Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


joc

Recommended Posts

Before any conspiracy theorists get too excited about Dr Astaneh, here's his take on what happened.

1 . The plane reached the tower and started impacting it.

2. The plane entered the building by cutting the relatively small but numerous box columns of the exterior tube.

During this entry, it is believed that not much damage was done to the plane. However, the impact of the plane

might have shaken the building, as indicated by the survivors, to cause separation of most of the sprayed-on

fireproofmg. Of course, due to large number of columns closely spaced on the perimeter to form the tube, the

loss of columns that were severed by the planes did not cause the collapse and the towers were able to continue

to stand up and carry its gravity load.

3. As the plane entered the tower, the floor system between the exterior tube and interior core in front of the

plane was crushed and severely damaged. This is due to the fact that the floor system, as shown earlier, was

made of floor truss joists and lightweight concrete. The author could not consider the trusses to be a match to

the inertia of the entering plane and stand against the plane. However, the 10-14 cm horizontal floor slabs

could have caused serious damage to the plane by cutting through it while getting crushed. It is possible that at

this stage, the wings which contained the jet fuel, or part of the wings, might have severed and sprayed the jet

fuel over large areas of three floors that were impacted by the plane. The fire may have started at this point.

4. The damaged plane, due to its inertia, continued to move forward and hit the core columns. These columns

were generally much stronger than the outside columns and were able to better withstand the impact forces of

the plane and inflict severe damage to the soft parts of the plane such as wings, tail and fuselage. Of course,

those columns that were directly hit by the heavy and strong parts of the plane such as engines might have

sustained serious damage and may have been severed. All these activities must have resulted in tearing apart

the plane and spraying any remaining jet fuel inside the building. If the fire had not started earlier, these events

at the core would have resulted in initiating the fire and spraying it throughout the floor. As indicated earlier,

the core of the building had no heavy walls. All the walls in the core were drywalls (gypsum boards). The

impact not only might have caused the collapse of these lightweight and relatively weak walls in the core, but

also collapsed the floors and stairwells in the core. As reported in the press reports (Glanz and Lipton, 2002),

all three stairwells in one tower and two of three in the second tower had collapsed cutting the egress routs for

those who were trapped in the floors above the impact floors.

5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core

columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the

strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author

believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists

not only may have lost their fireproofmg but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.

6. The collapse of truss joists may have resulted in doubling the buckling length of the exterior columns thus

reducing their compressive capacity to one-quarter of their original capacity. In the meantime, these exterior

columns were exposed to intense fire themselves and their original strength might have decreased

substantially.

7. With the collapse of floor joists even over a portion of the floor, the affected columns would have buckled and

collapsed almost immediately after the loss of their bracing. The buckling of these columns might have

resulted in the load shifted to nearby columns and in fast moving domino effect collapse of all columns around

the perimeter. Of course collapse of columns would have resulted in dropping of the upper portion of the

structure on the lower portion as shown in Figure 12 and seen by millions throughout the world on September

11, 2001. The impact of the upper part dropping on the lower part caused the inevitable complete and vertical

collapse of both towers under the acceleration of gravity.

http://archive.org/stream/WTC-ASTANEH/WTC-ASTANEH_djvu.txt

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fire can do to steel.

woodsteelfire.jpg

image4.jpg

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cESnH1xtenY[/media]

Missing fire protection and fire-induced buckling on a 23rd-floor column at 90 West St. This 9/11 fire was fueled by office contents only. Columns on the on the 8th floor also buckled.

https://sites.google...teelcolumnstobu

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before any conspiracy theorists get too excited about Dr Astaneh, here's his take on what happened.

1 . The plane reached the tower and started impacting it.

2. The plane entered the building by cutting the relatively small but numerous box columns of the exterior tube.

During this entry, it is believed that not much damage was done to the plane. However, the impact of the plane

might have shaken the building, as indicated by the survivors, to cause separation of most of the sprayed-on

fireproofmg. Of course, due to large number of columns closely spaced on the perimeter to form the tube, the

loss of columns that were severed by the planes did not cause the collapse and the towers were able to continue

to stand up and carry its gravity load.

