any engineers have a problem with the way the twin towers fell in 911?

Question

Just wondering..I've come across some pretty convincing evidence on certain websites... http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/

any experts on here?

Answer 1

Excellent question, thank you for asking.

As engineers, for one, I believe we have not been vocal enough on this issue, allowing a few reports that nobody but engineers can read, and remaining very silent on the "what really happened" websites like 911truth and others.

What I would LOVE to see, is the construction documents for the world trade center released. 911 truth.org claims to have them, but they only have the architectural documents, and even those don't have any dimensions on them, which makes me wonder where the real documents are. An Architectural plan would show stair wells, dimensions of walls, locations relative to other objects, fire alarms, a ton of coded notes indicating where equipment like water coolers, bathrooms, fixtures, sinks, mop sinks for janitorial, floor openings for mechanical, all kinds of other things. 911 truth thinks they have something fantastic and they've got essentially nothing, from which they draw a lot of from what I can read, wrong conclusions.

Now, that said, there isn't much controversy among the structural engineering community and it isn't vocal because even if some engineer somewhere believed it was wrong, he wouldn't be talking about it, and most engineers don't even care about WTC, and that's a rather sad truth, as this is a great chance for engineering to step to the fore and show how the scientific process occurs and what is involved in deciding what really happened. We don't have any standing building to point at and say what failed, we only have what we've been told (which we believe to be true since it makes physical sense to us), and the evidence that was retained by the NIST group.

There is one respondent that is giving you false information here - there were center supports in the towers, you can see these columns even on the 911 truth 'architectural documents' (I secretely think these are an attempt to make them, not the real thing, because so many things seem to be missing from the floor plans, at any rate, architectural documents are useless to structural engineers to comment on how well constructed a building is, that just shows the pretty gypsum sheetrock walls anyway, we need drawings with beam sizes, joist sizes, details of how the joists were attached to the wall beam, how the wall beam was connected to the outside columns. And we don't have that.

I know one of the favorite items is the 'white jet' theory. This jet appears in multiple photos and was (to me) explained in a 20/20 news report - there was a jet scrambled from airspace south of the new york area that arrived around the time just before the wtc2 fell (south tower), this was the cause of the 'third jet' rumor in New York, because air traffic controlers don't know about military jets because military jets don't talk to them, usually they just fly fast and high over the airspace. (I learned this recently, as I work as a contractor for the FAA). The white jet is a known aircraft, piloted by the guy on that show, directed to NYC by Norad. So there goes that part of the conspiracy.

Item two - controled demolition theory and steel buildings don't collapse - just because the building fell straight down in low winds doesn't mean controled demolition took place. The NIST report does say that the airplane fuel was only 10% delivered to the buildings, with the remainder consumed in the fireballs outside the building. NIST report says the building came down due to normal fire (remember there were about 10 floors on fire, and most of these were paper-heavy businesses in finance, real estate, etc, in addition to everything else flammable in the building - carpets, desks, chairs, coats, everything). The impact of the explosion blew the floors off their supports for one, due to the pressure produced by the explosion, and the impact also damaged the fireproofing and knocked down ceilings throughoug the building (102 minutes). The water mains were severed and the sprinkler systems failed. We have survivor reports on that and I can't imagine why they would lie.

I encourage you to read the excellent, not too technical book 102 minutes, by a new york times columnist, as well as taking a look at the NIST report others refer to.

The entire weight of the building WAS NOT entirely supported by the exterior walls, even NOVA got that right.

"They had no enter supports holding the floors up."

See the NOVA, or NIST reports. Structural columns in the 'core area' are present even on 911 truth. In face, there were both structural columns in the core of the building, and what is called a hat truss on the roof, both of these helped to temporarily redistribute the loads that the severed columns on the building face were taking.

"The steel got so hot, it was weakened to the point that it could no longer bear the load of the floors."

True, steel looses load carrying ability around 1,000 F and about 1,500 F has little load carrying ability at all.

"U.S Steel says that they have a steel that would have taken this high tempratues and the buildings would have stood. This is a pure case of learning from past history, and mistakes. "

I would be shocked if this were true, it would take metallurgical changes.

WTC was destroyed by fire, due to severed water mains, no firefighters due to elevators jamming from the plane impact, no water from reserve tanks higher up (pipes probably burst from plane impact), and damaged fire proofing. Sad, simple, and true.

