Help Understanding the planned Destructions of the World Trade Center Towers
It was all an example of media fakery propaganda
by Anders Björkman (also at EMI, 2013, Evanston, IL)

Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books


Summary 2014

 

An image can only be considered, at best, as a virtual copy of reality. It cannot be used to prove the real-world occurrence of what it purports to depict. Any moviegoer knows that. Only a madman would contend that the 'Empire State building' (in fact, a digital depiction thereof) seen exploding and collapsing top-down in the 1996 movie "Independence Day" PROVES that it was actually destroyed in reality… On 9/11, we were shown two skyscrapers collapsing on TV in almost identical fashion (top-down). As it is, none of the extant and wildly contradictory images depicting these two physically inexplicable collapses proves that the event occurred as shown. Au contraire: its inconsistent, artificial and non-physical aspects strongly support the thesis that what was shown on TV on 9/11 was nothing but a "Hollywood-style" production - from start to finish.

Simon Shack

   

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS. - A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

 

It would appear Prof. Bazant and others mentioned below suggesting towers collapse from top are covered persons to be detained as per above US law. You wonder why they are still at large. Is the President or the Armed Forces of the United States sleeping? Again?

Anders Björkman

 

Americans don't know any more about physics and structural architecture and engineering than the Soviet population and Stalin knew about genetics. Today "Lysenkoism" is used as a metaphor to denote the corruption of science in behalf of a social, political, or ideological purpose.

Paul Craig Roberts

Help Understanding the planned Destructions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant and NIST. It is quite simple:

A Structure cannot be one-way crushed-down from above by a weak upper Piece of itself driven by Gravity started by Terrorists ... as shown 'live on TV'!

And nobody can wave from a Hole in a Structure produced by a Plane!

by Anders Björkman - anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr

I am a structural engineer. I assure you that terrorists flying airplanes into and damaging the weak top of skyscrapers do not destroy the strong, intact bottom of the skyscraper, which supports the weak top.

No structures of any kind, incl. NY skyscrapers, collapse from top down by gravity and the parts of the structure do not disappear into thin air.

The path of failures producing structural collapses is normally from bottom up. It is also explained at 1.18.50 in DVD2 - a film about the 911 incident. And all structural elements remain after bottom up collapse - just disconnected.

I do not believe in the US theory, that 15 Saudi arabs and 4 other arabs conspired to destroy NY skyscrapers by flying hijacked planes into the weak tops so that later the complete skyscrapers collapsed from top down as seen 'live on (faked) TV' 9/11 2001.

It is a real pity that US law enforcement authorities like the FBI and professional groups like the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, do not understand this allowing US military to kill innocent people in a war on terror for more than 12 years. Reason is that US Department of War organized 9/11 at home to keep itself in business abroad.

 

 

 

It is very easy to fool People using Propaganda

It is very easy to fool people using propaganda created by evil magicians. Picture right is one example. It illustrates what is alleged to have happened to the Tween Towers in NYC 9/11 2001. A plane makes a hole in the weak top and the light weight, intact top part C above suddenly crushes the much stronger bottom part A into rubble by gravity. Finally intact top part C is destroyed in contact with the rubble on the ground.

This presentation has been filed with the NATIONAL SEPTEMBER 11 MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM at the World Trade Center - NY, NY. , but you will not find it there. Ask Joe Daniels, joe@911memorial.org , why it is so and copy me any reply

Nobody would ever believe that it could happen in the real world but there exist many videos of the 9/11 progressive collapses. They are all fake and media fakery propaganda. Here are four examples of the North Tower/WTC1 provided by NIST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW18Pj-3gHc (at start of clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KVQI_CG8M (at start of clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FVslXmIow (at 1:10)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w (at 5:07)

Note the following:

1 - All four photographers are - for whatever reason - still roaming in the vicinity of the WTC complex at 10:28am (a full 29 minutes after the earlier WTC2 collapse at 9:59am). This, in spite of the officially reported 'total evacuation' of Lower Manhattan - which, reportedly, was initiated soon after the alleged "plane crashes" - one hour or so earlier.

2 - All four photographers, no matter how far they are standing from each other / and from the WTC, are pretty much LATERALLY aligned with each other. The LATERAL perspectives of the four shots - although not perfectly identical - are quite remarkably similar.

3 - All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top floors of WTC1 - at a high zoom level (close-up view) - JUST as WTC1 started to fall. This, in spite of having no possible foreknowledge of the WTC1's sudden collapse - and in spite of WTC2 having collapsed 29 minutes earlier. They all just waited around for half-an-hour, a few hundred yards away from the WTC complex, filming away (undisturbed by the ongoing evacuation).

4 - All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse inititation - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur).

5 - All four photographers have nerves of steel - and remained calm and composed while all around them, screaming people were running away from the scene in dire panic.

Evidently all four videos are fake!

Here is a real video showing what happens when you try to demolish a tower from bottom up.

There are many professional photographers involved in the hoax. They happily helped to create propaganda.

There are also several videos made by allegedly private, amateur citizens depicting people staring in awe from afar at the smoking towers - so you get the impression that thousands of New Yorkers had a "grandstand view" of the WTC drama - and that many amateur photographers were tranquilly strolling around on that sunny morning, mostly aiming their lenses at people's horrified faces and expressions... but whenever there are views of the smoking WTC towers, they appear to have been digitally inserted into the scenery in the background ... and also inserting people in the foreground to add to the action. It would appear that ALL amateur videos of WTC 911 on fire and collapses are also false. Imagine that. What a great US effort to blame 911 on some arabs.

Propaganda are ideas or statements that are false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc. The alleged atomic bomb explosions over remote Japansese towns Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 are early examples. Evidently the towns were destroyed by napalm terror bombing raids but US propaganda suggested US atomic bombs had exploded. Nobody could really verify it and the propaganda became historic truth. Same with US human space travel to the Moon 1969-1972. US propaganda suggested it took place and it became historic truth. And 911 was created in the same way. US propaganda suggested 9/11 2001 was done by some Arab terrorists and it became historic truth. Reason was that US could start its War on Terror and make money out of it. History thus repeats it iself. One fake event after another and people believe the events really happened just because media make sensations out of them.

 

 

The US War onTerror

USA is 2014 going bankrupt in its war on terror! Forbes reports that one million US soldiers have been injured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at tremendous costs ... and little has been won. RT reports that the cost of keeping each US soldier and there are plenty in Afghanistan has risen from $1.3 million per soldier to $2.1 million per soldier ... and the war is lost. Matthew J. Nasuti reports in the Kabul Press that it costs US taxpayers $50 million to kill one Taliban soldier. That means it will cost $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban fighters. Of course that cost is included in the cost of keeping US soldiers in Afghanistan. Plenty of that money ends up in Afghan president Karzai's pockets. Karzai will be murdered sooner or later and his pockets will be emptied. The US war in Afghanistan is lost 2014.

The US war on terror is a war that can be won only at the cost of the total bankruptcy of the United States. And one little reason is that US law enforcement authorities like the FBI and professional groups like the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, do not understand that a structure cannot be one-way crushed-down from above by a weak upper piece of itself driven by gravity. It seems a lost cause to help USA.

I was invited to Evanston, IL, in August 2013 to explain all this again, in person at the EMI, 2013, conference. Hopefully, FBI planned to attend and listen then ... but in vain. The invitation was withdrawn at the last moment. So you have to read about my findings here.

Imagine if it were so easy to tear down a skyscraper - just making a hole in the weak top and putting the top on fire ... melting the steel in the top. Like a candle?

The live show on TV was evidently just arranged - by five nationwide TV channels - to make believe that planes and fires caused the collapses ... from top ... down of two towers and the destruction of all surrounding buildings incl. WTC7 a block away.

It is very easy to demonstrate that all footage taken and broadcasted by four TV helicopters with photographers/cameras; CBS's chopper 2, NBC's chopper 4, FOX's Chopper 5 and ABC's chopper 7, is fake. Reason is that the helicopters are never seen capturing each other hovering in the Manhattan airspace for the full duration of the 102 minutes 9/11 multi-channel show. It was too complicated to add helicopters to the fake footage.

Weak top full of smoke crushes strong, intact bottom by gravity? On TV?

Is it really possible? In a scientific, peer reviewed paper about structural damage analysis I have demonstrated it is not possible.

Below I describe the circumstances around the impossible collapses. A film of a plane colliding with a skyscraper (WTC1 north wall) is very rare - see right. Imagine the probability of filming it! It is microscopic. Probability that the film is fake using computer generated images, CGI, in an animation is great.

And then there was this lady (photo below) waving from the hole ... giving the hoax away!

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo

A great, hot fire is supposed to burn inside the tower melting the steel so the weak top will suddenly drop down and crush the intact structure below!

After a while a lonely woman appears in the hole at floor #94 and waves to the photographers in helicopters flying by

I must say that I am disappointed that FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, GWB and many other US three letters authorities have not managed to understand that, flying a plane into a weak top of a skyscraper and making a hole in one wall and a big fire ball, will not enable any person above in the weak top to walk down into the crash zone and … wave from the hole … allowing photos/videos to be taken from outside. Only Hollywood SF writers and terrorists can invent such crazy ideas. Evidently all footage, the hole in the wall, the people filming the event and the waving woman (left) are as fake as US nine and eleven dollar bills.

Imagine you were in floors #100 to #110 in the top of a skyscraper and an airplane crashes into it below you in floors #94 to #98 and you walk down in one of the stair cases and you decided to have a look at the burning inferno, where the plane crashed. You open the fire door of the stair well and see the mess, where the plane crashed. Furniture, dead people, inner walls, ceilings all on fire, floors missing, 1.000° C hot, steel columns softening, etc.


