of the large, fast dust clouds
3. Heavy columns thrown far and fast
47
If gravity didn’t have what it takes,
What did?
48
The
Alternative
Theory
49
The Alternative Theory:
Definition
Controlled Demolition
the bringing down of a building by
the use of explosives/incendiaries
to simultaneously remove critical
supporting structure
50
The Alternative Theory:
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
51
The Alternative Theory:
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)
52
The Alternative Theory:
Calling a Spade a Spade (WTC7)
QuickTime™ and a
H.264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Danny Jowenko, a Danish demolition expert not
dependent on U.S. reputation and government contracts
53
54
The Alternative Theory:
Features Consistent with Explosives,
Inconsistent with Fire
1.
Fall
A.
B.
C.
D.
2.
Rapid onset of destruction at jet impact point
Straight-down symmetrical collapse
Near-freefall acceleration through path of greatest resistance
Large proportion of debris outside footprint
Explosives/incendiaries
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Dismemberment of steel framework
Lateral ejection of steel members up to 600’
Pyroclastic (suspension) clouds of pulverized concrete
Evidence of high temperatures (molten metal, iron
microspheres
Chemical evidence of thermitic material
55
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
56
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Sudden onset of destruction at point of impact
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
WTC 1
57
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Sudden onset of destruction at point of impact
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
WTC 2
58
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Straight-down Symmetrical Collapse
QuickTime™ and a
H.264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
WTC 1
59
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Straight-down (almost) Symmetrical Collapse
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
WTC 2
(slow)
60
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Time of Descent
• 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.
61
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Near-Freefall Acceleration
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
WTC 1
62
The Alternative Theory:
Debris
Outside
Footprint
Heavy debris,
perimeter columns
Lighter debris
X Perimeter columns
outside debris radius
FEMA report:
WTC1-2 Debris
63
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Dismemberment: Debris Pile
64
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Dismemberment: Debris Pile
65
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
66
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Dismemberment: Core Obliteration
Massive 1000’ structure of cross-braced
thick steel columns were dismembered
(North tower section survived only
temporarily)
67
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Dismemberment: Core Obliteration
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
68
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Lateral
Ejection
Large pieces of the
structures thrown
horizontally long
distances at high
velocities (40-60 mph)
perimeter column sticking
out of the corner of WTC 3
69
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Pyroclastic Dust Clouds
• “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
70
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Pyroclastic Dust Clouds
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)
71
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Pyroclastic Dust Clouds
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
* Fine dust suspended
* Rapid expansion
* Little mixing with air
72
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Pyroclastic Dust Clouds
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
73
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Expanding Dust Clouds
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
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Destruction Above Impact Zone: WTC1
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG OpenDML decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Damage line remains in place for a while while roof-top starts to
descend, appears to disintegrate before the “collapse” begins.
75
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Destruction Above Impact Zone: WTC2
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
76
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Early ejections
Dust and
debris are
ejected
before fall -South tower
top is only
tipping
77
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Squibs
Ejections of dust far
below destruction -pressure might be
distributed that far
down due to piledriver compression,
but where does the
dust come from, and
why only in specific
places?
78
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Explosions: Witness Reports
In NYFD oral histories, hidden
by NYFD until NY Times forced
release in 2005, about 120 out
of 500 reported explosions
79
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Explosions: Witness Reports
QuickTime™ and a
H.264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Firemen and WTC1-2 explosions
80
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Explosions: Witness Reports
QuickTime™ and a
H.264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Firemen hearing it; post-WTC1-2 explosions
81
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
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 nearspherical shapes
– Iron (2800°F), lead (3180°F),
molybdenum (4500°F)
• Vaporized steel
82
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
High Temperatures
NASA heat image
from several weeks
after 9/11 -temperatures in
excess of 1000°F on
the surface
83
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Iron-rich Microspheres
84
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
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
85
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
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
86
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Vaporization of Steel
From FEMA Report, Appendix C (WTC7)
87
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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 . . .
88
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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 . . .
89
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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...
90
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
91
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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. . .
92
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
93
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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.
94
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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 (billionthof-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
95
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
96
from Lawrence Livermore Lab: “Nanoscale chemistry yields better explosives”
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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 . . .
97
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
Red-gray (nanothermite?) chips
98
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
Nanothermite particles?