3. As the plane entered the tower, the floor system between the exterior tube and interior core in front of the

plane was crushed and severely damaged. This is due to the fact that the floor system, as shown earlier, was

made of floor truss joists and lightweight concrete. The author could not consider the trusses to be a match to

the inertia of the entering plane and stand against the plane. However, the 10-14 cm horizontal floor slabs

could have caused serious damage to the plane by cutting through it while getting crushed. It is possible that at

this stage, the wings which contained the jet fuel, or part of the wings, might have severed and sprayed the jet

fuel over large areas of three floors that were impacted by the plane. The fire may have started at this point.

4. The damaged plane, due to its inertia, continued to move forward and hit the core columns. These columns

were generally much stronger than the outside columns and were able to better withstand the impact forces of

the plane and inflict severe damage to the soft parts of the plane such as wings, tail and fuselage. Of course,

those columns that were directly hit by the heavy and strong parts of the plane such as engines might have

sustained serious damage and may have been severed. All these activities must have resulted in tearing apart

the plane and spraying any remaining jet fuel inside the building. If the fire had not started earlier, these events

at the core would have resulted in initiating the fire and spraying it throughout the floor. As indicated earlier,

the core of the building had no heavy walls. All the walls in the core were drywalls (gypsum boards). The

impact not only might have caused the collapse of these lightweight and relatively weak walls in the core, but

also collapsed the floors and stairwells in the core. As reported in the press reports (Glanz and Lipton, 2002),

all three stairwells in one tower and two of three in the second tower had collapsed cutting the egress routs for

those who were trapped in the floors above the impact floors.

5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core

columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the

strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author

believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists

not only may have lost their fireproofmg but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.

6. The collapse of truss joists may have resulted in doubling the buckling length of the exterior columns thus

reducing their compressive capacity to one-quarter of their original capacity. In the meantime, these exterior

columns were exposed to intense fire themselves and their original strength might have decreased

substantially.

7. With the collapse of floor joists even over a portion of the floor, the affected columns would have buckled and

collapsed almost immediately after the loss of their bracing. The buckling of these columns might have

resulted in the load shifted to nearby columns and in fast moving domino effect collapse of all columns around

the perimeter. Of course collapse of columns would have resulted in dropping of the upper portion of the

structure on the lower portion as shown in Figure 12 and seen by millions throughout the world on September

11, 2001. The impact of the upper part dropping on the lower part caused the inevitable complete and vertical

collapse of both towers under the acceleration of gravity.

http://archive.org/s...STANEH_djvu.txt

Thanks! :tu:

Components of World Trade Center After Collapse , (Ref: A. Astaneh-Asl, 2002b)

2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of

the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.

http://archive.org/stream/WTC-ASTANEH/WTC-ASTANEH_djvu.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

fig4-sm.gif

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, they made a mockery of themselves by claiming the molten material was steel when it fact, the droplets were that of aluminum. :w00t:
Of course it was Skyeage, because we all know that aluminium glows bright orange in daylight.......hahahahahahahaha!!!

WOW!! You can't beat such logic! :w00t:

I am aware of what they could not have seen. :yes:
More hilarity!! hahahaha!!!!

A person who was not at GZ, thinks he knows better than the numerous independent witnesses and says they didn't see what they say they saw!!! :w00t:

This is not debunking, it's denial and delusions!! The professor must have seen a molten aluminium girder hey!! hahahaahah!!

Go back a few pages where I posted the specifics.
No you didn't!! Again another case of delusional failure.....lol
Go back a few pages.
No need to go back, you didn't post the underground temperature because none were done.

However, if you think you have posted evidence of this a few pages, please feel free to spam it again.

I know enough about metals to prove that no one saw pools of molten steel in the rubble of the WTC buildings.
No you don't. hahahahahaha!!!

Evidently you think you are fooling everyone but you are not, it's just sad, but at the same time very funny and entertaining watching you delude yourself.

My expertise has already trumped claims of 911 conspiracist. :yes:
You expertise is worth the amount of paper I wipe my backside on matey.
Depends who that person is? I have more knowledge on thermite, explosives and metals than Richard Gage and Steven Jones. That was clearly evident when I read their reports.
You remind me of another person I debated with over at the pysorg forum called Crazy Chainsaw, who claimed to be an expert like you, turns out he was a wood carver with a chainsaw. A very good wood carver actually.