You decide not to run down to safety in the street 94 floors down. No! You take a fire extinguisher and climb over the mess of 100 dead bodies on floor #94 and extinguish fires until you reach the hole in the wall ... when you start waving to photographers in helicopters - see above. YOU ARE FAMOUS. And then, after your show, you return to your stairwell and ran down to the street and SAFETY. It can only happen in the USA! Fantasy Obama land! It is suggested that the lady in the hole is a Ms Edna Cintron but with no credit in her name I have no trust in her.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc, etc, are other incompetetent three letters media authorities that tell the public what to believe in their show world of false news. It seems they belong to the terrorists camp too! Or do they really believe an American woman can crawl through a >1 000°C burning crash zone full of dead bodies, collapsed floors, etc, etc, to go and wave to helicopters?

The Science Fiction terrorists also suggested that a big wall panel (right) with a landing gear in it was knocked free from the opposite side of the hole in WTC 1 and dropped to the ground, where it landed flat without breaking up ... to be filmed by the police. But it is also 100% fake. Imagine NY City Police fooling us. The idea is ridiculous!

xx

Fig. 4.1.1 - damage (gray) in WTC 1 north face by NIST

Fig. 4.1.2 - damage in WTC 1 north face. Note - the picture is a fake, i.e. from an animation using computer generated images, CGI, of the facade produced and distributed to confuse the public. The smoke is added in an attempt to make it more realistic. Evidently no plane can produce a hole as shown! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:-

Fig. 4.1.3 - damage in WTC 1 north face. Note - the picture is a fake, i.e. just a still from an animation using computer generated images, CGI, of the two walls with smoke added. The west face floors # 93-96 are undamaged in spite of a fire ball passed through there. Below is another still of fake footage of same damages. Note that this is before WTC2 South Tower is hit!

It is evidently interesting to analyze the structural damages on the fake films due to the collision. The collision produces a hole in the north wall - wall columns are cut off over 5 floor levels #94-98 - but the columns on the right side of the wall at the corner are undamaged. The plane didn't collide there.

Then there is a fire ball and you assume that the west wall windows are blown out. There is a smoke cloud that disappears after 20 seconds.

And then there are structural damages of columns on the north face on the right side previously undamaged. Why is that? Added by photoshop!

On other films and photos taken later of the hole the damages seen after 20 seconds on the first film are not there! See also part 4 of this paper.

Reason is that the first film showing the collision fire ball, structural damages, etc, and all films later - broadcasted live on TV - showing first the hole, the structural damages, fire and smoke and later the from top down collapses are fake! All images on all films and photos of WTC 1&2 collisions, holes, fires and collapses were computer generated images, CGI, done before 9/11 and the result is a Hollywood style animation.

If you create a big hole in the north wall floors #94-98 and a big fire ball in all directions, it is recommended to at least damage the windows also on the west and east faces. And do not exaggerate with a lady with a funny name in the hole.

The big mistake is the sudden, top down structural collapse!

No structure of any kind can collapse from top down, i.e. the weak, light top crushes the strong, heavy bottom from above by gravity. All footage of the collapse - the dynamic destructions of the WTC 1 (and 2) - is just computer generated image, CGI, animations of the worst kind. Or some advanced controlled demolition system was used.


But the wrong visual information is least likely to be resisted if others believe, or are made believe, that it can really happen. Any person stating that she or he has actually seen or filmed firts WTC2 and then WTC1 collapse from top causing a fountain of debris is simply lying (and should be detained -
see above). Reason being that such collapses are physically impossible.

Engineers that believe that structures collapse from top by gravity because they saw it on television are stupid engineers supporting terrorism.

Bad theories, e.g. that structures globally collapses from weak, light top (sic) by gravity down through strong, heavy, intact bottom, create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence, like US military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq killing millions.


As stated above I have written
a scientific paper why structures cannot collapse from top.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuQl9hUC00k

According experts there is a burning fire inside the tower melting the steel so the weak top comes lose and crushes everything, much, much stronger below. Do you see any fire melting steel?

 The US government is not interested to dispel the 2001 bad information that structures collapse from weak top down through stronger bottom by gravity due local failure up top. So you have to read about it here and then draw your own conclusions.  

Once you realize that all the 9/11 images - NY cityscape-towers-smoke-planes-explosions-structural damages-collapses-fountains of debris - were not real-live film but digital, computer generated images and creations - just a pixel model (or some, very advanced controlled demolition), it becomes perfectly clear who was inspired by whom, what and especially why.

Analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses and recorded at stations in New York and four neighboring states on September 11, 2001, indicate that WTC1 and WTC2, respectively were brought down by controlled demolitions one way or another.


Introduction

The WTC Towers could not have been one-way crushed down and destroyed by their small, light, weak upper parts C dropping down on the big, heavy stronger lower parts A becoming first rubble B and then two heaps of rubble on the ground zero on 9/11/2001 as shown right.

Reason is that "a smaller, upper part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater, lower part of the structure".

It is known as the Björkman axiom of structural damage analysis and applies to, e.g. planes flying into tops of skyscrapers.

Hijacked jets making holes in the weak tops of skyscrapers cannot destroy the complete, much stronger skyscrapers below - from above!

Therefore the below headlines on the front page of the NYT on 9/12/2001 is not true. It is just stupid propaganda to confuse the public:

Even worse the NYT also published on 9/12/2001 on an inside page the illustration right suggesting that some kind of "floor-by-floor collapse" had taken place due to local column failures at the top ... caused by foreign terrorists.

This stupid terrorist theory of how the towers progressively collapsed from top was later called the "pancake theory", in which floors stacked up as they fell, as the tower collapsed from top down. But it cannot take place in any real world.

The NYT was thus publishing one lie on the front page and another lie on an inside page. What a stupid coincidence. Smells like Nazi or fascist propaganda.

Illustration of the 'pan cake progressive collapse theory' from NYT 9/12/2001. The stupid illustration was produced by the terrorists and published by media to confuse the public.

More faked photos were published by the NYT Staff ... and NYT got a prize for them!

According basic structural damage analysis no structure of any kind however can destroy itself by its weak top dropping by gravity on its strong bottom that carries the top.

Why did a newspaper like the NYT suggest the contrary? To support terrorism?

Watching TV? It is very easy to fake a plane crashing into a skyscraper!

Like this! It is just a question of various layers on a video!  And to add some scripted comments! It is like composing music. But when a plane collides with a skyscraper there should be plenty of plane parts bouncing off the skyscraper ... but there were none! It is also easy to make up crazy, stupid, false, faked up scientific theories, e.g. that structures collapse from top by gravity, published by terrorists like professor Z. Bazant at Northwestern University.

Imagine making a little hole in the weak, light top C of a skyscraper and starting a fire there and ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF ... the intact, strong, heavy bottom part A suddenly becomes a heap of rubbish. In all 911 fake videos of the WTC 1&2 destructions tops C actually just disappear in thin air behind smoke as the animator does not know what to do with it otherwise = a sign of fakery

However, the fact is that a tower (a steel structure, A) cannot collapse or be destroyed from above (!) and crushed down or compressed (!) by a small (!) part (C) of itself, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF, POUFF by gravity into rubble. Prove me wrong and win €1 000 000:-.

This article describes in layman's terms and using common sense (!) the structure of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and what happens when the alleged release of potential energy, due to downward, alleged free fall* (!) movement and alleged impact (!) of the mass above - a small top part lightweight structure (part C) - by its supporting columns when buckling, exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed by the same columns and much bigger structure below (part A). These are the official, identical cause and effect of both destructions. The conclusion is that the official conclusions by US authorities and experts are false! A composite steel structure like the WTC towers cannot crush down one-way from top down, when a small piece of the structure - upper part C - drops on the structure - intact part A from above! One reason is that the bottom part A of WTC1 is 10 times stronger than the top part C. Another reason is that gravity provides too little energy to destroy the structure. Quite basic! The USA is fooling the world.

Fig. S1 - A fake picture of a 'progressive global collapse' of WTC1 on 9-11 2001. The picture (from a video) has been made using 'Independence Day' film technology, CGI, - smoke, dust and debris are just added, while bits of the tower incl. top C are erased. Top C should remain intact and crush down the bottom part A. Prove me wrong and win Euro 1. 000 000:- (Note - photo is evidently another fake!)

Björkman's famous axiom regarding any structure says:

A smaller (weaker) top part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater (stronger) bottom part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater bottom part of the structure.


It means that you cannot one-way crush an isotropic or composite structure A by a part C of itself (say C = 1/10 A) by dropping small part C on big part A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little by C. It is quite basic and all due to forces and deformations absorbing energy and the fact that both parts have same structure and that the weakest elements in both parts fail first. Materials and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least as long as they are same as structure C.

Thus no structures, 1, 2 or 5 meters tall, or 100, 200 or 500 meters tall exist (e.g. the one shown left Fig. S1) that will one-way crush down, when a small part C is dropped on the bigger part A below.

However, various people or fools, i.a. Bazant and Seffen, which will be further described below in 2.1 and 9.1 propose otherwise. They suggest that what they describe as crush down or progressive collapse takes place as follows:

The top part C of any structure gets loose, drops on and destroys bottom part A into rubble B! (Fig. S2)

After a few seconds the whole building A is just rubbleB! The basic errors with these suggestions are simply that no small top part C can ever destroy anything below it that carried it before.


The WTC 1 collapse can be seen here! The video is fake, manufactured Hollywood Dreamwork Disney style, computer generated images, as no structure can collapse from top down. Actually all videos and pictures on TV, incl. the one above, showing the destructions of the WTC towers are faked! The real terrorists faked all videos. Imagine that!

It is quite simple to learn what happens at impacts of a mass above and why Björkman's axiom always apply! Just drop any mass above on something below! Start with a solid rubber ball and drop it on the floor. The ball/mass above normally bounces.

