911oz - Australian 9/11 Truth Movement

contact: admin@911oz.com

Bookmark and Share   PageRank Checking Tool    RSS

buildingwhat.org
Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Syndicated Articles

To share your thoughts, join the 911oz Forum

Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1.

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2.

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

3.

Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

4.

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

5.

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

6.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

7.

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

8.

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

9.

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

10.

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

11.

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

12.

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

13.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

14.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

15.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

16.

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

2. The Twin Towers

Newly constructed World Trade Center towers at dusk, before Battery Park City (www.greatbuildings.com)The World Trade Center should, because of its importance, become a living representation of man's belief in humanity, his need for individual dignity, his belief in the cooperation of men, and through this cooperation his ability to find greatness.  

(Minoru Yamasaki, architect)

 

Each of the tenant floors of the towers was intended to offer a large expanse of workspace, virtually uninterrupted by columns or walls. This called for an innovative structural design, lightweight to minimize the total mass of 110 stories, yet strong enough to support the huge building with all its furnishings and people.

 

The buildings would also need to resist lateral loads and excessive swaying, principally from the hurricane force winds that periodically strike the eastern seaboard of the United States.

 

An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of thetowers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph. (NIST p. 5)

 

Technical Note: Structural engineers refer to the building weight as the dead load; the people and furnishings are called the live load. Collectively, these are referred to as gravity loads.

 

WTC Core DiagramTo solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach - instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes all the gravity loads of the building. (wikipedia)

 

 

 


Prelude: The Power Down - An Interview with Scott Forbes


(source:  george washington's blog)

 

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

 

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.

 

GENERAL BACKGROUND

 

GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

 

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

 

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.

 

THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH

 

GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

 

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

 

GW: When did it end?

 

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

 

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

 

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

 

GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

 

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

 

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

 

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...

 

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

 

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

 

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

 

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

 

GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

 

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

 

GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?

 

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

 

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?

 

SF: No.

 

THE MORNING OF 9/11

 

GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?

 

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.

 

THE 9/11 COMMISSION

 

GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

 

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

 

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

 

SF: No

 

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

 

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.



Impacts and Explosions


 

WTC 1 was struck by American Flight 11 at 8:46:40 AM. By an extraordinary coincidence a TV documentary being filmed for the Fire Department that morning captured the moment of impact on video:

 

On September 11, 2001, filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet were filming a documentary on a rookie New York City firefighter when they noticed a plane overhead. That plane would hit the World Trade Center. The firefighter and the Naudets rushed immediately to the scene. The Naudets filmed throughout Sept. 11 and the days afterward from the firemen's perspective, as it became clear to them that this was the only known footage from inside the Twin Towers that day

(amazon.com).

 

When the Naudet film crew arrived at WTC 1 the plate glass windows of the lobby were blown out, and people with severe burns were observed.

 

The glass has been blown out because, we are told, burning jet fuel cascading down an elevator shaft caused a fireball. When Jules enters, we hear a woman's scream. He explains in the film's narration that that was a charred woman dying. He did not film her.

 

'Two people were on fire. The image was so terrible, I made a decision not to film it', Jules said after Monday's screening. 'It's not something anybody should see, or want to see'.

(National Review)

 

There was also evidence of explosions in lower levels at around the time of the first plane impact. The following excerpt describes what Mike Peccoraro, a building maintenance worker, observed:

 

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

 

'There was nothing there but rubble' Mike said. 'We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!' The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. 'You could stand here,' he said, 'and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming.' But there was still no answer.

 

Sergei Siletzky was a helper at WTC. At the time of the attack, he was attending class at Local 94.

 

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. 'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything' he said.

 

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil' and lying on the floor.

(Chief Engineer Magazine)

 

The next story is that of another building maintenance worker, William Rodriguez:

 

William had worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class 'A' building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

 

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. 'When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.' said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

 

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: 'I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.' He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

 

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. 'He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.' The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. 'He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms.' William asks: 'How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?'
theconservativevoice.com)

 

WTC Elevator System (NIST)According to the official story, the explosions described by Rodriguez and others were all caused by jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts.

 

There is a problem with this explanation however, for, as described in this article, the WTC had a unique 'sky lobby' elevator system which separated the building into 3 distinct segments:

 

The twin 110-story New York World Trade Center (WTC) towers are a perfect example of stacked office building applications. Each 33-story portion is serviced by four zones ­ each with six single-deck local lifts, with the local lifts of zone II and III separated by two sky lobbies. Building tenants or visitors desiring elevator transport to the floors of zone II or III must first travel on a sky-lobby shuttle elevator to the upper sky-lobby and then transfer to the appropriate local lift for final transport to their destination. A passenger departing an upper-zone floor must first travel via a local lift to the sky-lobby and then transfer to a sky-lobby shuttle elevator for final travel to the ground floor.

