|
|
|
2019 most stupid, ignorant, idiotic Americans unfortunately believed, since 2001, that small airplanes, built of aluminium, can slice, at high speeds, undamaged (!), through skyscraper walls of steel columns and floors of concrete, then stop inside and, suddenly, explode in a fireball and that small, weak tops of skyscrapers later can suddenly drop down and transform the complete; big, strong, intact bottom part below into dust (!) by gravity (all started by some Arab terrorists) ... because US political leaders and media said so and showed it live on TV 2001 ... twice. But it was 100% Fake News! Americans do not know that the strongest structural members of a skyscraper to resist a lateral (horizontal) high speed collision with an airplane are the horizontal floors! The floors of the skyscraper slice, like knives, the plane's body into small pieces that cannot do any further damages to vertical supports (internal pillars). The wings of the plane will be detached and bounce against the intact wall columns ... and drop down on ground. The Japanese know it because they build 1 000's of skyscrapers full of people everywhere between Tokyo and Fukuoka and no such skyscrapers will collapse from top down. But the Japanese cannot say so, as it will upset the fools in USA! Americans and Japanese do not understand that 911, 2001, was a silly Amarican/Hollywood example of a hoax of staged events and media deception, a pre-recorded show, when and where nobody died! What was seen live on TV was a simple Hollywood style film with footage using actors to play roles of people running around to allow the US president, vice president, secretary of state, national security council, defence, etc, to scare the Americans, so they could start and lose wars of aggression in many places on Earth! The show and wars are still going on. Actually it started much earlier. The United States has 2019 spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500.000 people since the 9/11 attacks of 2001. So how was the WTC pulverized? What about an advanced energy weapon technology being used destroying cars parked far away? Or were nukes used? Or was it built-in explosives? Fact remains that there are many suggestions what happened and about the cover up than mine presented below. And what about the smoke that has killed 1000's of people since 2001 and kills people today? I just demonstrate that no top of a structure of any kind can destroy the intact bottom of same structure by gravity. It is the Björkman axiome!
11 September 2019 - 18 years of lies The more I read about the US government investigations of the 911 incidents 2001, it seems USA and their allies are trolling people to see just how much they can get away with. There are major anomalies and lots of red flags everywhere. To me it is clear that the complete WTC complex at New York was destroyed by particular US interests using explosives. The story of Arabs hijacking planes and crashing them 911 2001 is ridiculous and unbelievable. No structures like WTC 1&2 collapse from top into dust by gravity. And no structure is destroyed like WTC6 with rubble falling on its roof. I have evidently informed the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, several times at Washington DC, Paris, France (legal attachés at US embassy) and Albuquerque, New Mexico about my findings shown below and provided names of American terrorists involved. The FBI has refused to look into the matter.
FBI has so far, 2019, not been able to arrest any indivuduals, incl. UBL, responsible for the 911 attacks 2001, so no trials have been held! Of course some Arabs (or Pakistanis?) are held by US military at the US Gitmo prision on Cuba but no trials have been held. President Obama ordered the murder of UBL at Pakistan, so FBI has problems to arrest him. President Trump is busy making deals with Kim of North Korea or reinforcing sanctions against Iran and Russia and has forgotten 911. FBI seems to support terrorism and has therefore for the first time ever, 2019, been sued by 9/11 family members and advocates that are taking legal action against the FBI. They aim at forcing the Bureau to assess and report the evidence known to the FBI of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition as well as other unreported 9/11 evidence, etc. The current Director of FBI is Christopher A. Wray, who assumed the role on August 2, 2017, taking over from Acting Director Andrew McCabe after the dismissal of former Director James Comey by President Donald Trump. In the past the Director briefed the President on any issues that arose from within the FBI until the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted following the September 11 attacks. Since then, the Director reports in an additional capacity to the Director of National Intelligence, as the FBI is also part of the United States Intelligence Community. This is one reason why nobody has since 2001 been brought to justice anywhere about the 911 case. The main, alleged Saudi perpetrator, Mr. Bin Laden, was murdered by a US hit man at the order of the POTUS (Obama) and his corps dropped into the Indian ocean! A lot is military secrets. Media presstitutes just report what they are told to report. There is no evidence of anything 911, which is more evidence of Fake News. All persons associated with the 911 cover up since 2001 are therefore in my and Christoper Bollyn opinion simple criminals guilty of complicity in fraud starting with the US Presidents at the top. Fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain and complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages other perpetrators of that crime, and who shared with them intent to act to complete the crime. To fool people with false information about the 911 incidents is a crime. And USA is responsible for this crime and fraud until the real Truth is found. I wonder when it will happen. Only a deranged person believes anything any US government says today.