The ball was not rigid and deformed upon contact with the floor. Why? The floor applied a force on the solid rubber ball, so that it deformed, absorbed some of the kinetic energy involved and then released it and bounced up.

Evidently the ball also applied a force on the floor that also deformed, absorbed the remainder of the energy involved; maybe the floor vibrated a little. This is Newton's third law at work.

Fig. S2 - A building A with a top part C becomes rubble B due to progressive collapse and crush down of A by C according to false theories of Bazant and Seffen developed after 11 September 2001. Evidently a small top part C cannot crush a bigger bottom part A of same, stronger structure only due to gravity and then be crushed by a heap of rubble B!


Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.

Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on anything. This basic knowledge is used in this presentation. Now try to drop a piece of something on the same something bigger. You can never one-way crush down something A by a top piece C of A!

The conclusion is that no destruction of the Towers can ensue under the given circumstances.

More info is available in booklet Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings.

The reason is, apart from neither free fall nor impact of an upper part C or mass taking place - they are just invention by the terrorists - that the upper part C, with floor area 4 000 m² and its columns, which only occupy 5-6 m² or 0.13% of the total area, is not aligned with the lower structure and its columns at the alleged incidents/impacts! The upper and lower load bearing columns will never meet at any point!

The upper part C in fact is an assembly of many weaker parts (floors) that will simply be sliced apart by the lower structure stronger columns (part A) and then be entangled with and jammed there due to friction and the destruction will be arrested.

The upper part C cannot apply energy on the lower structure as the energy will destroy C first. You will learn what a gravity driven destruction (something stronger breaking something weaker below) really is and why such event did not take place at the WTCs! The subject has been analyzed in many articles on the Internet but you here find new observations and explanations. The information is so simple to grasp that no peer review of 'scientists' is required to support it. There is no mystery about it. The terrorists do not like that. Beware!

(* free fall is to be understood in this paper as a drop due to gravity with little resistance, while the velocity increases (acceleration))

oo0oo

The author is a structural engineer for Heiwa Co albeit in the shipbuilding and very big oil tankers/FPSOs sector but the principles of structural design and analysis are the same. It is a more detailed description than this paper but the conclusion is the same!

Many people ask how were the towers destroyed if they were not crushed from top down by gravity. The top down crush seen on TV was just an animation of computer generated images, CGI, done by Hollywood. The 110 floors steel frame WTC1&2 towers were brought down by controlled demolition, like the 28 floors tall Biltmore Hotel, October 1977: 

"Seconds after the final warning signal blared Sunday afternoon at a downtown redevelopment site in Oklahoma City, precisely placed explosive charges dropped a 28-story building almost in its tracks. When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives.

...

CDI placed 991 separate charges, about 800 lbs. of explosives in all, on seven floors from the basement to the 14th floor and detonated them over a five-second interval. CDI's detonation sequence aimed to drop the building in a southerly direction in what is called a controlled progressive collapse in order to lay out the demolished structure to ease removal of debris."

The result was a big heap of steel frames showing that explosives had been used, so all footage of the rubble was faked too using CGI. 

oo0oo 

 

1. 1 The Explanation - major Problems - no Evidence of (1) Buckled Columns, (2) Free Fall, (3) Impact and (4) Shock Wave or (5) Rigid Body of an Upper Part C or Mass

NIST, the US National Institute of Support of Terrorism, at Washington, DC, has explained the WTC 911 destructions.

From NIST report - NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 - we learn:

"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC 1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (the upper part C) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (part A). Global collapse ensued."

From chapter 5.3 we learn:

"The aircraft … impacted the south wall of WTC 2 at 9.03 a.m. … between Floor 78 and Floor 84. … (9:59 am) … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (the upper part C) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (part A). Global collapse ensued."

Note that the two Towers were destroyed for exactly the same cause: The release of potential energy, PE, due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (the upper part C) exceeded the strain energy, SEb,that could be absorbed by the structure (part A below). There is no mention of the local forces that develop at contact and will destroy the structures locally and arrest further destruction or whether upper part C can apply sufficient energy on A without destroying itself. Terrorists are simple people with stupid explanations.


Progressive collapse of a structure is always from bottom up starting with removal or destruction of load bearing primary elements at the bottom causing elements above to displace down by gravity as shown in figure right.

Can removal or destruction (e.g. by fire) of load bearing elements high up in a structure causing downward displacement of elements above, up to the top of the structure produce destruction of all intact elements and connections below the initially destroyed elements? NIST suggsts it is possible. Below is shown that it is not possible. NIST is producing a fake report about WTC 1/2.

1.1.1 What is a buckled Column?

And how much energy or mass above is required to buckle it?

Source http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/PDF/b07008.pdf

Note - collapse always starts by removal of an element at the bottom developing upwards - not the other way around!

If any column would fail due to buckling in turn caused by heat/overload, you would expect the following to happen to it, when a compressive load of the
upper part is applied:

A...............................................................;;;B.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;C.

D................................;;;;;........................E.

Fig. 1.1.1 Five steps of buckling of a column due to compressive load

First, A, a plastic hinge develops in the middle of the compressed column due to lack of strain energy there, then, B, two more plastic hinges develop above and below the first hinge, then, C and D, the column 'kneels' and finally, E, a severely deformed part of the column may punch a hole in the floor below it, while the solid mass above or force applied is shifted sideways. All these deformations require energy that is applied by the displacing mass above! The column will never fracture in any location and it will never rupture due to fractures at the hinges into several pieces, i.e. it will always be connected, albeit very deformed. To suggest that 'buckling' of a column will result in free fall of the load or mass it carries is not correct! It is in fact absurd. As absurd to propose that dropping a mass on a column, the column will buckle! The dropped mass will just slide off before any buckling takes place.

The above deformation also takes time and would be seen on any video, if it took place! No buckled columns from floors 93/98 of WTC 1 or floors 74/78 of WTC 2 have been presented as evidence.

The major problem with the WTC 1 destruction is that the terrorists suggest that the top part, the upper part of WTC 1 suddenly dropped at nearly free-fall as a rigid, solid mass, releasing potential energy, PE, becoming kinetic energy, KE, due to acceleration and transferring it into the non-rigid structure below at an impact at a rate that exceeded the below structure's ability to absorb it, ignoring the simple fact that the buckled columns and failures in between would simply have stopped the vertical displacement.

The structure below lacked enough strain energy, SEb, we are told. There is no mention of the strain energy of the upper part above, SEa, because it is rigid and cannot absorb any strain energy as it already contains infinite strain energy, and the effects of friction between the upper part and the structure below. And there is no mention of the strain energy of the intermediate part - all the buckled columns there!


1.1.2 False Assumptions

The NIST explanation makes several assumptions that are easily shown to be unsupported (no evidence) or false or very strange, typical terrorist behaviour:

  • When the rigid upper part 's support was lost, it was lost all at once, in all the 280+ columns on an entire floor, and for the height of several floors (No evidence or false! Upper part is not rigid).
  • The bottom floor of the falling upper part was stronger (??) than the top of the intact lower structure, and underwent negligible deformation -because it was rigid! - while it crushed down the lower structure, which had supported it for more than 20 years through several strong storms, i.e. the strain energy of the upper block, SEa, particularly its lowest floor, was very big or infinite (due to assumed rigidity) (False).
  • The columns, also rigid, in the falling upper part were in nearly perfect alignment with the non-rigid columns in the structure below after failures (False - see figure above).
  • Columns in the top of the intact lower structure buckled in one or more entire floors at once due to lack of strain energy in the structure below, SEb (False).
  • This buckling failed to absorb the kinetic energy of the rigid upper part, so it continued falling at nearly free-fall acceleration (No evidence).
  • Friction between partly damaged and/or loose parts is not existing or considered (Very strange).
  • This almost perfectly aligned impact and energy-lossless buckling was repeated on every floor, all the way down each tower, with additional destruction and mass accelerations (concrete pulverization, high-speed ejection of dust, and high-speed ejection of steel pieces) occurring without slowing the descent of the "falling upper part ". There is no friction between the loose parts (False).

 These above initiating events and destructions are not seen at WTC 1.

 

1.1.3 No Initiating Events recorded on (fake) Video

All videos of the destruction show that the upper part in fact telescopes into or shortens itself for 2-4 seconds, while the steel structure below is still intact! Thus - the upper part was not rigid as assumed later by NIST and supporting 'experts'. WTC 1 will be analysed in detail below.WTC 2 is similar. Here is a video analysis of what might have hit WTC 2 and it is not a plane! 40 minutes later WTC 2 is suddenly destroyed.

All videos show very strange destructions when smoke, dust and damaged pieces are being ejected. You should wonder if the destruction is real ... or the videos are faked! Reason to fake the videos is to manipulate the viewer and confuse any analysis. Photos here are from said videos. In author's opinion the videos are faked but can be used for analysis anyway.

The whole upper part C of WTC 2 just above floor 81 suddenly tips over, moves horizontally sideways and disappears soon after as shown on photos right (figs. 1.1.3.1,2), while the lower structure remains intact.To suggest that the upper part C is rigid, remains intact, drops vertically and is aligned with the lower structure columns and crushes down the floors/columns below poses a predicament.

It is quite clear that nothing drops on the right wall and floors of WTC 2 structure below the upper part C. But smoke, débris and dust are ejected ... for what reasons? Gravity contact? Nothing has impacted the right wall! On the other hand it seems that multiple, great explosions take place tipping and mowing the upper part C to the left while the top floors are destroyed! According Bazant and others upper part C is supposed to be intact and one-way crush down the tower below, but anybody can see on any video how upper part C is in fact destroyed first. Thus the planned demolition starts high up ... and continues below later.

No free fall of upper part C or impact occurs at WTC 2 ... and cannot occur - and none are therefore recorded on any videos!