The point is, if you are such an expert, you would put your name and destroy Gage/Jones and everyone else with your ego driven exerptise, but yet you sit on a forum, claiminbg to know better and have much more expertise, but don't produce any evidence that you posses such knowledge and skills that you are being schooled by a rank amatuer such as myself.

angcut.jpg

That was caused by torches, not from thermite.

Actually you are wrong, it was cut by a pen knife and I should know, because I've got over 200 years of expertise in pen knifes to know a pen knife cut when I see one.

Anyone who claims it was thermite or even a torch are clearly deluded and wrong!! :w00t:

If he claims that molten steel caused by thermite was found in the rubble, then yes, I am more knowledgeable than he is.
So are you finally admitting there was molten steel?? :blink:

You have been saying that there was no molten steel, so now you are saying there is molten steel, but it is not caused by thermite. Fair enough!!

At least we are winning a very slow uphill battle with your delusions.

Because the proffesor says he saw a girder was melted and the last time I looked, the girders of the WTC were steel. Plus he also witnessed that steel evaporated, he never makes any claims on how this was caused, it was just something he witnessed, which you claim he didn't!! lol

You don't seem to understand that 911 conspiracist continued to delude themselves. :w00t::yes:

Says the man who can't admit that Blanchard/Protec have never performed a demolition on a building. Yeah I'm deluded alright.......crackers!! hahahahaha!! :w00t:
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it was Skyeage, because we all know that aluminium glows bright orange in daylight.......hahahahahahahaha!!!

Why of course, which is why those silvery droplets of aluminum are clearly visible. :w00t:

WOW!! You can't beat such logic! :w00t:

More hilarity!! hahahaha!!!!

Let's just say that I know much more than you do. :yes:

A person who was not at GZ, thinks he knows better than the numerous independent witnesses and says they didn't see what they say they saw!!! :w00t:

I am very sure that they are not experts in identifying metals as myself. :no:

This is not debunking, it's denial and delusions!!

Unlike yourself, I deal in facts and evidence.

The professor must have seen a molten aluminium girder hey!! hahahaahah!!

Considering that temperatures reached the level to melt aluminum but never the level to melt steel, then aluminum is the best guess. :yes:

No you didn't!! Again another case of delusional failure.....lol

Let's review what your professor has said.

Components of World Trade Center After Collapse , (Ref: A. Astaneh-Asl, 2002b)

2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of

the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.

http://archive.org/s...STANEH_djvu.txt

No need to go back, you didn't post the underground temperature because none were done.

hotspots-compare.jpg

So, you were wrong again!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it did take quite a few attempts before the passenger manifests, or victim list, or whatever other euphemism you choose to use, was perfected.

I said NOTHING about the passenger or victims list. Try to stay on topic please. But since you mentioned it, since the lists released by the AIRLINES (note, not the FBI which I was talking about) were ALWAYS listed as VICTIMS lists and the manifests weren't released until the trial, what is the problem? Is it that you like to be wrong?

You say one thing about the "hijackers", and newspaper articles and letters from around the world contradict you. Who to believe?

Prove it. Find ONE article released after the official list of hijackers was released on the 27th of September that says there are some still alive. I'll bet you can't and won't even try. Perhaps you should try to actually READ the link I provided.

Not a word about the cellphone calls of the impossible variety?

Those were covered fine by others. You have NOT proved they were impossible. I was also commenting on what I have knowledge of. Would you prefer I speculate wildly on subjects I know little about? I'd just end up looking like you then.

And still, it is amusing all these years later, to see people pay homage to Hani The Magnificent. :tsu:

Prove the maneuver was impossible. I'll bet you can't.

Edited by frenat
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You remind me of another person I debated with over at the pysorg forum called Crazy Chainsaw, who claimed to be an expert like you, turns out he was a wood carver with a chainsaw. A very good wood carver actually.

How amusing!! :w00t:

The point is, if you are such an expert, you would put your name and destroy Gage/Jones and everyone else with your ego driven exerptise, ..

