Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001 › Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001
What I calculated concerns only collapse progression ie. progressive collapse, not collapse initiation ie. structural failure.
Collapse progression is the part that Chandler claimed to have proven to be impossible in his “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” (link), which is the reason that demolition theorists so often cite Newton’s laws. The critical part is on page 9 of the link; it’s very simple and the physics is right which is why it has convinced so many people, but there’s only height in the equations, there’s no width or breadth, so it doesn’t apply in the real world. It “proves” that nothing can ever collapse, which is clearly absurd.
The collapses of the Twin Towers clearly proceeded from the aircraft impact zones downward, and that, and Chandler’s paper, are the reasons that demolition theorists have to postulate charges on every storey – a type of demolition never seen in the demolition industry, a massive amount of work and an absolute pig to synchronise and sequence – I’ve done a bit of theatrical pyrotechnics in my time, plus a few gas explosions; purely for entertainment. And if an aircraft had failed to arrive or hit they’d have had a very embarrassing pre-rigged skyscraper to explain.
The NIST reports don’t cover collapse progression; they only go as far as collapse initiation ie. structural failure, and then say that complete destruction was thereby assured, citing Bazǎnt, 2001. But Bazǎnt’s paper is entirely theoretical, and inspection of the wreckage proves that that isn’t the way the Towers collapsed. There’s been loads of hoo-ha over this but it’s entirely irrelevant to anything in the real world because the collapses proceeded by ROOSD (see my comment #52684 above) not Bazǎnt’s theory. My observations and calculations confirm ROOSD. I discovered ROOSD after I’d worked out the same thing myself.
Far more important is that NIST couldn’t make their proposal for structural failure work, and it appears to be wrong. NIST said that heat made the floors sag, pulling in on the perimeter causing the perimeter to buckle, but when they tried it with a full scale model it didn’t work. But you only have to watch the collapse videos to see that it’s wrong, because for WTC1 the antenna starts falling before the top section begins to descend, indicating that the core must have failed first not the perimeter.
My best guess about structural failure is that the buildings had become overloaded in the years since construction, and that’s what the cover-up is about. They were designed before there was any idea that everyone would have a computer on their desk, with a big old-fashioned glass monitor. Remember how heavy computers and monitors were in the 1990s? Plus loads of ancillaries had been installed; escalators between floors, all the massive screens of stock market trading rooms, whole rooms full of racks of what were effectively lorry batteries for uninterruptible power supplies for computer data centres… I reckon the Twin Towers were loaded beyond their design capacity, they were in an illegal state even before the aircraft hit, and that’s part of the reason that the victims’ and families’ compensation was settled out of court.
The Twin Towers were of an experimental design and wouldn’t have been permitted in any state of the US; they only got permission because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had an exemption from New York State building regulations. By 2001 they were loaded way beyond capacity I reckon and were disasters waiting to happen.