Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower

Just wrong, so so wrong. Your not even in the right ball park.

Yes they have the strength to carry the load they where designed for. That does not include the top 20 floors accelerating and then impacting them at God knows what G. That floor then collapses. The next floor then has the weight and speed of 21 floors hitting it. Then next floor then has 22 floors hitting it.

They are design to take a stationery load. Not a falling load and impact G force of falling floors. Your arguments is just so far wrong it's funny.

So you're saying 20 floors falling 3-4 floors onto 90+ floors will make the whole structure collapse in a perfect line leaving nothing but some powdered dust at ground zero?

Did you do math in school at all?
 
Yes an aircraft much smaller, slower speeds. Smaller fuel tanks. Yes it was designed to have fire protection around the steel. but the contractors didn't install it properly and as a result it was already flaking of and on top of that it wasn't to the specified thickness. Then the little protection it did have was blown away by the plane hitting.

LOL. That is all.
 
So you're saying 20 floors falling 3-4 floors onto 90+ floors will make the whole structure collapse in a perfect line leaving
Yes due to it's design and the fact it pancaked. *** top bit actually started leaning. but then due to the pancake effect it went straight down.

Try it. hold a heavy book at arms length. It's easy. Now get someone to drop it from a few feet. The building is not designed to take that. You are talking huge g-force and pressure.

nothing but some powdered dust at ground zero?

Did you do math in school at all?
Just dust? are you blind there are plenty of large bits of twisted steal and concrete blocks about the place.

yes I did maths but what has that got to do with it?
 
And if you're so knowledgable about the design of the Towers, then you'd also know that the metal structure is built to withstand the heat that could be caused by jet engine fuel. It was also designed with aircraft impacts in mind. Look it up, the actual structural designer for the Two Towers has spoken out about it.

Can you provide a source for this?
 
If it was really caused by fire alone then it would be "the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire."
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out


http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf
 
They where designed to withstand a 707 not a 767. the 707 is smaller and slower. Also when it was designed they did not take into account the affects of large areas of fire proofing being removed by the impact.
 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

Thats the only one I can find on short notice, but I can probably find a more in depth interview somewhere given time.

which points out that it was designed for a 707 not a 767. didn't take into account the inadequate and poorly installed fire insulation.

He also overestimates the strength of the tower

Oh and it says manager & project manager not structural engineer, designer or anything qualified to make such statements.
 
It always amuses me to see the conspiracy theorists. They can never prove anything, they simply tell you what to think. Apparently, you are a sheep if you don't blindly accept what they are trying to tell you. Ironic. Apparently this UnusualSuspect guy is one of these.

I like the way they will say things like "eyewitnesses at the scene said such and such", yet theres never any transcripts, recordings (first or second hand) of this.

Another greatly used tactic is to use partial quotes, such as:
"the foremost expert on the matter told us "the towers were brought down by controlled explosions." ".
while what was actually said would be:
"there's no conceivable way the towers were brought down by controlled explosions."
This usually falls down once this is heard by whoever was supposed to have said it, and rebuts it.

Its all quite pathetic, but it does seem to ensnare quite a few of the weaker willed. I hope that the documentary can bring some creditable evidence and arguments forward, for or against the conspiracies.
 
Thought so, like most CT when your presented with the truth you have no comeback, because what the little youtube videos told you where lies..
Actually, I just found your reply so laughable that I could find no better response. "The construction workers did a bad job with the design they had which is why 3 buildings collapsed in exactly the same way, within a few hours of each other, in a way that buildings don't generally collapse, even though one of them had only taken minor damage.".

Oooo-kay. As I said. LOL.
 
Actually, I just found your reply so laughable that I could find no better response. "The construction workers did a bad job with the design they had which is why 3 buildings collapsed in exactly the same way, within a few hours of each other, in a way that buildings don't generally collapse, even though one of them had only taken minor damage.".

Oooo-kay. As I said. LOL.

it is well known the fire protection was not up to standard and was brought up years before the plane crashes. It was just due to the fire insulation. It's due to it unique design tube in tube design. Never before done.

Pretty much every other steel building is concrete reinforced giving adequet fire protection. The WTC is not, it's a unique design and there are only small parts which had concrete reinforced steel.

yet again you provide nothing to counter my claims. you just go LOl, unbelievable. Why not try and write something intelligent?

http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm said:
The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the loss of fireproofing and subsequent fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse may not have occurred. Ironically, the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as they did. These pages explain the construction and provide evidence for collapse by fire.

"Tube in a Tube"

The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings’ construction. The design was an innovation of its day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This housed the elevators, stairwell, electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which ran up and down the length of the buildings.

For you to understand the collapse, you will have to remember four main elements.

* Core columns
* Perimeter columns
* Floor Trusses
* Fire proofing

The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found on PBS.

Instead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire.

Each WTC tower was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates.
 
So you're saying 20 floors falling 3-4 floors onto 90+ floors will make the whole structure collapse in a perfect line leaving nothing but some powdered dust at ground zero?

Did you do math in school at all?

Do you actually know anything about the buildings you're talking about? The twin towers were constructed with the external frame work being the load bearing structure as well, the outside of the towers is the strongest part, you can see that in the sheer amount of metal around the outside. So when the floors collapsed the shell structure meant they fell straight on top of each other.

edit: damn, was typing this as acidhell posted his.
 
Do you actually know anything about the buildings you're talking about?

I doubt it, dismissing know problems of the building, giving misinformation about the building being designed to take a plane hit, supply a video of a manager and masquerading it as a structural engineer and then replying with LOL to any questions.
 
Last edited:
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
 
Back
Top Bottom