But there isn't much controversy in the engineering community on this one. My boss at the time knew they would fall as soon as the plane was hit. it was too high up for firefighters to get to it.

Note: I just looked at janedoe911 - this is the 'directed energy weapon' theory. This is the conspiracy theory even most of the conspiracy theory folks think is nuts. Take a look at wikipedia '911 conspiracy theories' for some treatment of that.

As engineers, unfortunately, there is a tendency to dismiss what someone says as 'you don't know what you're talking about' instead of trying to teach, and I think this is a mistake. As engineers, we have a responsibility, and as public servants, to encounter a sceptical public (or managers, think of the challenger 'don't launch' arguement) and try to communicate in language that others can understand, why we think what we think.

I find the NIST report credible, my problem is that I don't know how to make a rough calculation of a blast over pressure, so 2 psi could be ridiculous and I wouldn't know, but I understand fire and steel and fireproofing, and I accept that the plane's impact cause a vast amount of damage. I don't need a directed energy weapon to have destroyed the WTC because in my professional estimation, fire would have been enough, if it were hot enough, and burned long enough, and enough holes were punched in the outside of the building.

Answer 2

I do have a problem with people who profess to be experts, but actually have a political agenda. As already stated, these "studies" are all deliberately misleading with the intent to raise suspicion that the US government did this to it's own people. It's called "propoganda" and is a weapon of war.

and no, as an engineer and also as a rational thinker, I would find it harder to believe that anyone could organize a secret society of hundreds of people to pull off a controlled demolition without anyone else (including all the firemen, police, and building occupants) ever noticing all these explosive devices that must have been right underneath their desks, not even considering the miles of cable that would be needed to connect all the bombs together to coordinate the explosions.

As one example of the misleading "facts", they are quick to claim that jet fuel could not melt steel. Who says you have to melt it? It merely has to get hot enough to weaken, which is well within the understanding of engineering.

Answer 3

The collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 has been fully investigated and reported on. The discovery channel has run several programs that interviewed the structural engineers involved in the investigation and has presented all of their results including sketches and simulations of exactly how the collapse ocurred, step by step, to everyones satisfaction except for those persons who are always coming up with weird and impossible theories that only serve to feed their own neurosis and feelings of self importance.

Try some of these websites, and stay away from the nutjobs who all have their own agendas.

Sources: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (July 22, 2004); National Institute of Standards and Technology, Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (September 2005), September 11 News (Web site); World Trade Center Facts (Web site)

Answer 4

I'm a civil engineer and the thing I have a problem with is people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by launching all kinds of bogus conspiracy theories. The majority of these people have NO backgrounds in engineering or anything else.

Answer 5

The twin towers fell as a result of high temperatures placed on the steel, from the burning jet fuel. All the load of the buildings was placed on the outside walls. They had no enter supports holding the floors up. The steel got so hot, it was weakened to the point that it could no longer bear the load of the floors. U.S Steel says that they have a steel that would have taken this high tempratues and the buildings would have stood. This is a pure case of learning from past history, and mistakes.

Answer 6

I tried to look at the site and it keeps crashing. If the "evidence" is as flimsy as the web site, here is what I can tell you.

9/11 was the result of several al-Qaeda operatives flying planes in the twin towers. There was no inside job (by the CIA, FBI, NSA, aliens form Area 51, whatever), no controlled demolition; the "convincing evidences" that you saw are the bogus info, hacked by non experts who don't have any idea what they are talking about, or altered by people with their own agenda.

Stop reading such crap. Please.

Answer 7

I can count on one hand how many Engineers that are part of this lunatic conspiracy theory. The VAST majority of the engineering/scientific community accept what they have seen, and can explain it.

Like Rosie says, steel can't be melted by fire, right?

Answer 8

No.

The "professional" contradictions to the official explanation do not appear in any scientific venues which can be reviewed and verified or disputed by their peers. Only on ob-blogs, biased websites and fictional "documentaries."
Do not allow yourself to be sucked in by these self-proclaimed "experts."

Answer 9

Nope. I do have a problem with the way #7 fell, though. Looks too much like a controlled demolition.

Answer 10

If someone can't spend the 10 dollars to buy a real domain name why should anyone trust what they say?