99
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Residues
• 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.
100
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
101
102
Appendix 1:
WTC Steel Removal
103
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
104
Removal of WTC Steel
Not all bite-sized pieces
Indicates not total dismemberment, but confuses issue of
what melted prior to collapse
105
Removal of WTC Steel
Why 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”
106
Removal of WTC Steel
Reasons 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, documented location, and saved elsewhere
107
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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)
108
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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.
109
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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
110
Removal of WTC Steel
“Highly sensitive”
• Nov 26: Trucks monitored by GPS
http://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”
111
Appendix 2:
Energy:
A Technical Discussion
112
Let’s get technical !
Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available
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?
113
Forces and Momentum
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of
the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
Dr. Gordon Ross, June 2006
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
114
Forces and Momentum
Basic idea
Previous momentum analyses treated floors
as individual items hanging in space, instead
of being interconnected, with forces moving
and distributing through the structure below.
115
Forces and Momentum
What you need to know about . . .
Compression of Steel Columns
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
116
Forces and Momentum
What happens 1
• 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
117
Forces and (conserved) Momentum
What happens 2
• 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
118
Forces and Momentum
... and after many detailed calculations of
kinetic and potential energy, elastic and
plastic strain energy, and concrete
pulverization energy...
119
Forces and Momentum
Energy Summary
120
Forces and Momentum
But that’s an underestimate
• 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
121
Forces and Momentum
Conclusion
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the
plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that
there would be insufficient energy available from 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.
i.e., Collapse stops after 1 floor drop
122
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
123
Dust Cloud Expansion
But before we get into the
expansion of the dust cloud,
what about all that dust?
124
Dust Cloud Expansion
Pulverization Energy
• 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
125
Dust Cloud Expansion
Pulverization Energy
• 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 ....
126
Dust Cloud Expansion
Basic idea
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?
127
Dust Cloud Expansion
What can produce expansion?
1. expansion of gases due to heat
2. vaporization of liquids and solids
3. 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)
128
Dust Cloud Expansion
Analysis steps
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 gasexpansion and liquid/solid vaporization?
129
Dust Cloud Expansion
The picture (30 seconds later)
The ref points
The cylinder:
Height: 200’
Radius: 800’
130
Dust Cloud Expansion
Parameters at 30 sec
• 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 of
Cloud Volume = 200 million ft3
• Speed of advance observed: 25 mph
131
Dust Cloud Expansion
Due to mixing/diffusion?
• 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
132
Dust Cloud Expansion
Expansion in 30 sec
• Tower volume:
1368’ x 207’ x 207’ = 58.6 million ft3
• Cloud volume: ~200 million ft3
• Expansion ratio: 3.41 (conservative)
133
Dust Cloud Expansion
1. Gas expansion by heat 1
• 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 . . .
134
Dust Cloud Expansion
1. Gas expansion by heat 2
• 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
135
Dust Cloud Expansion
2. Vaporization of water
• 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 enough136
Dust Cloud Expansion
How much of which?
• 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
137
Dust Cloud Expansion
High Temperatures
“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.”
138
Dust Cloud Expansion
Summary: Energy Sources and Requirements
Conservative figures
139
Dust Cloud Expansion
Why conservative?
• 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.
140
Dust Cloud Expansion
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.
141
3. Beam Ejection
142
Beam Ejection
Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpg
143
Beam Ejection
Structure of Perimeter Columns
(FEMA)
144
Beam Ejection
Well, maybe not 600,000 lbs...
MIN
near top
NIST, via Gregory H. Urich *
B.S. Elect/Computer Engineering
MAX
near bottom
AVG
scaled
145
* http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Beam Ejection
World Financial
Center 3
146
Beam Ejection
Distance from North Tower
to World Financial Center 3
about 480 feet
(NASA photo & scale from FEMA report)
147
Beam Ejection
Parameters
• Building: WFC3 American Express
http://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)
148
Beam Ejection
Calculation
• 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 ??
149
So we got technical !
And guess what?