Gee, Steven Jones was refuted by his own colleages at BTU, and look what you posted. :D

Richard Gage has been discredited by the Society of Civll Engineers and the American Institute of Architects, and look what you posted. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary I even posted a photo of an aluminum droplet to make my point very clear and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Looks nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.
Take a look at this chart. What does it indicate?htchar1.gif
It indictaes that the stuff falling out of the WTC isn't aluminium.
Now, you know why silvery droplets can be seen in the photos. :yes: It seems you do not understand what you are posting. :no:
Most of your posts are a mystery to me. I doubt that Scooby and the gang couldn't have accidently stumbled across the meaning of most of your posts.
On the contrary, there were reasons why Raytheon Aerospace and the USAF sent me around the country on fact finding tours. Hint! It had to do with my expertise in airframes.
And it's funny that in all the tours, you obviously are factless because dodgy/avoid/ignore obvious facts.

Like molten steel being in the rubble as witnessed by numerous people...Or maybe a demolition expert, who have never demolished a single building.

On the contrary, do your physics lesson and understand the temperatures were high enough to weaken steel.

Maybe you could help your friends down at the NIST with their molten aluminium theory....lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the proffesor says he saw a girder was melted and the last time I looked, the girders of the WTC were steel. Plus he also witnessed that steel evaporated, he never makes any claims on how this was caused, it was just something he witnessed, which you claim he didn't!! lol

Your professor says that the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire, which simply means that the temperature was too low to melt steel.

Says the man who can't admit that Blanchard/Protec have never performed a demolition on a building. Yeah I'm deluded alright.......crackers!! hahahahaha!! :w00t:

On the contrary, I got the facts from the horses mouth and demolition experts that Brent Blanchard has been involved in thousands of demolition projects which is why he is considered one of the top demolition experts in the whole world. :yes: That is why demolition experts from around the world seek out the advice, data and other information from Brent Blanchard as related to demolition implosions. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.

Why of course it is. :yes: It's all aluminum!! :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.

It indictaes that the stuff falling out of the WTC isn't aluminium.

THat video is flawed as it relates to the molten flow of aluminum from WTC2.

Let's review what your professor has said.

(Ref: A. Astaneh-Asl, 2002b)

5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core

columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the

strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author

believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists

not only may have lost their fireproofmg but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.

BTW, you have proven beyond any doubt that you do not understand the significance of this chart. :no:

htchar1.gif

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show a photo of vaporized steel that was recovered at the WTC sites. I am waiting. :yes:
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

So you are now denying the existence of vaporised steel?? lol :w00t:

Don't tell me, you have more expertise than Dr Jonathon Barnett, Ronald Biederman and RD Sisson who compiled Apendix C of the FEMA report?? Of course you do!! :blink:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

I can show more than one photo....I can show you an entire report which highlights how much of an expert........you are not!! hahahahahahaha!!

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take another look.

moltenal2.jpg

What do you see at the bottom of the photo? Silvery droplets and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Take as many looks as you like, none of that bears the properties of aluminium Mr Expert. lol
I could show an alumumin droplet to many people who have never seen molten metal will describe droplet as steel.
You could do lots of things with your so called expertise, but you don't do anything other than brag about it anonomously on an internet forum.

hotspots-compare.jpg

You will note that the temperature range comes nowhere near the melting point of steel. :P

Oh dear!! The NASA images are showing the SURFACE temperatures irradiating from the pile, not the actual temperature under the rubble.

Now Mr Expert, it might surprise you but, the surface temperature is going to be cooler than the temperature under the rubble. Especially when you consider that there was a hell of a lot of rubble on top of the heat source.

So again, you claim that there was no molten steel because the temperatures were not high enough is going to be put in to the slag heap of irrelvant arguments and point you have accumilated....lol

There is nothing in the photos that depict molten steel. Even experts agree that the material is aluminum. :yes:
We know that when you say "experts agree!" you actually mean you....lol
So once again, you bit the dust. :yes:
Barely scratching the surface dude!! lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

Let's take a look at what he has said.

He thinks that the towers collapsed from fires?? So what??

That his expert opinion, but it is also his expert opinion that he saw molten steel........which you are claiming he or anyone else could have never have seen!! lol

Warped does not translate into molten steel. :no:
An expert wouldn't make such a dumb statement, especially when nobody is saying that warped doesn't translate into molten steel!! hahahaha!!
You will note that I have posed comments from those who have noticed the WTC buildings buckling before they collapsed which is a clear indication the structures are being weakened by fire and nothing to do with explosives. :no:
Sorry but if you are going to appeal to your own/others authority, which you do habitually, then you need to be consistent as those who witnessed this buckling which is not seen on any of the videos on the towers that day are not structual engineers.
Tell that to your professor and let him know that it was skyeagle409 who told you to tell him to do his homework. :yes:
My professor?? lol
Perhaps, around 2000 degrees????" He doesn't even know for sure! Tell us what is the melting point of steel?
Oh dear!! Again highlight a lack of contextual skills, he is analysing these pieces with his eyes and won't know the tempertaure the steel got to without doing test.