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. 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 Taleban, 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 Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 It would
appear Prof. Z. Bazant (left)
and others mentioned below suggesting towers
collapse into dust from top and become dust are
COVERED PERSONS to be detained as per
above US law. You wonder why they are still at
large. Is the President or the staff of the Armed
Forces of the United States sleeping?
Again? There was
no investigation of 9/11. Indeed, the White House
resisted any inquiry at all for one year despite
the insistent demands from the 9/11 families. NIST
did not investigate anything. NIST simply
constructed a computer model that was consistent
with the government's story. The 9/11 Commission
simply sat and listened to the government's
explanation and wrote it down. These are not
investigations. 
Warning 1 Media and readers of my web pages about atomic bombs 1945, moon trips 1969, M/S Estonia ferry incident 1994 and 911 tower top down terrorist collapses 2001 (this one) are warned. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance and cannot handle my information without getting mentally disturbed with serious consequences. My proven facts are simple and correct and good news. Atomic bombs do not work. Humans cannot travel to the Moon. M/S Estonia didn't lose her bow visor. Skyscrapers do not collapse into dust from top down (as explained below). All information to the contrary is pseudoscience, propaganda lies or fantasies promoted by media and taught at universities. And if you do not agree with the official lies, you will not be allowed at the university boat race* and other silly events, etc. Your position in society is at risk. If you suffer from cognitive dissonance, you no doubt find my info disturbing and get upset, angry, anxious or worried. What to believe and write? Old lies or real truth? Media incl. newspaper chief editors are kindly requested to get psychological assistance to get rid of their cognitive dissonance. Why not cure yourself? And publish the result as a scoop. *Safety at sea is my business
Have you heard about Trofim Lyssenko? He was the inventor of pseudo science around 1930! Stalin loved him. The WTC towers were never hit by planes 911 as no structure can collapse into dust from top down. The show was invented by Clinton Lyssenko and directed by Hollywood. US authorities and Tex W Lyssenko support them and that is serious. It is very easy to fool people that, e.g. some Arabs with planes destroyed the WTC towers. When criminals like US professors of civil engineering and structural engineers at US NIST/ASCE later support terrorism, I start to get worried. When historic fiction or myths become more truthful than historic facts, it makes you wonder who is directing the manipulations of the masses. Who are promoting all these Lyssenkos of NY skyscrapers disappearing in dust 911 2001? What kind of human beings are creating this shit? And why? Answer! Money! It started 1945 with the a-bomb! It continued with the space race! And it will happen again 2019 onwards!
The perfectly symmetrical and total destructions of three commercial high rise office buildings on 11 September 2001 and the complete WTC 1-7 complex seen on various, fake footage - origin of which must be discussed - can only be explained as controlled demolition of the whole lot, requiring a considerable amount of advance planning, preparation, expertise and access. But it is not described below. Below is what not happened. I am convinced that the POTUS 2001 ordered the falsifications of all 911 investigations of all kind, incl. the structural analysises done by NIST, and that the fakery should be kept secret forever by an Executive order to this effect backed up by laws to prevent any whistle blowers to tell the truth as described below. The complete incidents should of course have been treated as strange accidents to be investigated by the US National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB). It was established in 1967 to conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation. However, NTSB have never investigated how four airplanes could suddenly crash on 911. Instead the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversaw the investigations of the World Trade Center destructions into dust and the Pentagon crash. FEMA was given the sole authority to investigate the incidents despite the fact that it is not an investigative agency and has never investigated an aviation accident. In effect, it functioned to prevent any genuine investigation. Normally FEMA just supports citizens and emergency personnel to build, sustain, and improve the US capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate hazards of all kind. For both the Pentagon and WTC crime scenes FEMA selected a volunteer panel of investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to create reports that bolstered the government's account of the attack. In both cases FEMA controlled the scope and parameters of the investigations and agreed to everything the government suggested. The ASCE reports explaining the structural collapses of three skyscrapers at NY have later been considered nonsense. Not a word about the structures turning into dust on strange footage! Later the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was asked to explain the sudden, structural collapses of the WTC complex. These reports can also be considered nonsense ... or propaganda. I am therefore convinced that the United States and key allies and partners 2017 use disinformation and propaganda to undermine the national security objectives of Sweden, France and other countries that are deemed vulnerable to fake news campaigns.