Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse.

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

Due to the nature of the collapse mechanics I can say for certain that some type of demolition devices were used in the initiation and first several stories of the collapse on at least the outer core columns and corners of the perimeter. Whether it was thermite or not I can't be sure. The perimeter corner focused blowouts would appear to be explosives and nano-thermite (which was found in the dust along with iron microspheres) could fit that bill, as it is explosive as well as hot. The explosiveness can be tailored by sizing the particles to vary surface area to mass ratio and thus brisance or reactivity.

[Lauren Johnson]

The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse.

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

Due to the nature of the collapse mechanics I can say for certain that some type of demolition devices were used in the initiation and first several stories of the collapse on at least the outer core columns and corners of the perimeter. Whether it was thermite or not I can't be sure. The perimeter corner focused blowouts would appear to be explosives and nano-thermite (which was found in the dust along with iron microspheres) could fit that bill, as it is explosive as well as hot. The explosiveness can be tailored by sizing the particles to vary surface area to mass ratio and thus brisance or reactivity.

I have seen huge estimates of the amount of explosives needed to take down the WTC 1 & 2. Sounds like your view as that it didn't take that much. Just enough to start the cascade. Correct?

[Tony Szamboti]

The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse.

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

Due to the nature of the collapse mechanics I can say for certain that some type of demolition devices were used in the initiation and first several stories of the collapse on at least the outer core columns and corners of the perimeter. Whether it was thermite or not I can't be sure. The perimeter corner focused blowouts would appear to be explosives and nano-thermite (which was found in the dust along with iron microspheres) could fit that bill, as it is explosive as well as hot. The explosiveness can be tailored by sizing the particles to vary surface area to mass ratio and thus brisance or reactivity.

I have seen huge estimates of the amount of explosives needed to take down the WTC 1 & 2. Sounds like your view as that it didn't take that much. Just enough to start the cascade. Correct?

That's right. There have been explosives experts saying the same thing. Professor Van Romero from New Mexico Tech was one on the day of 911.


Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

© 2001, Albuquerque Journal
Reprinted for Fair Use Only

[Lauren Johnson]

Tony, what do you make of the reports of underground explosions in WTC 1 & 2. Did these explosions play a part in the collapse of the bldgs?

[Jeffrey Orling]

The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse.

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

With regards to some witness testimony about explosions at ground level or even below ground level, what is your read there? It gets dismissed as jet fuel come down the elevator shafts.

I suspect that there were explosions of electrical switch gear in the basement level. This equipment was shorted when the plane severed the 13.8kv electrical risers going up to floor 108 where there 2 of the 8 massive sub stations which distributed power through out the tower.

High voltage electrical gear gets very hot and needs to be cooled and insulated. The massive transformer of the Con Ed sub station below 7 had massive radiators with oil circulating through them for cooling. The cooling oil used in electical transformer when overheated turns to gas and of course explodes since its volume is so much larger than the liquid oil. Some types of coolant is flammable as well when it is in gas form and so that can flash over an explode as well or cause fires to spread.

The explosion in the basement of wtc 1 were famously reported by William Rodriguez... I think this is what you refer to. I have spoken with William about this memory and he told me the following:

The sound of the explosion preceded the sound and vibration etc of the plane striking by 1 second or so. Clearly he is not a stop watch so the term 1 second is an approximation for a very brief interval of time. Explosion then plane strike in that order... very close in time.

He has never heard an power transformer explosion (i've heard them many times and they are rather common and do sound very loud and like a bomb explosion to me)

He did not say the explosions were bombs... but that they were explosions. He had no idea what had exploded.

He said he knew there was electrical switch gear in close proximity to the elevator where the burnt worker emerged for the freight car.

Sub station explosion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q

A con ed transformer exploding in NYC (go to about 3min mark)

http://boingboing.net/2012/10/29/con-ed-...ion-i.html

"THE PHENOMENON
During a transformer short-circuit, the electrical arc vaporizes oil and creates a Dynamic Pressure Peak which travels at the speed of 1,200 meters per second (4,000 feet per second). This phenomenon occurs within a few milliseconds. Because of reflections in the tank the pressure peak will generate pressure waves. The integration of all of the waves pressure peaks creates static pressure. Then, the pressure becomes equal throughout the entire transformer tank within 50 to 100 milliseconds after the electrical arc, and causes the transformer tank to rupture."