I don't care what you claim Skyeagle, you are not a metals expert at all, you are a googler trying to portray someone who is smart for you to make such a dumb comment.

Proof-positive that professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl doesn't know what he is talking about. :no: :no: :no: :no: Look at this video and you will note that the steel beam buckled and it didn't take thousands degrees. Some steels will begin to melt at 2500 degrees.
I can't wait for Skyeagles scientific paper which is going to ruin the fraudster professor who doesn't know what he is talking about....apparently?? lol

So go back and tell your professor that skyeagle409 knows much more about metals than he does. :yes:

I'll await your paper debunking these professors instead of chesting beating about how much smarter/wiser/clever/expertise you are than those who were at GZ on a forum.

If only the NIST and FEMA had you in their group hey, with your expertise, those reports would have taken minutes to write instead of years. hahaha!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, Brent Blanchard, one of the world's top demolition experts who has been involved in thousands of demolition implosions? :yes:

No one is doubting that he has been involved in thousands of demolitions, that is evident by the fact he has documented them but he hasn't performed one as he?

Now I know that reading comprehension is a challenge but it only requires a yes/no answers.

Do you have evidence which can be shown to us that Brent Blanchard/Protec actually have/do demolish buildings?

Or

Are you going to admit that Brent Blanchard/Protec have never EVER demolished a building because they are a documentation service for the demolition industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fire can do to steel.

woodsteelfire.jpg

image4.jpg

Missing fire protection and fire-induced buckling on a 23rd-floor column at 90 West St. This 9/11 fire was fueled by office contents only. Columns on the on the 8th floor also buckled.

Here is what fire did to this steel....

Here is what thermite did to steel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/color]

Your professor says that the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire, which simply means that the temperature was too low to melt steel.

And he also says that he saw Molten Steel.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, you know better than him, even though you were not there and your expertise on the subject is about as full as a nuns swear jar.

On the contrary, I got the facts from the horses mouth and demolition experts that Brent Blanchard has been involved in thousands of demolition projects which is why he is considered one of the top demolition experts in the whole world. :yes:
No, you got evidence from a comedian who made the same false claim as you, without any evidence of proof that Blanchard/Protec have done demolitions.

So the only horse you got that from was Mr Ed, and he was fictional character you know.

We know he has been involved in documenting thousands of demolitions, but thats all he does, document them, not perform them like a demolition company does.

That is why demolition experts from around the world seek out the advice, data and other information from Brent Blanchard as related to demolition implosions. :yes:
Yes, because he's documents them but doesn't perform them.

This is why you can't cite a single example and keep telling us all that he has been involved in thousands of them as opposed to the truth, which his he has performed none. hahahahahahahaha!!!

Keep failing......lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before any conspiracy theorists get too excited about Dr Astaneh, here's his take on what happened.

1 . The plane reached the tower and started impacting it.

2. The plane entered the building by cutting the relatively small but numerous box columns of the exterior tube.

During this entry, it is believed that not much damage was done to the plane. However, the impact of the plane

might have shaken the building, as indicated by the survivors, to cause separation of most of the sprayed-on

fireproofmg. Of course, due to large number of columns closely spaced on the perimeter to form the tube, the

loss of columns that were severed by the planes did not cause the collapse and the towers were able to continue

to stand up and carry its gravity load.

3. As the plane entered the tower, the floor system between the exterior tube and interior core in front of the

plane was crushed and severely damaged. This is due to the fact that the floor system, as shown earlier, was

made of floor truss joists and lightweight concrete. The author could not consider the trusses to be a match to

the inertia of the entering plane and stand against the plane. However, the 10-14 cm horizontal floor slabs

could have caused serious damage to the plane by cutting through it while getting crushed. It is possible that at

this stage, the wings which contained the jet fuel, or part of the wings, might have severed and sprayed the jet

fuel over large areas of three floors that were impacted by the plane. The fire may have started at this point.