(Elevator World)

 

In fact there was only one shaft which connected all floors (Click on the image for a more detailed view). It seems surprising that enough jet fuel could pour down this one shaft to cause such massive damage in the lobby and sub basements.

 

It also seems hard to believe that fuel could have poured down the elevator shaft to cause an explosion before the plane hit, as described by William Rodriguez.

 

 


 

 

Diagram showing impact damage and flight paths (FEMA)

 

 


The Towers Crumble


 

WTC 2 was hit by United Flight 175 at 9:03:11 AM.

 

According to the Official Story, both towers crumbled to dust within an hour due to raging fires which softened the steel columns.  

 

It was a surprise that the towers fell. The Fire Department certainly wasn't expecting this to happen. They were so confident of the structural integrity of the buildings that hundreds of firemen rushed in immediately. 347 firemen perished when the buildings came down.

 

Osama was lucky: had the buildings not collapsed, the total death toll would have been merely a few hundred instead of 2986!

 

Curiously, a recorded radio transmission from Fire Chief Orio Palmer, who was on an upper floor of the south tower, indicated that just two hose lines would be needed to put out two isolated pockets of fire: 'We should be able to knock it down with two lines', he said. Just a few moments later the building disintegrated. 

 

TV reporters who were broadcasting live that morning told of huge explosions which they heard coming from the base of the towers shortly before they crumbled.

 

Surprisingly, these and other reports of explosions, such as as the ones quoted below, were not given any T.V. airplay in the aftermath 9/11. Nor were they described the FEMA report, the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

WTC 2 at 09:59:04. The top 34 floors toppled, then disintegrated.At that time I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

--PARAMEDIC KEVIN DARNOWSKI
Date: November 9, 2001 

 

Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
-- CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
Interview Date: Novermber 7, 2001

 

I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.
--FIREFIGHTER FRANK CAMPAGNA
Interview Date: December 4, 2001

 

The next thing I know, we heard a little bit of a rumbling, and then white powder came from the first collapsed building. I thought it was an explosion initially. We got hit with the powder. We tried to run. We got hit with the powder. It took a few minutes to clear.

...
After that, I still thought it was an explosion. I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I'm either going to get burnt -- and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt -- or if the heat didn't burn me, I thought that all the parts coming out of this building, the windows, metal, all the things like that, that I might be severed in half.

--LIEUTENANT GEORGE J. DeSIMONE

Interview Date: October 22, 2001

 

.. for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

 

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

 

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

--ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY

Interview Date: October 3, 2001

 


Theories on Why the Towers Fell


 

Some nutty conspiracy theorists have proposed that the towers might have been brought down by controlled demolition, but the Official Story states clearly that impact damage plus fire caused the buildings to collapse  (NIST Report, p xxxvii).

 

wtc1 collapse 10:28:32A curious feature of the collapse of the twin towers, which has been touted by wacky conspiracy kooks, is the symmetrical, straight-down and complete nature of the collapse in just 10 seconds, a virtual free fall.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ejecta from an underground nuclear explosionThe image at left shows ejecta from an underground nuclear explosion. It is interesting to note the similarity between the visual appearance of the nuclear blast and the 'collapse' of the towers. A Finnish conspiracy theorist has proposed the following:

 

... the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins.  ( link )

 

The Official story states that the buildings experienced a pancake-type collapse in which floors failed sequentially, impacting upon the ones below, but so far there has been no thorough scientific examination of how such a progressive collapse could occur at near free fall speed.  Suprisingly, the most authoritative scientific report so far on the WTC disaster,  The final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at a cost of around $20 million, declined to examine exactly how the buildings did indeed collapse.  They explain this in a footnote on page 85:

 

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence'. although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p 85, footnote) .

 

Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in an interview:

 

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, 'How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?' They said, 'Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives.' I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

(Nova Online, pbs.org)

 

It would seem from Dr. Eagar's analysis that controlled demolition experts are wasting their time carefully positioning explosives in office buildings - since there's no other way for them to go but down.

 

Eagar's next statement is intruiging:

 

NOVA: I think some people were surprised when they saw this massive 110-story building collapse into a rubble pile only a few stories tall.

 

Eagar: Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls.

(Nova Online, pbs.org)

 

Conclusion: since all office buildings are 'mostly air' it must be normal for them to crumble into a pile of rubble due to the structural weakening of a few steel members by fire.