The force to shift the upper part C horizontally sideways must have been enormous and cannot have been provided by gravity - a downward force!

The pictures (figs. 1.1.3,4) below show the same thing from another angle and a few seconds later.

The corners and roof line of WTC 2 are indicated by green lines. Note the smoke ejected from the windows well below the tilting upper part in the left picture, where the structure is still intact and no local failures have occurred. Gravity alone cannot produce such effects!

Fig. 1.1.3.1 - WTC 2 just before upper part C is destroyed. Note that picture is a fake!

Fig. 1.1.3.2 - WTC 2 while upper part C is being destroyed. Note that picture is a fake! The smoke ejections are just added for effect!

"Observation of the upper margin of the cloud of dust and smoke in the videos somehow makes the discusser conclude that the tower top motion is caused by "part C becoming shorter while part A remains intact." This is a delusion. Part A remaining intact would violate the principles of conservation of momentum and of energy. The writers' analysis of the initial two-way collapse shows that the columns of part C get plastically squashed by only 1% of their original length and afterward the collapse proceeds in a one-way crush-down mode (Bažant and Le 2008)." Bazant & Co, July 2010 lying in Journal of Engineering Mechanics! Evidently WTC 2 floors above #81 are demolished = upper part C is destroyed first!

What you would expect at worst is a short vertical downward displacement of the non-rigid upper part and very little energy released, smoke just ejected from a very narrow strip of walls, then a physical contact between the upper part structure and the top floor of the structure below, local structural failures occurring in both the upper part structure, as it is not rigid, and the lower structure causing increasing friction between failed parts in contact, mainly floors - no rubble or smoke being produced - absorbing all energy released a moment before and an end of the local destruction up top after a few seconds! In serious ship collisions, with much more energy released than in the WTCs, this happens all the time. At WTC 2 the upper part disappears in a dust cloud before the lower structure is affected.

Fig. 1.1.3.3 - WTC 2 while upper part C is destroyed xFig. 1.1.3.4 - WTC 2 while upper part C is destroyed. No building/structure can collapse as shown by gravity alone. The top part C cannot crush the bottom part. It should remain stuck on top! Big parts dropping from skyscraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win Euro 1. 000 000:- (Note - photos are all fakes! You should really wonder where all faked photos and videos come from).


1.1.4 Does Gravity destroy Steel Structures?

Gravity is an ever present vertical force of attraction between any two objects, e.g. all the parts of the towers and the Earth. WTC 1 and 2 consisted of many parts and, when WTC 1 and 2 were intact and all parts were attached to each other, gravity resulted in low, safe compressive stresses in the primary load bearing columns that were less than 32% of the yield stress as will be shown in 5.1 below. Evidently the gravity forces were balanced by opposite reaction forces at every point.

Evidently no parts or assemblies of WTC 1 or 2 were rigid. A rigid body is assumed indestructible.

A floor is not a primary load bearing object. It just transmits its weight to the primary load bearing elements via connecting bolts. It will also be clarified in 5.1 below.

If you cut a primary load bearing vertical column or allow it to fail/shear off in one location, it cannot transmit any load and the stress in it at the cut becomes zero. If you then cut the same object a bit away (it cannot fail again!), the lose part will evidently drop out and fall down. If it is located in the wall, it is likely it drops down to the ground outside the structure. A core column may fall on a floor or down a lift shaft.

 

1.1.5 Free Fall and Collision Impact

In WTC 1 and 2 we are told that two times 230-240+ primary load bearing vertical columns simultaneously failed in two locations (buckled) in an initiation zone due to fire ... and disappeared allowing vertical free fall of the upper parts. I do not believe it, because it is crazy to suppose it and not observed and contradicts all laws of physics, but let's assume it anyway so this article can describe the madness.

What happens then?

Well, if the upper part above the initiation zone was then hanging in a crane and slowly lowered down and placed on the lower structure, the lower structure would evidently carry the upper part ... as before. The columns would again be stressed to less than 32% yield stress. This is normal practice in modern shipbuilding; big blocks are positioned on structure below and welded to it. If you drop a block on the structure below, the block is sliced apart in the worst case or bounces up or a combination of the two.

But there was no crane lowering the WTC upper parts like in a shipyard!

We are told by NIST, and I repeat, that the upper part (it is assumed a rigid (indestructible!), solid mass with uniform density and big strain energy, SEa keeping it together!):

(1) near free falls vertically (there are no buckled columns below it) and

(2) impacts instantaneously on the structure below, i.e. its columns, forces develop and

(3) causes a shock wave in the below structure columns, the latter are overloaded and rupture in 1000's of pieces, (it now the global collapse is starting), while

(4) the upper part remains intact during the complete destruction due to big, SEa , i.e. is not damaged by the reaction forces and energy transmitted to it at impact (this amazing effect is due to the upper part is assumed being rigid!), and

(5) is compressing, crushing down the rubble below and

(6) remains intact on top of the rubble all the time until

(7) it self-destructs at the end of the destruction of the structure below!

 

1.1.6 Upper Part remains intact?

These are very misty allegations - total inventions - by a federal authority (albeit with terrorist ties). It is the first time in history, when a smaller object - the light weight, upper part, actually a non-rigid, flexible steel structure consisting of many smaller elements with very small strain energy, SEa, - destroys the bigger and stronger other object - the identical steel structure below only with assistance of gravity. And none of the (1) to (7) events in 1.1.5 is recorded on any video! On all videos the upper parts disappear early and the lower structures are destroyed sequentially from the top by something else than the upper parts, while huge amounts of smoke, dust, débris and rubble are ejected. Very strange destructions, actually. Looks like controlled or planned demolitions!

The upper parts of WTC 1, 2 are the problems for the terrorists. We are just told that they can destroy the building below. They are according Bazant/Seffen, two scientists, findings of which will be further analyzed and debunked below, supposed to be rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible, with infinite strain energy, SEa , etc., in order to first near free fall vertically, then impact and finally drive two huge destructions of intact steel structures that have never been seen before and after 911.


The weights of these
upper parts were not massive! The weights just compressed the structure below to less than 32% yield stress. And the load bearing structure/columns below only occupied 0.13% of the total foot print (WTC1 at the initiation zone - the rest was air!), which is an indication how strong the lower structure columns were! The available strain energy, SEa, in the upper part holding it together was locally exactly similar to the structure below on a volume unit basis; bolted joints of floors to columns and columns butt welded together and connected by spandrels and beams. Most of the upper part was air! Its strain energy was very limited; it was not rigid. What you would expect is that the upper part would be severely damaged at impact ... and that further destruction would soon be arrested.

There was plenty of space/volume for other structure, e.g. floors, to get entangled in, which is completely ignored by the authorities. Early on the so called pan cake theory was suggested - whole floors being disconnected from columns and dropping down from the upper parts - but it was soon abandoned. It was a ridiculous suggestion! Floors dropping down from a rigid, indestructible upper part !

So the upper parts were neither rigid, stiff, solid, of uniform density, indestructible nor with big strain energy, SEa , as assumed by the scientists.

NIST cannot then explain the WTC lower structures total destructions except that potential energy, PE = kinetic energy, KE (of upper part ) is greater than the built in strain energy, SEb, (capacity to absorb energy) of structure below (NIST's law), that will also be further described below. Complete terrorist nonsense as PE/KE of the upper part has nothing to do with SEb of the structure below! NIST does not consider that friction between partly damaged or loose parts absorbs more energy than any strain energy absorbed by intact structure in elastic and plastic deformation!

Bazant and Seffen came to assistance. But they assume that the load bearing structure columns occupy 100% of the total foot print due to uniform density of the upper part and not only 0.13% due to local, concentrated strength. There is no air in the Bazant/Seffen WTCs! They apparently assume that SEa is greater than SEb that will be further explained below. SEa would in fact be infinite according to Bazant/Seffen. The upper part is assumed rigid.

They also assume that there are no space and volume for entanglement of locally failed elements anywhere and that collapse arrest may occur! Both ignores that friction develops between displaced elements and absorbs huge amounts of potential energy released. Collapse arrest will be defined and explained below in paras. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5.

 

1.2 Missing Evidence - Why wasn't the upper Part locally damaged?

There are 1000's of photos of the destructions but unfortunately some are missing, e.g. those during the 0.8 - 0.9 seconds, when the rigid, indestructible upper parts start to near free fall (1) 3.7 meters - all columns failed - and then collide/impact (2) with the top elements of the structure below transmitting the total upper part KE to these elements of the structure below - and nothing to the upper part itself. It is then that the clock of collapse time should start and (3) the shock wave is transmitted. It can evidently not be seen. No intact upper parts (4) are seen during the destructions that followed. In the case of WTC2 the upper part explodes outside the footprint of the tower. It was not very rigid!

But if there is no free fall and no impact and no sudden transmission of KE, then a gravity driven destructions cannot even be initiated and no collapse time clock will start. Any calculations about what happens after the alleged impact and instantaneous transmission of KE become then pretty theoretical.

We are told that PE is released at (1) and becomes KE at (2). NIST suggests in its infamous 10 000 pages report that the PE or KE (no calculations) exceeded the total strain energy, SEb, of the structure below (no calculations), or PE = KE > SEb, but it is nonsensical maxims employed by savages! PE/KE and SEb have nothing to do with each other!

Nothing to do with each other? Exactly.

The PE/KE of the upper part must evidently be applied at a sudden IMPACT to the structure below, but gravity does not work like that for loose objects! If some PE/KE of the upper part is applied to the lower structure, you may, e.g. expect some local failures due to lack of local SEb as long as the load is applied. The load will then slip off due to the deformation and lack of friction. The SEb of the complete structure is something completely different. Then there is the lower structure itself - it can evidently destroy the upper part, if it gets loose. It happens when local SEb is bigger than local SEa.