Sound travels at 1100 feet per second and so anyone on the ground seeing the plane hit would hear it at LEAST 1 second after the impact. If they were 5 clocks away they would hear it 2 seconds after the impact. Therefore it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for witnesses to correlate sounds precisely and sights unless they are very close to the event.

Ergo boom boom boom... may be the sounds not of explosions but of the parts of the structure dropping. Collapsing massively heavy objects make very loud sounds. Witness a 20 yard container dropped onto the ground.

The WTC contained hundreds of electrical transformers. Of course not all of them exploded. But clearly some of them did... because the WTC was fully energized on 9/11 including use of back up power of diesel fueled systems.

Gas explosions clearly are destructive like bombs... which are... gas explosions... all explosions are rapidly expanding gas!

All bombs explode
not all explosions are bombs

[Jeffrey Orling]

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

Due to the nature of the collapse mechanics I can say for certain that some type of demolition devices were used in the initiation and first several stories of the collapse on at least the outer core columns and corners of the perimeter. Whether it was thermite or not I can't be sure. The perimeter corner focused blowouts would appear to be explosives and nano-thermite (which was found in the dust along with iron microspheres) could fit that bill, as it is explosive as well as hot. The explosiveness can be tailored by sizing the particles to vary surface area to mass ratio and thus brisance or reactivity.

I have seen huge estimates of the amount of explosives needed to take down the WTC 1 & 2. Sounds like your view as that it didn't take that much. Just enough to start the cascade. Correct?

That's right. There have been explosives experts saying the same thing. Professor Van Romero from New Mexico Tech was one on the day of 911.


Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

© 2001, Albuquerque Journal
Reprinted for Fair Use Only

Romero, I believe changed his mind and retracted this statement which was made before he or anyone else could study the evidence in detail.

look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlWXpec7WAE

[Jeffrey Orling]

The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse.

So what was blown? Sounds like not all that much. Thermite? Where was it used?

Due to the nature of the collapse mechanics I can say for certain that some type of demolition devices were used in the initiation and first several stories of the collapse on at least the outer core columns and corners of the perimeter. Whether it was thermite or not I can't be sure. The perimeter corner focused blowouts would appear to be explosives and nano-thermite (which was found in the dust along with iron microspheres) could fit that bill, as it is explosive as well as hot. The explosiveness can be tailored by sizing the particles to vary surface area to mass ratio and thus brisance or reactivity.

I have seen huge estimates of the amount of explosives needed to take down the WTC 1 & 2. Sounds like your view as that it didn't take that much. Just enough to start the cascade. Correct?

Lauren,

Although I see no evidence for CD... I also think that because the design of the 3 towers they each had Achille's heels which did not have redundancy... such as the FEW massive transfer structures in 7 and the column free office space of the towers... and the fact that there were so few columns in the core supporting the floors outside the core. You don't have to destroy all the core... clearly the 23 columns in the center of the core had nothing do with carrying the outside the core floors. So with 24 doing this it's not a stretch even for a laymen to understand that one doesn't need to destroy ALL 24 to cause the floors to release... One or two or a few more at one level will not erode the reserve strength of the core causing the remaining columns to collapse... but with the effects of heat... the reserve strength of too many of them erodes and after a couple of hours it was all gone. If it was eroded further.. there was inadequate supprt. And that's what apparently happened.

To answer your question... it probably would take less than 12 of the right core columns since all were not equal and it would clearly depend on which ones were destroyed. Take out all 8 of one side.. 500s or the 1000s and the tower would go ROOSD. Or maybe 4 on each of the long sides.