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and was impressed by its shipbuilding technology then. I assistede a little! When shipbuilding declined, Japan started to build hundreds of skyscrapers at Tokyo. It is a very big business 2019. Basically just steel beams being screwed together to solid cages filled with offices and apartments. And all Japanese civil engineers know that none of the Tokyo skyscrapers with a view of mount Fuji above can collapse into dust from top down 911 style and become dust. But the Japanese cannot say so publicly! Reason why they shut up 1945 and are silent 2017 is ... the fake bomb! By the way - it is 2018 the Islamic Republic of Iran that was guilty for 911 2001! Of course within a day of 9/11 Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taleban, Saddam Hussein and Iraq were accused of being guilty without any evidence. Subsequently it became an undisputed “fact” that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the whole thing from a cave in Afghanistan. 912 2001 USA informed its NATO partners that USA had been attacked by a foreign power based in Afghanistan and on 5 October 2001 USA and NATO attacked Afghanistan ... not the Islamic Republic of Iran ... and that war is still on 2019. The US war on terror started. August 2019 there is no end to it. It goes on at Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Mali, etc. Nobody cares. But what about Iran? Fact remains however that only the Islamic Republic of Iran has May 2018 been sentenced to pay more than $10.5 billion because they were found guilty for 9/11... The US court used for “evidence” the wonderful (undisputed) work of the 911-report that determined that the official story could have been true, because the laws of physics were suspended, etc, bla, etc, bla, bla, bla. The 9/11 Commission claimed that some of the reported hijackers had travelled through Iran. Of course according to the official story they also travelled through the US, and the CIA and FBI had advance knowledge of the coming attacks... On 9 March 2016, a US civil court ruled that Iran must pay the victims of 9/11 more than $10.5 billion in fines: The Ashton plaintiffs are awarded a default judgment against Iran in the amount of $7,494,720,000. The Federal Insurance plaintiffs are awarded a default judgment against Iran in the amount of $3,040,998,426.03. The full Fiona Havlish 22 December 2011 verdict by the court shows how the guilt of Iran was established. Fiona Havlish is a victim of USAma Bin Laden (sic!), Al Qaeda/Islamic Army, the Taleban, Muhammad Omar, the Islamic Republic of Iran & Co. Of the 56 pages of Fiona's accusations a relatively large amount is dedicated to explaining that Iran has been supporting terrorism for decades, because they see the USA, not Fiona, as the enemy. The first listed defendant is USAma Bin Laden (sic!)... Following is then a description of some of the shocking “evidence” of the court document. The most important “evidence” appears to be what former Iranian intelligence agent Abolghasem Meshabi had to say. They also used for “evidence” the confessions of the “terrorists” that were tortured into confessing at Guantanamo Bay (and similar locations) - CIA Torture report. There are also some, probably psychic, US expert witnesses that explain that in their “expert” opinion, Iran was behind it all (case closed - $10.5 billion...), including: Daniel L. Byman, Janice L. Kephart, Patrick Clawson, Claire M. Lopez, Bruce D. Tefft, and Ronen Bergman. Nr. 122 – The cunning Iranian border authorities didn’t stamp the passports of the terrorists, because otherwise this group of 19 Muslim extremists would have drawn attention of the US authorities. Nobody was there to defend the accused parties, i.e. the defendants. I doubt Fiona ever contacted them. The same judge that pronounced Iran guilty, George B. Daniels, had on 29 September 2015 ruled that Saudi Arabia can’t be sued because it has sovereign immunity. On 14 March 2016, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Iran won’t pay, because: On 23 May 2013, FBI Agent Daniel A. Mehochko was honoured for his report in which he explained that the events of 9/11: provided an unprecedented opportunity for a strategic rapprochement between the United States and Iran. Iran didn’t even claim that 9/11 was nothing but a false flag … Other terror attacks for which Iran has been found guilty in US courts of law are: The April 1983 “Hezbollah” truck bomb that killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, at the US Embassy in Beirut. The October 1983 “Hezbollah” truck bomb at a US Marines barracks in Beirut, killing 241 US service members. The abduction and torture in Lebanon of US citizens working in Beirut in the 1980s, by “Hezbollah”. The April 1995 and February 1996 murders of 5 US citizens in 2 bombings of Israeli buses, for which Khamenei was found personally responsible. The June 1996 killing of 19 US servicemen by a truck bomb at Khobar Towers, a US military base in Saudi Arabia. It was decided that the attack was “approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran at the time”. The July 1997 “Hamas” bombing of an outdoor market in Jerusalem that killed a US citizen. The Iranian government, its Ministry of Information and Security, and Khamenei were liable. The August 1998 truck bombings that destroyed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 300 and wounding over 5,000. The October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen killed 17 US sailors and Yemen exposed this as a false flag done by the USA. A US court established a $6.1 billion judgment against Iran, but Iran refused to pay. On 25 May 2016, the US court ruled that victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, wouldn´t get (part of) the $2.1 billion that Royal Dutch Shell rightfully owed Iran, but couldn´t pay because of the sanctions. Maybe Shell would rather keep the $2.1 billion…The US District Court in New York decided that Royal Dutch Shell doesn´t conduct a “continuous and systematic” business in the state of New York, so has no jurisdiction. So much for US justice and Iran. Why can't they sort it out in friendly arbitration?