The
upper part that allegedly became loose consists of 280+ vertical primary load bearing elements - the flexible columns - holding it together. All the loads of the masses above are only held by the columns. The upper part is not rigid!

In order for this upper part, 4 000 m² floor area and a certain height, with 280+ columns that occupy only 5-6 m² of it (<0.13% of the foot print), to free fall, impact and overload the lower structure, it must be 100% aligned with all 280+ columns below after failure.

And then, if the 280+ columns above touch the 280+ columns below at contact, they must not slip off! Otherwise no KE will be transmitted! Each column is assumed to have failed at two locations (buckled) and the intermediate part has disappeared or is bent 180°.

Does anyone believe that the cross surfaces of the broken parts are identical allowing a perfect fit at impact ... and overload? Try to hit a nail with another nail and see what happens because each column has the function of a nail hitting another nail!

Evidently, the upper part columns were not 100% aligned at (1) with the lower structure columns after buckling - we are told that they were bent - and therefore they will miss the lower structure columns at (2). But NIST assumes the contrary!

No impact, no shock wave! And therefore no global collapse due to KE bigger than SEb.

If you argue that it was only the thin, lowest floor of the upper part that first impacted the thin, uppermost floor of the structure below, you should know that the PE of the lowest floor is negligible (5%) compared to the total PE of the upper block. The KE of the lowest floor must then be transmitted, via the uppermost floor of the lower structure (actually the bolts at the columns), to the columns to affect the latter. You require local SEa for that (in the bolts)! A vertical impact on a floor cannot be transmitted via the same horizontal floor to the supporting columns and break the latter. The bolted connections between the floor and the column break first! And something else should happen, i.e. the upper block would destroy itself due to small SEa. It is one reason for collapse arrest. NIST apparently assumes that the bolts of the upper block are super strong - rigid!, while the bolts in the structure below are weak. Not very logical! Typical terrorist behaviour!

 

1.3 What you would expect to happen

If something falls it must go down freely. No upper parts are seen going down freely. They disappear early in the action that follows! Or that 240-250+ columns suddenly fail (buckle) just prior that. And then there are these mysterious impacts after falling down 3.7 meters near free fall that are not observed.

The columns occupy only 0.13% of the total cross area and, if misaligned by say 10-40 mm, they will miss or slip off the columns below = no impact. And if there is no impact, there is no transmission of energy, KE, to the structure below - only weak, thin horizontal floors of upper part and lower structure will be cut/punched/sliced by vertical, strong columns that will remain virtually intact.

So let's assume the upper part gets lose (A). It means that the potential energy, PE, available in a one-story drop was greater than the local strain energy to be overcome in the initiation zone, i.e. crushing all columns there. It is furthermore assumed that the compressive force, necessary for a descent was available; otherwise the motion would not start, i.e. no initiation. If these assumptions are not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the motion will be arrested already during the damage/buckling of columns of the initiation zone and the building will stand.

What happens then? Let's assume that the upper part gets misaligned (exaggerated in picture below) outside the lower structure on two wall sides and inside on the two other wall sides of the lower structure (B) and goes down (C). Similar misalignment takes place at the core. WTC 1 with the mast on the roof is used in this example. Not all floors are shown. In WTC 2 the upper part tilted more than 10° and moved a considerable distance sideways before destruction and disappeared which has not been explained. You need a horizontal force for that, which gravity cannot provide.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;A ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;B ::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;;C:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::D xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE

Fig. 1.3.1 - Dropping an upper part on a lower part of same structure

The upper part walls columns (right in picture (C) above) misaligned on the inside of the lower structure will now slice through the first (red) floor below the impact zone - the floor hinges down on the (red) floor below - while the upper part walls columns (left in picture (C) above) misaligned on the outside will drop in the air and hit nothing! Actually only half the mass/walls of the upper part carried by the walls participate in the local failures that follows and results in tilting of the upper part.

On the other hand the lower structure columns (left in (C) above) on the inside of the upper part will slice through the first (green) floor of the upper part - and it hinges down too on the (red) floor below! You do not need much energy for that. It is quite evident that the upper part is not rigid as assumed by all experts at NIST and elsewhere!

And the lower structure walls columns on the outside of the upper part (right in picture (C) above) will remain ... intact!

Similar floor failures may occur at the core but there the columns are fewer and spread around and interconnected by horizontal beams to which the floors are bolted.

In (D) the upper part right wall columns inside the lower structure are assumed to have sliced three (red) floors in the lower structure and these floors have hinged down with two (green) floors of the upper part that have also been cut by the strong wall columns of the lower structure inside the upper part on top. Similar failures take place at the core. Evidently this destruction pattern will tip the upper part against the intact (right in (D) above) wall of the lower structure and the upper part will be jammed. The progressive local collapses due to some loose loads is arrested mainly due to friction between the many displaced parts, damaged or not. This more logical local collapse pattern is something NIST never considers. If the collapse is not arrested then, the upper part will disappear completely into the lower structure (E) and the left wall of the upper block will fall down in one piece to the ground! The upper part is sliced apart due to small local SEa (and not infinite SEa as assumed by NIST) and the structure below is also locally damaged, i.e. its SEb is reduced. The upper block green floors however remain inside the top of the lower structure. This destruction would not produce a lot of rubble, debris, dust or smoke!

And we do not see that on any videos.

 

1.4 Why global Collapse will not occur (in Layman's Terms)

What a reasonable person would expect after local failures at the initiation zone - even very serious ones - is that gravity would just slowly (no free fall) pull the upper part assembly down, some parts may contact each other and get damaged like in a soft collision by local forces, when plenty of energy is transformed into heat, and after that primary and secondary structure of upper part and parts of structure below would get entangled into one another and rub against each other. Friction develops and absorbs the remaining energy released. Some parts will fall down outside the building. This is the basic reason why a multi-parts steel structure does not ever globally collapse like a house of cards!


Or in other words:

There are many masses/elements that drop - connected to one another one way or another by strain energy, SEa, forming an upper part. You cannot simplify and say the upper part is only one solid, rigid mass. There are four outer walls, core columns, many floors, etc. Each part and its connections to other parts make up the total strain energy, SEa, of the upper part that is limited. Let's say that the numbers of masses of the upper part are n.

If these masses drop, their PE becomes KE. Each mass, numbers 1 to n, has its own PE/KE due to gravity. And each mass starts at a different location and will drop on a different location by gravity. What keeps all these masses together is the strain energy, SEa, of the upper part.

The lower structure of WTC 1 is fairly complex - 280+ columns, 94 floors, etc. It cannot be treated as one spring or a party balloon or similar. The columns only occupy 0.13% of the total cross area of the tower. What loads are applied on them at an impact? Probably none as they are small and any load will slip off.

The uppermost floor of the lower structure thus occupy 99.87% of the cross area or foot print. What loads are put on it and where and when? There are many masses, numbers 1 to n, dropping down. Which one will be applied first? Right - the one that was closest above and will actually contact something below.

The strength of the upper part and lower intact structures (all parts/connections, etc) are known. We know the various loads, numbers 1 to n that are dropped on the uppermost floor of the lower structure in a certain order depending where they started from. It should be clear that if a column impacts a floor, the column will only punch or slice a hole in the floor.

 

1.5 Analysis of Collapse Initiation, Progressive Collapse and Collapse Arrest - The Masses get entangled - Friction Forces absorb the released Energy

In order to analyze the collapse initiation you evidently apply the loads to the lower structure and the upper part and see what happens! Does global collapse start or is it just local failures due to local forces and local collapse is arrested by friction?

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;A ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;B ::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;;C:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::D xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE

Fig. 1.4.1 - Dropping an upper part on a lower part of same structure

So we start with load number n = 1 - the one that is applied first! This is a repeat of 1.3 above. The analysis will be based on observations and using common sense. What happens to the uppermost floor of the lower structure being loaded by load n = 1? And where does load n = 1 come from?

In (C) above it might be the wall columns and core columns/horizontal core beams of the upper part that hit the uppermost red floor of the lower structure in certain locations. Any deformations? Local failures? Is the poor floor still connected to the 280+ columns? Maybe it is only sliced locally and falls down as shown. At every local failure potential energy is consumed to overcome the strain energy holding the parts together. At every contact point between displaced parts rubbing against one another there is friction that absorbs huge amounts of energy released. The rubbing acts as an effective brake!

Then we apply load number n = 2. This is the lowest green floor of the upper part that hits the wall columns of the lower structure on the other side and core columns/horizontal beams of the lower structure. The green floor of the upper part has no chance here! It is sliced and drops down on the red floor below. It seems the big load of the upper part is only applied on the - weak - side of the lower structure - only weak red floors in the way there, while there is more opposition on the other side - lower structure columns slicing up the green floors of the upper part.

Does anyone believe that the upper part will fall vertically - near free fall - as a rigid block under the shown circumstances - which is the fundamental assumption of Bazant and Seffen? According basic physical principles the upper block is subject to multiple structural failures at impact!


Progressive, local collapse due to loads n = 1 and 2 has however started! Thus we have to see what happens at the next floors above and below applying all the n loads there in proper order.

The first collapsed, hinged floors above and below will probably deflect many of the loads coming first and later from above outside the structure or inwards, against each other causing jamming, rubbing, friction and entanglement of these loads/masses. Too complicated to calculate? Not really. As long as you realize that it is not one, solid, rigid mass (one PE/KE) that impacts one structure below with one SE(?), you will agree that the Bazant/Seffen/NIST simplifications described below are just irresponsible nonsense.

The first loads/masses from above, i.e. columns of the upper part applied on the uppermost floor will probably locally damage the uppermost red floor of the intact structure either at the boundaries or on the floor itself. The horizontal floor then becomes sloping in various locations and positions. It does not drop flatly down as assumed by NIST. The first loads/masses will then change direction from vertical to sideways due to the sloping floor parts and be stopped, e.g. by rubbing against the sloping floor and being entangled in the strong vertical columns. Gravity works like that. Some loads may drop further on the next floor, but the latter will obviously resist or only fail locally, where the particular loads/masses are applied!