 

(Dr. Eagar serves on the National Research Council committee on homeland security - Nova Online)

 

An anonymous poster at forum.physorg.com made the following observations:

 

It is important to note that that although Eagar is a Professor in the MIT Department of Materials Science, his specific concentration is not in structural analysis or failure analysis, subjects which would give him true expertise in collapse analysis, but in the field of metallurgy and specifically the properties of exotic welding alloys. His novel theories of the properties of tall buildings being dependent not on their proportions but on absolute size, i.e. that a tall slender object greater than a certain size will lose the ability to topple over and can only fail by telescoping into itself, have never been expressed by any actual structural engineer to my knowledge and are provably false. His assertion that the top of the building cannot be pushed far enough to move the center of gravity outside of the building's footprint is irrelevant to the realities of an actual collapse, since it imagines a situation in which the top of an intact tower is pushed to one side to initiate the collapse. This is an odd hypothetical, since it imagines a tower that is not attached to the ground being tipped over by a lateral force. But even so he gets the distance wrong, since the actual center of gravity was near the middle floors of the tower - the top would have to have moved at least twice as far for the middle floors to move the required 104 feet.

 

In reality, tall slender objects tend to topple in an identical manner regardless of size*, and the "percentage of air" in a structure has nothing to do with its mechanical properties or structural integrity. Any failure beginning low enough in a tall structure will initiate a toppling event, and even a progressive collapse beginning near the top will tend to wander off to the side, causing it to terminate in an incomplete collapse. Eagar's blithe assumption of the superiority of his notions to the practical experience of demolition experts, and his implicit assumption of the ignorance and simplicity of the experts in that field is quite remarkable, and says a great deal about how he sees technical issues outside his area of expertise.

(source)

 

 


 

Was the WTC Steel Weakened by Fire? 


 

According to the NIST report, the dislodging of thermal insulation due to the jet impacts was a key factor in the progression to collapse. It is interesting to note, however, that the WTC steel conformed to the widely recognised ASTM E119 standard which requires steel to retain structural strength even when insulation is burned off, which usually occurs after about 2 hours. 

 

A chemist from Underwriters Laboratory, the company which certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, wrote a concerned letter to the head of the NIST investigative team to remind them of some technical facts about the certification of the steel, and to question the views of some members of the NIST team:

 

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. 

 

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to 'rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse'...  Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

 

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to 'soften and buckle'(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that 'most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C'. To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

 

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

Kevin R Ryan (Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories).

 

Shortly after sending this letter Kevin Ryan was fired.

 

Another interesting fact in about the WTC collapse is the complete lack of historical precedents for catastrophic failure of steel frame buildings due to fire.

 

The fire at 1 Meridian Plaza burned for 18 hours.

 

The fire at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia in 1991 (pictured above) burned for 19 hours and was more intense than the WTC fires, yet it did not fall down, much less crumble into powder, as did the WTC buildings.

 

Diagram showing fire damage - 1 Meridian Plaza, Philidelphia, 1991

 

Indeed, the collapse of the towers is out of character with modern laboratory tests on steel frame structures, which usually perform well in fire:

 

 

Cardington Fire Tests: 1995-1996
During 1995 and 1996, large-scale fire tests were conducted on an eight-story, steel-framed office building at the Cardington Laboratory of the Building Research Establishment in the United Kingdom ... The purpose of these tests was to investigate the behavior of a real structure under real fire conditions and to collect data that would allow computer programs, which are capable of analyzing structures in fire, to be verified. The structure was five bays long (148 ft) by 3 bays wide (69 ft) by 108 ft high, and beams in most of the tests were designed as simply-supported acting compositely with a concrete slab cast on metal deck...

Although the test program included one test on a restrained beam assembly on the seventh floor, it was noted that restraint as a variable in fire tests is largely unheard of in Europe. During this restrained assembly test, the maximum beam temperature reached was about 1,650 deg F and the maximum deflection was about 10 in. (see Figure 14). Although distress was noted in the bottom flange of the beam and at the connections (during cooling), the floor assembly continued to support its applied load at the conclusion of the test (see Figure 15).

(ENGINEERING JOURNAL SECOND QUARTER 2001 p.86)

 

WTC ConstructionI imagine that the Fire Department was familiar with these lab tests and other real world fires such as the Meridian Plaza, which led them to the erroneous conclusion that the buildings were structurally sound despite the impact of the airliners. 

 

 

I guess this is just one of those cases where a lifetime's worth of knowledge and experience proves to be worthless.