Destroy one spliced connection in TT1 might get the entire structure to collapse. There... I said it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Lauren,

Although I see no evidence for CD... I also think that because the design of the 3 towers they each had Achille's heels which did not have redundancy... such as the FEW massive transfer structures in 7 and the column free office space of the towers... and the fact that there were so few columns in the core supporting the floors outside the core. You don't have to destroy all the core... clearly the 23 columns in the center of the core had nothing do with carrying the outside the core floors. So with 24 doing this it's not a stretch even for a laymen to understand that one doesn't need to destroy ALL 24 to cause the floors to release... One or two or a few more at one level will not erode the reserve strength of the core causing the remaining columns to collapse... but with the effects of heat... the reserve strength of too many of them erodes and after a couple of hours it was all gone. If it was eroded further.. there was inadequate supprt. And that's what apparently happened.

To answer your question... it probably would take less than 12 of the right core columns since all were not equal and it would clearly depend on which ones were destroyed. Take out all 8 of one side.. 500s or the 1000s and the tower would go ROOSD. Or maybe 4 on each of the long sides.

Destroy one spliced connection in TT1 might get the entire structure to collapse. There... I said it.

One or two outer core columns at initiation would not have generated the extremely rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor that was observed. All 24 of them needed to go down nearly simultaneously, as the propagation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of WTC 1 occurred in less than a second.

This is similar to your transfer truss notion producing free fall acceleration in WTC 7.

Neither situation is happening naturally due to fire.

[Jeffrey Orling]

So Danny.... what would a natural collapse of a huge skescraper look like?

I think many people might accept that buildings may collapse due to fires and mechanical and structural damage though the evidence is very debatable....since it has never happened except on 911...however, for many, it is the way the buildings fell down. They fell down and not over. They fell into their own foot print. The damage was asymmetrical and one might think the collapse would also be asymmetrical. Which it wasn't in all 3 buildings. And the damage and impact areas were different in all 3 buildings but the collapse was pretty much the same.

Magda,

It is the nature of mass distribution in such structures that they will ALWAYS collapse down as we saw. The are not strong enough to "knock over". The stand because of mass is supported axially by columns. A cantilevered structure would tip over. These were not. These HAD to come down.

The so called asymmetries of the damage in the consideration of the mass were not enough to influence the downward vector of the gravitational force.

Note that the top of WTC2 began to tip. But at the same time, I can assure you it was also dropping and colliding into the structure below. And as it tipped it was coming apart inside. as the frame was not designed to perform at such angles. When tipping he columns' strength becomes subordinate to the connection strength... that is... as a structure like the top tips it is the connections of the frame must hold it together for it to move as a "block". Those connections are not strong enough and failed and the frame inside came apart along with the floors it support. When that happened gravity ruled and the mass dropped straight down. So within a few seconds the tilting top completely came apart...and turned into the ROOSD mass.

[Tony Szamboti]

So Danny.... what would a natural collapse of a huge skescraper look like?

I think many people might accept that buildings may collapse due to fires and mechanical and structural damage though the evidence is very debatable....since it has never happened except on 911...however, for many, it is the way the buildings fell down. They fell down and not over. They fell into their own foot print. The damage was asymmetrical and one might think the collapse would also be asymmetrical. Which it wasn't in all 3 buildings. And the damage and impact areas were different in all 3 buildings but the collapse was pretty much the same.

Magda,

It is the nature of mass distribution in such structures that they will ALWAYS collapse down as we saw. The are not strong enough to "knock over". The stand because of mass is supported axially by columns. A cantilevered structure would tip over. These were not. These HAD to come down.

The so called asymmetries of the damage in the consideration of the mass were not enough to influence the downward vector of the gravitational force.

Note that the top of WTC2 began to tip. But at the same time, I can assure you it was also dropping and colliding into the structure below. And as it tipped it was coming apart inside. as the frame was not designed to perform at such angles. When tipping he columns' strength becomes subordinate to the connection strength... that is... as a structure like the top tips it is the connections of the frame must hold it together for it to move as a "block". Those connections are not strong enough and failed and the frame inside came apart along with the floors it support. When that happened gravity ruled and the mass dropped straight down. So within a few seconds the tilting top completely came apart...and turned into the ROOSD mass.

There is still an asymmetry problem in the south tower. Where was the force generated to vertically collapse the lower section of the building on the backside of the tipping upper section? Most of the force would be on the front side of the tipping section which is in compression, but the backside is in tension, yet the lower section on the backside collapsed uniformly with the front side.