There was not ENOUGH ENERGY available
for any of these theories or observations:
1. NIST’s “pile driver” theory of collapse
2. expansion of the large, fast dust clouds
3. Heavy columns thrown far and fast
150
WTC 1-2 Destruction Features
Concrete Pulverization
• “Pyroclastic” is used to describe
volcanic dust clouds
151
152
153
Appendix 1:
WTC Steel Removal
154
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
155
Removal of WTC Steel
Not all bite-sized pieces
Indicates not total dismemberment, but confuses issue of
what melted prior to collapse
156
Removal of WTC Steel
Why 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”
157
Removal of WTC Steel
Reasons 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, documented location, and saved elsewhere
158
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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)
159
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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.
160
Removal of WTC Steel
What 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
161
Removal of WTC Steel
“Highly sensitive”
• Nov 26: Trucks monitored by GPS
http://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”
162
Appendix 2:
Energy:
A Technical Discussion
163
Let’s get technical !
Was there ENOUGH ENERGY available
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?
164
Forces and Momentum
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the
Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
Dr. Gordon Ross, June 2006
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
165
Forces and Momentum
Basic idea
Previous momentum analyses treated
floors as individual items hanging in
space, instead of being interconnected,
with forces moving and distributing
through the structure below.
166
Forces and Momentum
What you need to know about . . .
Compression of Steel Columns
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
167
Forces and Momentum
What happens 1
• 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
168
Forces and (conserved) Momentum
What happens 2
• 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
169
Forces and Momentum
... and after many detailed calculations
of kinetic and potential energy, elastic
and plastic strain energy, and concrete
pulverization energy...
170
Forces and Momentum
Energy Summary
171
Forces and Momentum
But that’s an underestimate
• 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
172
Forces and Momentum
Conclusion
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during
the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns
showing that there would be insufficient energy available from
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.
i.e., Collapse stops after 1 floor drop
173
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
174
Dust Cloud Expansion
But before we get into the
expansion of the dust cloud,
what about all that dust?
175
Dust Cloud Expansion
Pulverization Energy
• 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
176
Dust Cloud Expansion
Pulverization Energy
• 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 ....
177
Dust Cloud Expansion
Basic idea
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?
178
Dust Cloud Expansion
What can produce expansion?
1. expansion of gases due to heat
2. vaporization of liquids and solids
3. 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)
179
Dust Cloud Expansion
Analysis steps
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 gasexpansion and liquid/solid vaporization?
180
Dust Cloud Expansion
The picture (30 seconds later)
The ref points
The cylinder:
Height: 200’
Radius: 800’
181
Dust Cloud Expansion
Parameters at 30 sec
• 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 of
Cloud Volume = 200 million ft3
• Speed of advance observed: 25 mph
182
Dust Cloud Expansion
Due to mixing/diffusion?
• 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
183
Dust Cloud Expansion
Expansion in 30 sec
• Tower volume:
1368’ x 207’ x 207’ = 58.6 million ft3
• Cloud volume: ~200 million ft3
• Expansion ratio: 3.41 (conservative)
184
Dust Cloud Expansion
1. Gas expansion by heat 1
• 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 . . .
185
Dust Cloud Expansion
1. Gas expansion by heat 2
• 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
186
Dust Cloud Expansion
2. Vaporization of water
• 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 enough187
Dust Cloud Expansion
How much of which?
• 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
188
Dust Cloud Expansion
High Temperatures
“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.”
189
Dust Cloud Expansion
Summary: Energy Sources and Requirements
Conservative figures
190
Dust Cloud Expansion
Why conservative?
• 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.
191
Dust Cloud Expansion
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.
192
3. Beam Ejection
193
Beam Ejection
Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/3942.jpg
194
Beam Ejection
Structure of Perimeter Columns
(FEMA)
195
Beam Ejection
Well, maybe not 600,000 lbs...
MIN
near top
NIST, via Gregory H. Urich *
B.S. Elect/Computer Engineering
MAX
near bottom
AVG
scaled
196
* http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Beam Ejection
World Financial
Center 3
197
Beam Ejection
Distance from North Tower
to World Financial Center 3
about 480 feet
(NASA photo & scale from FEMA report)
198
Beam Ejection
Parameters
• Building: WFC3 American Express
http://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)
199
Beam Ejection
Calculation
• 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 ??
200
So we got technical !
And guess what?
There was not ENOUGH ENERGY available
for any of these theories or observations:
1. NIST’s “pile driver” theory of collapse
2. expansion of the large, fast dust clouds
3. Heavy columns thrown far and fast
201