The next loads/masses coming dropping from above, e.g. the first green floor will not hit the uppermost red floor, but something else, i.e. the vertical columns of the lower structure and the upper part. There is a lot of damping, friction, etc. in this mess apart from pure SE of the floors of both upper part and lower structure resisting and deflecting the loading. Potential energy released is consumed both as strain energy (deformation of structure) and friction (rubbing between displaced parts).

The second uppermost red floor of the structure below - see (D) above - may also collapse, similar to the uppermost floor, when the masses, i.e. the columns above have dropped on the first load/mass/mess. Progressive, local collapse continues. The second red floor of the structure below, now also sloping, will in turn deflect the loads from above as the first. Then the second green floor of the upper part will be damaged, when it drops on the columns below. After a while the top part of the lower structure is completely jammed with damaged floors of the upper part and the lower structure sliced apart in various locations. The remaining mass will then not do much further harm. Some will drop down outside. The rest will remain on top, as if lowered there by a crane. If the whole upper block is sliced up by the lower structure (E) before arrest (no friction!), the upper part outside walls will drop down on the outside but all the upper part (green) floors will remain up top jammed in the lower structure.

The collapse is arrested! Reason is mainly the friction that develops between displaced components but also that the available strain energy, SEa, of the upper part was much less than the available strain energy of the structure below, SEb, and that 50% of the PE/KE released was in fact absorbed by SEa of the upper part and friction there and the other 50% by SEb of the structure below and friction there at the collision and following local destructions. This is the beauty of an airy tower steel structure of non uniform density with a strong perimeter held by spandrels. Some local parts my fail (e.g. floors) due to gravity overload and then any other loose parts just get deflected, entangled and jammed due to friction in the mess, as there is plenty of volume and intact structure for that. A stable state of a partially damaged structure always develops. No global collapse will ensue. Collapse arrest is when a stable state of a partially damaged structure has developed. NIST in its 10 000 pages report does not mention collapse arrest as a more logical result of local failures and the report is thus incomplete. That NIST ignores friction between displaced parts after local failures as the main factor to absorb released energy and arrest further destruction is chocking!

 

1.6 What really happened

So why did the columns of the lower structure blow up in 1 000's of pieces, if there were no impact and shock wave? The answer will be given at the end of this presentation.

The upper part it seems to be destroyed before it reaches the steel structure below ... at zero velocity ... and does not impact! It is mostly air anyway! Let's call the upper part C and the lower part A and the rubble between them part B. The following photos extracted from a video show what happens:

Upper part C dropping into skyscraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win Euro 1. 000 000:- (Note - photos are fakes!)

Fig. 1.6.1 - WTC 1 North wall just before upper part C above floor 97 shortens itself or implodes. Note intact steel columns below the upper part C. No collapse or crush down of structure below has yet started there due to lack of strain energy ... and it will not take place!.
Fig. 1.6.2 - WTC 1 when upper part C has shortened itself or imploded 15 meters after about 2 seconds of roof line dropping. Lower part A has not been crushed down 15 meters and no 4 meters rubble layer part B is visible. Lower Part A still extends to the red line.
Fig. 1.6.3 - WTC 1 when upper part C has shortened itself or imploded 35 meters after about 3.1 seconds of roof line dropping. If upper part C would have been intact, it would extend down to the 9 meters thick rubble part B. Lower Part A still extends to the red line. No collapse/crush down of lower part A below has started and there is no rubble part B. Soon after the upper part C disappers completely in a cloud of smoke and rubble!

What we are really seeing on above three pictures is local destruction of both part A and upper part C at interface C/A and not a one-way crush down of part A by an intact upper part C. Attention though - the pictures are from a fake video!

The destruction of the upper part C - it is compressed 20-35 meters - before its columns reach or, as suggested, impinge on the intact columns of the structure below simply means that the upper part C is not rigid and that its potential energy is split in 1000's of small parts and that the upper columns cannot impact on the columns of the solid intact tower steel structure below and destroy the latter. It seems that the upper part C consumes its strain energy SEa holding it together prior any destruction below. It also confuses the total destruction time of WTC 1! When does the WTC 1 destruction actually start? When the roof (and mast on top) starts to displace downwards? At that time no visible damages are seen at floor 94, so you should wonder why the roof moves at all. One second later? The roof has dropped a couple of meters and still no impact and damages are seen at floor 94. Two seconds later. The roof has dropped 10 meters and still no damages are seen at floor 94. Three seconds later. The roof has dropped 20-35 meters and still no damages are seen at floor 94! The columns are still intact at floor 94. There is no free fall or impact!

It would appear that NIST, the US authority responsible for analyzing the collapse has abandoned the original suggestion of a rigid upper part C free falling, impacting and causing a shock wave and instead suggests that 6-11 lower floors inside the upper part C suddenly dropped down and overloaded the uppermost floor of the structure below. The above pictures evidently do not support such modified claim, where it is seen that the roof displaces 20-35 meters, while there is no visible effects at and below the initiation/impact zone at floor 94 (where the floors of the upper part C are supposed to drop down). If only internal floors suddenly dropped down, evidently the roof would remain in position. It would appear that the core columns of the upper part C above the initiation zone fail first, the upper part C is compacted and the walls of the upper part C telescopes into themselves. That the upper part C does not remain intact should be obvious to anybody. However, a few days later an unknown professor announced exactly the opposite!

 

2.1 The false Theory and the misleading Assumptions

An American professor Z P Bazant published two days after the WTC destructions 911 a theory that was adopted by the authorities as true. The Bazant analysis is that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower is doomed. Bazant suggests that upper part C then one way crushes down the tower in five stages as illustrated by Fig. 2.1.1 below from the Bazant paper! Upper part C remains intact all the time! The WTC 1 collapse can be seen here! Compare it with the following:

Stage 1: The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently (sic) exceeding 800° C.

Stage 2: At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength ... This leads to creep buckling of columns which consequently lose (sic) their load carrying capacity!

Stage 3 (Crush-down starts): Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor (floors 94-95 of WTC1) that is heated most suffer buckling, the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor (floor 95 of WTC1), gathering speed (sic) until it impacts (sic) the lower part (floor 94 of WTC1).

At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous (sic) kinetic energy and a significant (sic) downward velocity.

Note the emotional words used and that upper part C is assumed intact and aligned with the structure below.

(Colors by the writer + end Stages 6-8 added)

Fig. 2.1.1 - from Bazant


Stage 4: The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part C onto the lower part applies enormous (sic) vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity (sic), even though it is not heated.

Note that upper part C is still assumed intact and aligned with the structure below. Evidently not seen on the video pictures above, where nothing happens there, while the upper part C is compressed.

Stage 5: This causes failure of an underlying multifloor segment of the tower, in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube (i.e. the wall columns), with the buckles probably (sic) spanning the height of many floors, and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube! The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges.

Note that upper part C is still assumed intact and aligned with the structure below.

Stage 6 (Collapse): The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again (sic) by an even larger (sic) mass falling with a greater (sic) velocity and the series of impacts (sic) and failures then proceeds all the way down.

Are any further impacts seen on the videos? The upper part must then still be assumed intact and aligned with the structure below all the time to end of collapse. The extra mass below is all rubble! Can it really impact again?

Most assumptions and conclusions in stages 1-5 are not correct and the Bazant dramatic stage 6 is not possible.

Stage 7: Upper part is destroyed in a crush-up by rubble below!

Stage 8: Rubble finally spreads out on ground. More ...

There is no time table in the Bazant analysis and no explanations why the roof drops and the uppermost part of WTC1 above floor 100 disintegrates 3 seconds before Stage 3, floor 95 hitting floor 94, is supposed to take place, the latter never seen on any videos. To assume that the upper part C is intact and aligned with the structure below during the complete collapse is not serious.

Actually, the upper part , intact, rigid and of uniform density at start of collapse, should according to Bazant's theory remain INTACT after the global collapse at end of Stage 6 ... on top of all rubble the upper part C has produced of the lower structure. Nothing could destroy a rigid upper part C of uniform density - not even the final impact with the ground forgetting that the rubble is there to dampen the final impact. The lack of the upper part C on top of the rubble after collapse proves Bazant wrong.

It will be shown in this article that most assumptions and conclusions in stages 1-5 are not correct and that the Bazant stage 6 is not possible. To assume that the upper part is intact and aligned with the structure below, during, ... and after! ... the complete destruction of the bottom part is not serious. Actually, the whole theory of Bazant is nonsense! Bazant treats the WTC-tower as a uniform line (!) that gets shorter when impacted by a bit of the same line (the top of the bulding) from above by gravity. But the line is not uniform! It is 100 times stronger at the bottom than the top. The small top would just bounce on the big bottom in a serious analysis. Bazant is not serious! He supports the terrorists. Strange world.

 

3.1 Tower Structure - a Bird Cage

Fig. 3.2.1 - Outer wall mesh of columns/spandrels like a bird cage

The structural design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers is very simple as its very lightweight steel framework is similar to a box shaped bird cage in which human beings are working. Most skyscrapers or office towers in the world are built according similar principles. None has ever globally collapsed in seconds before or after 911 except WTC 1, 2 and 7. More ...

 

4.1 Collapse Scenario and Cause of Collapse - buckled Columns - Lack of Evidence

From NIST report - NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 - we learn:

"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

From chapter 5.3 we learn:

"The aircraft … impacted the south wall of WTC 2 at 9.03 a.m. … between Floor 78 and Floor 84. … (9:59 am) … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Note that the two Towers collapsed for exactly the same cause: The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure.