4. The damaged plane, due to its inertia, continued to move forward and hit the core columns. These columns

were generally much stronger than the outside columns and were able to better withstand the impact forces of

the plane and inflict severe damage to the soft parts of the plane such as wings, tail and fuselage. Of course,

those columns that were directly hit by the heavy and strong parts of the plane such as engines might have

sustained serious damage and may have been severed. All these activities must have resulted in tearing apart

the plane and spraying any remaining jet fuel inside the building. If the fire had not started earlier, these events

at the core would have resulted in initiating the fire and spraying it throughout the floor. As indicated earlier,

the core of the building had no heavy walls. All the walls in the core were drywalls (gypsum boards). The

impact not only might have caused the collapse of these lightweight and relatively weak walls in the core, but

also collapsed the floors and stairwells in the core. As reported in the press reports (Glanz and Lipton, 2002),

all three stairwells in one tower and two of three in the second tower had collapsed cutting the egress routs for

those who were trapped in the floors above the impact floors.

5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core

columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the

strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author

believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists

not only may have lost their fireproofmg but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.

6. The collapse of truss joists may have resulted in doubling the buckling length of the exterior columns thus

reducing their compressive capacity to one-quarter of their original capacity. In the meantime, these exterior

columns were exposed to intense fire themselves and their original strength might have decreased

substantially.

7. With the collapse of floor joists even over a portion of the floor, the affected columns would have buckled and

collapsed almost immediately after the loss of their bracing. The buckling of these columns might have

resulted in the load shifted to nearby columns and in fast moving domino effect collapse of all columns around

the perimeter. Of course collapse of columns would have resulted in dropping of the upper portion of the

structure on the lower portion as shown in Figure 12 and seen by millions throughout the world on September

11, 2001. The impact of the upper part dropping on the lower part caused the inevitable complete and vertical

collapse of both towers under the acceleration of gravity.

http://archive.org/stream/WTC-ASTANEH/WTC-ASTANEH_djvu.txt

Hi Flyingswan, :)

I haven't seen you around here for a while, hope all is well.

I think that anyone who has studied the conspiracy theories will be aware of Dr Astaneh position regarding the collapse of the towers, so you are right, there is nothing for a conspiracy theorist to get excited about.

I only posted this because of Skyeagle persistance that he knows better than ALL of the people at GZ, including those like Dr Astaneh who are unlikely to be fooled into thinking that the molten steel he saw was actually aluminium.

Thanks

Stundie :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what fire did to this steel....

Here is what thermite did to steel....

And,175 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a steel beam, but I guess you missed that videos. :yes: A half ton of thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two. :no: But I guess youi missed that video too. :yes: To add to that, no evidence of thermite was found in the WTC rubble. :no: Add to the fact that no thermite cuts were found on any steel columns. :yes:

To sum it up, youi have no case!! :w00t:

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that anyone who has studied the conspiracy theories will be aware of Dr Astaneh position regarding the collapse of the towers, so you are right, there is nothing for a conspiracy theorist to get excited about.

I only posted this because of Skyeagle persistance that he knows better than ALL of the people at GZ, including those like Dr Astaneh who are unlikely to be fooled into thinking that the molten steel he saw was actually aluminium.

More about him.

There are short term and long-term research needs into the WTC collapse. In the short term, there is a need for a comprehensive, in-depth and research-oriented study of the WTC buildings, from the time of plane impact, through the ensuing fire and the final collapse. Such studies should not only focus on structural, and fire, engineering aspects, but also on the social and human aspects of the tragedy as well.

Nothing there about explosives. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gun_notice.jpg

Since temperatures never reached the level to melt steel, what does that mean?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

temperatures never reached the level to melt steel
it didn't? and you know this how?

the melting point of concrete is higher than the melting point of steel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is doubting that he has been involved in thousands of demolitions, that is evident by the fact he has documented them but he hasn't performed one as he?

Of course he has been involved and he has had hands on experience as well. :yes: As I mentioned before, you don't gain flying experience by watching airplane movies. :no: The other hint of his experience is that as worldwide leader in the demolition industry. Another hint is that demolition experts around the world come to Brent Blanchard advice and information, not to mention he writes articles for the demolition industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.