All 1 entries tagged Engineering
View all 64 entries tagged Engineering on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Engineering at Technorati | There are no images tagged Engineering on this blog
June 26, 2007
I am a Warwick University student writing to you and other members of the Physics Department as well as the Engineering Department with an invitation to consider some specific data relevant to your general fields of study. It would be great if you feel like responding to criticise or support my cursory summation, and do have a look at the references I supply at the end of this letter. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
The data relates to the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001, just 102 and 56 minutes after each plane impact. It also relates to an even more unusual, seldom remembered event – the implosion of World Trade Center “Building 7” at 5.20 pm, the WTC building least damaged by falling debris. Never before in history had a steel-framed building collapsed into its own footprint due to external damage or fire, but only through controlled demolition. The 2004 9/11 Commission Report didn’t mention the collapse of Building 7, not even in a footnote.
One of the 9/11 Commission Report’s many false claims is that each of the Twin Towers was supported almost entirely by perimeter columns and that the centre was simply a “hollow steel shaft”. There were, in fact, 47 columns at the centre, forming a strong core. Each core column had a rectangular cross section of approx. 36” x 14” at the base with steel 4” thick all around, tapering to ¼” thickness at the top.
The 2002 PBS documentary, “Why the Towers Fell” (which doesn’t mention Building 7), discusses how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse” of the floors. This cannot explain why the steel core was destroyed from top to bottom, leaving chunks small enough to load directly on trucks which were bound for China (steel at the crime scene was illegally melted down and shipped overseas before it could be forensically tested). Surely if the top floors snapped off the core and “pancaked” down on the others, causing them all to collapse, the steel core would still be standing?
The installation of a conventional angled cutter charge to a steel column, preparing for a demolition (above). Compare with the diagonal cuts of steel columns at Ground Zero (below).
The fact that each tower fell at near-freefall speed (approx. 10 seconds vs. 8 seconds in a vacuum) also defies the “pancake theory” and indeed Newton’s laws of motion. Videos of the collapses show that the falling floors accelerated into the path of most resistance. If a building is structurally compromised, it should partially collapse or topple, not symmetrically explode from top to bottom as the Twin Towers did. Additionally, the collapses show multiple traits of a controlled demolition, for example the sudden onset of collapse, numerous demolition “squibs” – visible explosive charges sending jets of concrete out at specific points far below the collapse wave, and a “pyroclastic flow” of smoke billowing from the explosive collapse.
The National Institute for Standards in Technology (NIST) published its final report on its 3 year government-funded study on the WTC collapses in September 2005. NIST backs away from the “pancake theory” due to it having been debunked, and also discounts the initial consensus among “experts” featured in the mainstream media that fire actually melted the steel. Steel melts at 1500°C, while jet fuel burning in air reaches a maximum temperature of approx. 1,000°C. However, NIST insists that even temperatures significantly lower than 1,000°C would “eventually overwhelm the already damaged building”.
NIST’s investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the report does not explain how the buildings totally collapsed to the ground. While it describes the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life at great length, it makes no attempt to characterise or explain the explosive energy and free-fall rapidity of the actual building collapses. It simply claims that “global collapse” was “inevitable” after the “initiation of collapse”. NIST’s theory stops at the moment that the “upper building section began to move downwards”, thus avoiding having to address the 10 second collapse only made physically possible by the demolition hypothesis.
Since the 6 second implosion of 47-storey “Building 7” is even more problematic, resembling a classic controlled demolition, NIST is still preparing an additional report. It is 2007 and we still have no serious explanation for the total collapse of a building that was not even hit by a plane. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s brief 2002 report admitted that their “best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence”. Meanwhile there is video footage of firemen on September 11th expressing foreknowledge of the collapse, for example on a CNN clip: “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon”… “The building is about to blow up. Move it back!”
There is now an exponential movement of engineers, architects, physicists, scholars, former intelligence officers and government officials, as well as a majority of victims’ families groups, who know that the official account of 9/11 is a fraud. There has been no accountability for the hundreds of questions which surround all aspects of the attacks, not just the collapses of 3 buildings.
The 9/11 Commission was set up on November 27, 2002 only after enormous pressure from victims’ families and activists such as William Rodriguez, the last man out of the World Trade Center. Even after the investigation was eventually set up, President Bush promised only $3 million and initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million. Its executive director was Philip Zelikow, a close associate of Condoleezza Rice, who served in the National Security Council for the George H.W. Bush administration.
I enclose a DVD recording of a presentation given by physics professor, Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after being put on paid leave, following his work on the WTC collapses. He is the co-editor of the Journal of 911 Studies, an online collection of peer-reviewed papers concerning the anomalies of September 11th and the subsequent official theories and cover-ups. The other co-editor, Kevin Ryan, formerly worked at Underwriter Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. Ryan was fired for emailing the deputy chief of NIST’s metallurgy division, telling him that the tests UL was commissioned to carry out indicated that “the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” NIST’s metallurgical tests at that time suggested that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of about 250°C. Ryan was dispensed with for pointing out that the new NIST report seemed to ignore these findings, as it asserted that temperatures caused the steel to “soften and buckle”.
Please visit the following websites for more information:
www.journalof911studies.com – Peer-reviewed academic papers dedicated to the study of 9/11.
www.ae911truth.org – Over 100 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
www.patriotsquestion911.com – Over 100 senior military/intelligence/govt. officials for 9/11 truth.
www.pilotsfor911truth.org – Over 40 expert pilots question the feasibility of the official 9/11 narrative.
I also enclose an invitation to hear William Rodriguez, decorated hero and last man out of the World Trade Center, speak here at Warwick University next Wednesday.