If the column does not deflect or crumple up, there is no downward movement of the mass above and thus no release of potential energy. And no impact! More ...

 

5.1 Arrangements at Floors 94-98 of WTC 1

Let's look at WTC1 and floors 94-98 - the initiation zone. Total area of each floor is about 4 000 m².

The total mass of the upper part is as follows:

Steel wall columns

1 500 tons

4.5 %

Steel core columns

0 900 tons

2.7%

Steel floor trusses

3 000 tons

9.1%

Concrete floors

23 000 tons

69.7%

Windows and misc.

4 600 tons

13.9%

Total

33 000 tons

100%

Note that less than 8% of the mass is steel in the supporting columns and that as much as 70% is concrete. If this mass filled the total volume of the building above the initiation zone (190.000 m3), the uniform density would be 0.18 ton/m3 or the density of cotton! You could say that a big bale of cotton (mass above) rested on the structure below!

This mass is carried about 50/50 by walls and core.

The mass above the walls at floors 94-98 is thus about 16 500 tons supported by 236 wall columns (total cross area 3.54 m²). Therefore each wall column on average supports 70 tons. The compressive stress in the wall column at floors 94-98 with cross area 150 cm² is thus abt 467 kgs/cm² or 46 MPa or 18.8% of the yield stress (abt 248 MPa) of the steel.


The mass above the core is also 16 500 tons supported by the 47 core columns with total area 2.1 m². On average each core column carries abt 351 tons so the average compression is 786 kgs/cm² or 78 MPa or 31.7% of yield.
More ...

 

6.1 The Towers were built very strong in the 1960's

The above is a clear indication how the Towers were originally built by serious architects and engineers in the 1960's. Compressive static stresses in the columns were less than 1/3 of the yield stress of the steel before (obviously) ... and after serious damage (not so obvious but shown here)! The buckling stress of the column is virtually the same as the yield stress as the columns were arranged with spandrels. One reason why the static stresses were so low was that the designers had no access to computers to optimize (slender down) the construction. Manual calculations were done and to be on the safe side you added steel and built strong! And steel was quite cheap at that time. And US steel was good quality. The assumed yield stress 248 MPa was probably much higher in reality. NIST never checked the yield stress of the steel from the initiation zone in the rubble!

There was therefore plenty redundancy. A plane may crash into the bird cage and nothing happens. A big fire may break out and nothing happens. Why? Because the normal compressive stress in the supporting vertical structure is so low and if any column breaks or buckles, its load is transmitted to adjacent columns via the spandrels and the stress in adjacent columns increase a little. No global collapse is possible under any circumstances.

Evidently the columns got stronger (thicker plates, steel with higher yield stress) further down when the 'mass above' increases, but it is certain that the compressive stresses in the Towers never exceed 1/3 of the yield stress. Same applies for the buckling stresses. More ...

 

7.1 No Release of potential Energy due to downward Movement - Influence of Heat

The mass/load above a column evidently compresses it. The column acts as a spring. As long as the compressive stress is less than yield stress, the compression is elastic and hardly noticeable. As seen above the actual compressive stresses were only <30% of yield stress and it is assumed this was common practice in steel tower construction in US and elsewhere in the 60's.

How is the yield stress of steel affected by heat? In this writer's opinion it is not affected very much at about 500°C. This is confirmed by any fire test - the test chamber and what's in it never collapses due to the heat inside up to 1000°C. The heat inside is normally by kerosene set on fire.

Applied to WTC1 what you would expect due to a fire around the core columns is that they only compress and that their cross areas expand due to heat and the downward movement of the core is a few centimeters! It may put some extra tension in the floor trusses and their bolted connections pulling the perimeter walls inwards a few centimeters - and that is all! The wall perimeter columns, 80% of them are intact and free of soot and marks of fire as shown on many videos and subject to little heat as they are cooled by fresh air, will then further stabilize the core.

NIST does not calculate the amount of potential energy released due to downward movement in their report, which is therefore incomplete. The simple reason is that no potential energy is released. In fact, no downward movement of a mass above is even possible due to heat inside the cage and there should be no sudden release of potential energy.

But let's assume that potential energy is released vertically as all low stressed columns wall/core collapse simultaneously and are removed allowing a free drop.

When 33 000 tons of upper part mass above in WTC1 falls down 3.7 meters due to gravity and crushes all the columns abt 340 kWh of energy is produced by gravity and a fair part of that energy is consumed to crush the columns.

It is in fact a very strange release of potential energy due to alleged downward movement of an upper part mass above! The wall columns at the initiation zone did not buckle, deform or crumple up, when the mass above (the roof) has allegedly been falling down for 4-5 seconds.

In order to establish what happened to WTC1 we need to know two times for two events that allegedly occurred: the time Tcause, when the potential energy was released due to all columns in the initiation zone collapsing simultaneously, i.e. the time of the cause of the disaster, and the time Teffect when this energy was applied to the structure below at an impact, i.e. the time of the effect. NIST and Z P Bazant do not advise these times.

NIST and Bazant talk about an upper solid, rigid part above the initiation zone that suddenly falls down as a hammer and causes global collapse! There are many videos of the WTC1 incident but NIST and Bazant never show us the famous upper part at times Tcause (hammer/upper part starts to fall) and Teffect (hammer/upper part hits)!

You wonder why NIST and Bazant cannot show us in their reports a time table for the 33 000 tons upper part and its potential energy first initiating and then producing global collapse. It seems that the upper part is disappearing (sic) at Teffect and a few seconds later before global collapse of the structure below starts. There is no evidence that an impact between upper and lower columns occur! More ... 

While reflecting about this lack of easy to understand photo evidence in the official reports and university papers,

 

8.1 Let's do a Model Test!

The purpose of the model test is to establish the stiffness of the table leg pipes (the columns of the initiation zone) under heat and to see if suddenly, at, e.g. temperature 500° C, the mass above (luckily most water in this test for children) drops down, at a significant speed and with an enormous kinetic energy, and impacts on the cement floor with an enormous dynamic load.

Or does nothing of that sort happen? Maybe the table legs will just bulge. You will find out (the latter)! More ...

 

9.1 Elastic Strain Energy absorbed by primary Structure below and its Compression

It should thus be clear that the only primary structure below our wall cage bars are the wall cage bars and it is very easy to calculate what elastic strain energy they can absorb before plastic deformation and rupture when any of them is compressed above 30% of yield stress.

The total strain energy our wall and core columns and attached spandrels and floors can absorb is evidently the energy required to first strain them to 100% yield - the elastic strain energy - and second to plastically deform, buckle or rip them apart - the buckle or rupture strain energy. In order to rip a column apart, the stresses in the structure must exceed the rupture/break stress of the steel that is much higher than the yield or buckling stress.

This compression is evidently in the elastic range of the 'spring' and takes place when it is completely unloaded!

Another 'expert', K. A. Seffen, in a paper 'Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis' suggests that the potential energy released by the mass above - the upper part - resulted in dynamical "over-loading" of the undamaged lower columns by a factor of 30 (!) compared to their static load capacity at impact and transmits it to the structure - 'spring' - below and shakes it into pieces. How is that possible?

K A Seffen, like Bazant, thus suggests that during gravity driven collapse a tower of height L and uniform density ro consists of three parts, when it has lost aL of its height:

1. A rigid upper part lL that is rigid and intact and perfectly aligned with the columns below all the time during collapse.

2. A moving intermediate block bL between the upper part and a crush front that apparently consist of semi-broken parts and produces a crush front, actually 280+ crush fronts that are perfectly applied to the 280+ columns at every stage of the collapse.

3. A static lower, intact part (1-a-b-l)L below the crush front that produces resistance to motion. It is in fact only the 280+ columns that produces resistance ... if a load is actually applied on them from above.

l is constant during the collapse, which is not observed during the WTC collapses.

Actually the static lower, intact part (1-a-b-l)L below the crush front is complex structure that gets stronger further down as it it supports all structure/mass above. K.A. Seffen completely ignores that the big lower, intact part gets stronger further down and cannot be crushed from above by anything. The lowest bottom part is 100 times stronger than the top part! It appears that K.A. Seffen is a supporter of terrorists! MI5/6 should investigate!

 

Fig. 9.1.1 - Fig. 4 of Seffen's paper. The upper part of height lL with uniform density 0.18 ton/m3 - a bale of cotton - is supposed to be intact above the 'crush-front' throughout the collapse.
What b is, is completely incomprehensible but should be 0 just before impact at t = 0 and then be variable until the collapse is completed at t = t(end), thus b is a function of time t.

How the uniform density ro behaves between t = 0 and t = t(end) is also a mystery. It is evidently assumed constant in the rigid upper part and lower, intact part, but what about density ro of the intermediate block bL?

Apparently the original uniform density ro increases in the bL part according Seffen during collapse - to another uniform density as a function of time - a new phenomenon!

Photos of the WTC collapses show that material, dust and smoke are pushed outwards at high speed of the intermediate block, which is not explained by Seffen. There can not be any uniform density of any type in this area of damaged core columns and falling off walls.

Thus - during collapse according Seffen a rigid upper part lL floats on a mysterious intermediate block bL of broken, compressed material with a uniform (?) density that increases >600% with time that in turn floats on the lower, intact part below a strange crush front. It is quite magic actually and could only have been invented by a blind scientist in an ivory tower to support terrorism. No mention that the columns must be perfectly aligned. The WTC 1 collapse can be seen here! Does anybody see a rigid upper part of height lL driving the collapse?

These are the false assumptions of K.A. Seffen! That (1) the tower has uniform density ro, while it is not uniform at all, (2) the upper part begins to accelerate downwards as a rigid undamaged body with uniform density ro= 0.18 ton/m3, while it is seen to self-destruct, (3) that the initial load imposed onto the structure beneath was exceptionally high, while it was only that of a big bale of cotton, and (4) that the damage, no new damage seen of course in the smoke, was bound (??) to propagate. Alignment of columns is conveniently forgotten.