The article is quite long and divided into sections as follows: 0.1 It is very easy to fool people using propaganda If you find any errors just tell me Anders Björkman - anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr and they will be corrected.
All footage of the WTC collapses, shown on TV numerous times, on and on, are fake and simple media fakery propaganda (source) to really brainwash the US sheeple: 1. The 9/11 imagery shown live on TV was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'fire fighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images. If you ask me who directed the movie I suggest James Cameron that made Titanic: "I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger." 2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics. 3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives, while the Hollywood show was broadcasted on TV. The WTC 1&2 towers were then demolished from bottom up. The fast POUFF, POUFF top down collapses shown on TV producing dust and smoke were Hollywood style 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. No structures can collapse into dust as shown! 4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. The buildings were empty! Here are another four examples of the top collapse of the North Tower/WTC1 and what follows provided by NIST. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW18Pj-3gHc (roof drops at start of clip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KVQI_CG8M (roof drops at start of clip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FVslXmIow (roof drops at 1:10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w (roof drops at 5:07) Note the following: 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top 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). 8. All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse inititations - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur). 9. 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 of structures turning into dust are fake! They are made in Hollywood! But by whom? "9/11 was a psyop (psychological operation) - a military operation of deception and denial. This operation was a total, complete event conceived years in advance and designed to be managed over generations." 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. They were paid (!) for it. Just ask them who paid them and ... FBI can arrest the conspirators! 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 poor Arabs. Note that the plane (#175) has different collision speeds in different videos! Propaganda is ideas or statements that are fake 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 Japanese 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 itself. One fake event after another and people believe the events really happened just because media make sensations out of them.
0.2 The US war on terror USA is 2017 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 Taleban soldier. That means it will cost $1 billion to kill 20 Taleban fighters. Of course that cost is included in the cost of keeping US soldiers in Afghanistan. Plenty of that money ends up in the Afghan president's pockets. The US war in Afghanistan was finally lost 2014. But few realize it. So it goes on and on. Hillary and Donald cannot do much about it. 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 smoke and dust 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.
The structural damages to the WTC 2 south wall (above) were also minimal. The plane - seen live on TV! - was apparently tilted 40° when colliding with the building and then its body was sliced into pieces by six strong horizontal floors #79-84 of steel/concrete acting like knives before the wings contacted the walls. About 20 steel wall columns were apparently affected by the wings ... but as the body was already destroyed, the wings with the fuel should just bounce off and drop down on the ground. No fireball! The plane could therefore not just disappear (!) into a hole of the building at 9.03 hrs as seen on live footage and then produce a fireball. The above picture downloaded from Internet is fakery like all live footage produced by the conspirators. Anyway, the structural damages proposed were too small and the redundancy provided by the intact structure was enormous, so the building could never collapse into dust, which it suddenly did at 9.59 hrs. It seems the fire had already died out on above, fake photo. So NIST had to produce a fake damage, structural analysis of the event. I describe it below.
However, the fact is that a tower (a steel structure, A) cannot collapse into dust 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. Björkman's famous axiom
regarding any structure says: 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
into dust 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
rubble B! The basic
errors with these suggestions are simply that no
small top part C can ever destroy anything below it
that carried it before.
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 conspirators - 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 conspirators 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)) 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 the towers were 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. 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. 1. 1 The explanation - major problems - no evidence of (1) buckled columns, (2) free fall, (3) impact, (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: There
is no mention of the local
forces that develop at contact and
that will destroy the structures
locally that will absorb energy and
that will arrest further destruction,
or whether
upper
part
C
can apply sufficient energy on A
without destroying itself. Terrorists
are simple people with stupid
explanations. 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 suggests 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?   
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 conspirators 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.
1.1.2 Fake assumptions The NIST explanation makes several assumptions that are easily shown to be unsupported (no evidence) or fake or very strange, typical conspirator behaviour:
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! "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! 
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 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!
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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!)
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 fake 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 4: The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part C onto the lower part applies enormous (!) vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity (!), 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 (!) 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 (!) by an even larger (!) mass falling with a greater (!) velocity and the series of impacts (!) 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 building) 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 conspirators. 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 Steel core
columns 0
900 tons Steel floor
trusses 3 000 tons Concrete
floors 23 000 tons Windows and
misc. 4 600 tons Total 33 000
tons 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.
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. The potential energy is absorbed as elastic and plastic compression/deformation. 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 (!) 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 ...
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?
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 cannot 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 fake 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). 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? 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 ...
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!
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! "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." 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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