You wonder what kind of structure bL is? Solid? No! Damaged? Yes! How is the upper part connected and aligned with the undamaged structure below via the mysterious structure bL zone?

As shown in 7.7 the upper part disappears, implodes before it even reaches the floor below to impinge it, and, if it impinged, it should only bounce! But according to Seffen the upper part drives the collapse.

You need kinetic energy, KE, for that and it can only be provided by an intact, rigid, uniform density upper part that remains intact, rigid, with uniform density during the whole destruction of the lower structure. The upper part is the only part that can provide KE during the alleged global collapse. The lower structure does not add any extra KE to the collapse or contribute to the collapse - it is being destroyed (lack of strain energy according NIST).

Fig. 9.1.2

Actually, the upper part, intact, rigid and of uniform density at start of collapse, should according to Seffen's theory also remain INTACT after the global collapse ... on top of all rubble the upper part has produced of the structure below. Nothing could destroy a rigid upper part of uniform density - not even the final impact with the ground forgetting that the rubble is there to dampen the final impact. The lack of the upper part on top of the intermediate block bL rubble after collapse proves Seffen wrong.

That is one reason why there is no figure of final collapse in Fig. 4 (9.1.1) above! It should evidently show the upper part on top of the rubble of the intermediate block bL then resting on ground as in figure left! You can easily calculate the uniform density of that rubble heap!

Anyway - the density of the tower was not uniform! We are not talking about an avalanche, are we?

The only gravity driven collapses known to mankind are snow or soil avalanches (or similar), i.e. an
upper part with uniform density of snow/soil that gets lose on a slope due to the gravity force exceeding the friction between the upper part and ground. In spite of its low uniform density the upper part is pretty stiff during the collapse that starts at an initiation zone in the snow. Then the upper part releases potential energy and pushes a lot of snow in front of it (same density as the upper part) that piles up and compresses in the crush zone (density is increased there but the strain energy is small - snowflakes!) until it runs out of potential energy ... and the upper part is compressed. Evidently lose snow is thrown up in the air, when the crush zone advances down the slope.

Such a snow avalanche has nothing in common with the WTC1 collapse, even if the upper part of WTC1 had a uniform density similar to that of compressed snow (180 kgs/m3) that sticks together - snow crystals interacting. But this is what the authorities and university professors want us to believe. More ...

 

10.1 Elastic Strain Energy of the Mass/primary Structure/Block above

NIST or Bazant or Seffen does not consider the elastic strain energy of the primary structure and attached masses above or the upper part. It is in fact another 'spring'! It consists of a number of solid weights - the floors - connected to columns - each a 'spring'. Such a contraption is evidently not rigid or solid as assumed by NIST, Bazant and Seffen and in the unlikely case that it actually drops down free fall on a structure below, it will only transmit a sequence of energy pulses divided by finite times, each of which cannot overload the structure below. Furthermore, this upper part multiple 'springs' contraption is not very solid. It implodes before it can do any harm! More ...

 

11.1 The Hammer and the Nail

NIST, Bazant and Seffen suggest that the mass above, the upper part, acts as a rigid, solid hammer (and not a spring) that multiple hits and/or stays in contact with the structure below - the nail - even if it is not evident from any pictures above - the upper part disappears before global collapse starts!

It must also be recalled that the upper part hammer is not really a hammer - it is more like a spring or a bale of cotton (!) and you evidently do not use a bale of cotton as a hammer. Or like a child jumping in a bed! And it is not certain that the hammer even hits the nail.

It is more likely that it misses the nail because the mass above is misaligned with the structure below when the connecting columns in the initiation zone allegedly are broken. And who has heard of nail that breaks up in 1000's of pieces when it is hit by a hammer? Normally the nail just bends ... and the hammer hits something else! A thumb? And does the picture right look like a hammer hitting a nail? Or the result of some children jumping on a bed? It is taken a few seconds after the hammer hit!

11.2 The Floors falling down - upper Part not rigid!

NIST has been informed about the above and suggests lamely in its FAQ Update December 2007 that no hammer - upper part - hits a nail! Instead 6 or 11 secondary structure floors hanging on the walls and core columns in the upper part above the initiation zone fell down and caused the global collapse that ensued. The upper part was not rigid after all. All the connecting bolts of the floors above suddenly gave way and overloaded the first floor in the initiation zone as the floors above piled up on it.

But how and why would 6 or 11 floors in the initiation zone and above suddenly drop down? Does anybody believe that? Does the picture right look like some floors falling down?

On the video and pictures above we see that the roof falls before any floors and that the upper part disappears!

Fig. 11.1.1 - WTC 1 7 seconds after collapse initiation. Is the solid, upper part really there?The energy required to create the fountain of debris, dust and smoke exceeds the release of potential energy by a factor of 1000! What you see is ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win Euro 1. 000 000:- (Note - photo is fake!)


In the writer's view the picture above looks as if a bomb has hit the tower with enormous energy, structural joints vaporize and mass murder is committed (but that is beside the topic of this article). And where did the
upper part go? More ...

This means that we can conclude the following:

12. Conclusions

The Twin Towers structure was very simple and its primary structure wall and core columns can be likened to steel bars in a bird cage full of air ... and humans. The compressive stress in the bird cage bars due to mass incl. floor loads is very small (<30% of yield stress). The Towers' structure was very strong!

You can heat up the bars under compression in the cage to, say 500°C, and nothing dramatic happens and particularly not that the bird cage suddenly collapses in 1000's of pieces. The stress in a 500° C heated column may increase to 40% of yield. It will not buckle due to that. As soon as the fire moves away to another area the column cools again. Local deformation may take place. But in this article we assume that the upper part gets detached and suddenly falls down on the bottom part; release of potential energy.

NIST has not produced any "buckled" columns of the initiation zones, be it bent 180° or crumpled up, that would have produced downward motion and release of potential energy. We are talking about 566 columns that must have "buckled" for the effect ... and none is presented as evidence that potential energy was released for that cause. But it is assumed here anyway.

The suggestion that the Tower cages collapsed due to release of potential energy of a rigid upper part at an unknown time Tcause exceeding the total strain energy of the cage structure in the initiation zone and later below after an impact at time Teffect is not demonstrated by NIST, Z P Bazant and Seffen and not supported by any evidence what so ever or any serious structural analysis. Simple calculations show that the potential energy released in such a case would only elastically strain the structure temporarily. The picture above does not show a global collapse due to floors falling down or a hammer hitting a nail ... or a child jumping on a mattress in a bed!

Impossible cause of global collapse according NIST

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

The
upper part and it's mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - is not rigid or solid and immediately breaks up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below as the velocity is too small and should be arrested or just fall straight down outside the building. Live videos, forensic evidence, show furthermore that the mass above - the upper part - actually disintegrates (!) when the wall columns at the initiation zone are still intact. The total energy actually applied to the primary structure below is then very small and the elastic strain energy of the steel structure, i.e. the columns, is sufficient to absorb that energy. No buckling, rupture or global collapse can ever ensue. We are not talking about an avalanche.

Reason why a steel building cannot collapse due to release of potential energy is, in simple terms, that the potential energy will mainly be applied to secondary structure - the floors - that will be overloaded and detached from the primary structure - the columns! The potential energy will then be deflected and will not be applied to the primary structure ... that will remain intact! The collapse is arrested.

That is one reason why there are no figures of final collapse in Fig. 2.1.1 (Bazant) and Fig. 9.2.1 (Seffen) above! It should evidently show the upper part on top of the rubble then resting on ground!

Nothing could destroy a rigid block of uniform density - not even the final impact with the ground forgetting that the rubble is there to dampen the final impact. The lack of the upper part on top of the intermediate block bL rubble after collapse proves Bazant and Seffen wrong.

OK, OK - Bazant has added it later - see left - on a comic style sketch! But still - intermediate block bL rubble after collapse (e) destroys the upper part (f). Magic.

Bazant and Seffen are supporting terrorism.

Right we see another (fake) photo of WTC1/2 a few days after destructions. Smoke is still coming from the rubble. Some bottom parts of walls are still standing to impress people. That's were the towers were standing. But there is very little rubble seen around the remaining walls!

And evidently there are no upper part on top of the intermediate block bL rubble after collapses!

Reason is that the photo right is also fake as all other photos of the rubble! To fool people.

Because FBI, FEMA, NIST and other authorities couldn't show the real rubble (that showed that the towers were destroyed from bottom up resulting in two hugh piles of concrete floors and wall panels ... and no bottom parts of walls).

It is kindly recommended that NIST, Z P Bazant and K A Seffen correct their reports and make an improved timetable, analysis and explanation why global collapse as shown in the forensic evidence actually ensued as the proposed sequences of events and causes do not tally. Do this for the sake of your children. And tell us ... what happened to the upper part!

Anders Björkman, M.Sc. Heiwa Co, Beausoleil, France

A more detailed analysis of same sort is by Mark H Gaffney and recommended for the advanced reader.

Latest article by Anders Björkman - WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest

Read also Anders Björkman about WTC 7

Read latest by Björkman Why a Tower does not collapse by itself!

Fig. 12.1.1 - WTC 1 and 2 a few days after destructions with smoke still escaping. A is WTC2 with south and west bottom part walls still standing. B is WTC1 with north bottom part wall still standing. Very little rubble is seen. (Note - photo is a fake!)

Or just watch this!

Remember: A smaller (weaker) top part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater (stronger) bottom part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater bottom part of the structure producing a fountain of debris. Only Hollywood film animators can produce such impossible crush downs ... on film ... in support of terrorism.

 

Heiwa Co home page