A Great, Must-Read But Loooooong and Very Detailed Analysis of the Collapse of WTC I

I think this guy has figured it out!

Source.

THIS PAPER IS NOT COPYRIGHTED

WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS

By Wayne Trumpman
9 September 2005
Version:0.4

 

This paper analyzes the first moments of the WTC 1 collapse on 9-11. Phenomena are documented that is impossible to explain by a natural gravity collapse and point to the use of high explosives. Discussion focuses on the top 13 floors, 110-98, and the collapse of floors 97, 96, 95, and 94. Features of the fires,the behavior of collapse, and the produced clouds are looked at in detail. It would be helpful for you to review the NIST final report before continuing since this paper assumes you have some knowledge of the WTC1 collapse. You can find this on the Internet for free. See the References section at the end of this paper for internet links.

 

INTRO

WHAT HAS BEEN RULED OUT

Although a widely promoted theory in the Mainstream Media, airplane impact and jet fuel fireball did not cause the WTC 1 to collapse. They have been attributed to SOME dislodging of fireproofing on SOME columns, and SOME damage to the building structure, but that is as far the government or any body of repute will venture to assert. This leaves only the possibility for collapse being either random office fires or some other cause.

 

FIRE ANALYSIS

FIRE DATA

Below is a compilation of fire statistics. Raw data came from picture charts in a 2005 NIST report. The limited photographs I had access to appear to corroborate the data. I want to point out that in the original report data there are errors such as contradictions between the composite fire charts (of all time periods) and individual time period charts. Where there was a contradiction I relied on the individual time period chart.

FIRE COVERAGE

Floors 98-94 By Window
Composite of All Time Periods, By Building Side,By Floor
Building Side Area: 58 * 5 = 290 windows
Building Total Area:290 * 4 = 1160 windows

EAST
Floor	Total Burned	Not Burned	Burned Out	Burning at Collapse
98	57	1	7	50
97	50	8	39	11
96	57	1	57	0
95	21	37	21	0
94	48	10	45	3
Totals	233	57	169	64
Percent	80%	20	58	22
NORTH
Floor	Total Burned	Not Burned	Burned Out	Burning at Collapse
98	52	6	49	3
97	37	21	37	0
96	41	17	34	7
95	22	36	10	12
94	34	24	31	3
Totals	186	104	161	25
Percent	64%	36	55	9
SOUTH
Floor	Total Burned	Not Burned	Burned Out	Burning at Collapse
98	58	0	34	24
97	58	0	40	18
96	52	6	29	23
95	29	29	24	5
94	15	43	7	8
Totals	212	78	134	78
Percent	73%	27	46	27
WEST
Floor	Total Burned	Not Burned	Burned Out	Burning at Collapse
98	58	0	19	39
97	58	0	58	0
96	44	14	44	0
95	52	6	12	40
94	54	4	27	27
Totals	266	24	160	106
Percent	92%	8	55	37
Grand Totals	897	263	624	273
Percent	77%	23	53	24

FIRE COVERAGE
Floors 98-94 By Window
By Floor, ByBuilding Side, By Time Period
Numbers signify fires burning during time period

Time Periods:
A - 8:47 am to 9:02 am
B - 9:04 am to 9:18 am
C -9:20 am to 9:34 am
D - 9:36 am to 9:58 am
E - 10:00 am to 10:18 am
F- 10:20 am to 10:28 am

Floor Area One Side: 58 windows
Floor Area Total: 58 * 4 = 232 windows

FLOOR 98
	A	B	C	D	E	F
East	21	12	10	28	33	50
North	0	0	5	40	16	3
South	0	0	16	30	37	24
West	0	0	0	47	58	39
Total	21	12	31	145	144	116
Percent	9%	5	13	63	62	50
FLOOR 97
	A	B	C	D	E	F
East	21	12	10	13	14	11
North	28	26	4	0	0	0
South	2	12	27	26	25	18
West	30	58	32	47	0	0
Total	81	108	73	86	39	29
Percent	35%	47	31	37	17	13
FLOOR 96
	A	B	C	D	E	F
East	0	27	26	18	29	7
North	14	12	11	17	7	7
South	24	26	27	28	17	23
West	0	6	19	27	2	0
Total	38	71	83	90	55	37
Percent	16%	31	36	39	24	16
FLOOR 95
	A	B	C	D	E	F
East	4	2	6	14	0	0
North	10	0	0	0	6	12
South	2	11	19	22	2	5
West	0	0	0	0	45	40
Total	16	13	25	36	53	57
Percent	7%	6	11	16	23	25
FLOOR 94
	A	B	C	D	E	F
East	22	18	30	26	3	3
North	5	13	26	18	5	3
South	0	0	1	3	0	8
West	0	0	0	29	26	27
Total	27	31	57	76	34	41
Percent	12%	13	25	33	15	18
Totals	183	235	269	433	325	280
Percent	16%	20	23	37	28	24

The government fire data only represents fires that were visible through the windows. However, since random office fires are "random", it would be acceptable to infer that interior fires unseen, if they existed,were similar. Most of the oxygen available to fires was at the building perimeter. When the collapse occurred the air volume from the floors were all smoky. Any interior fires that were able to thrive in these fire unfriendly conditions would not outperform fires that were seen. With this reasoning the paper treats 2-dimensional fire data as representative of 3-dimensional fires. To understand the logic, imagine a fictional WTC 1 with all its windows on the front face. All 232 windows of a floor would be on one building side. This fictional building would be very wide to accommodate the windows. The depth of this building will have to be shallow in order to make the building the same volume as the original WTC 1. Because of the rearrangement of windows, each window now conveniently represents an equal size building area. So when a fire is seen in a window,this repesents the volume of 1/232 of a floor. This is howthe 2-Ddata is turned into 3-D data. Because it is probable that the interior of the building had less fires than the perimeter, the resultsof going from 2-D to 3-D creates a bias where more fire is represented than what existed in reality. This paper accepts this bias as its intention is to keep analysis on the conservative side.

So what does the data show? When tracing behavior of fire over time,I estimate there were over 30 fire groups. These were made up of one or more individual fires, or were sections of a larger fire. Fires were dynamic- they started, moved around, and burned out. Fires wormed their way throughout the building looking for fuel (office materials). Fires did not stay in one place longerthan about 45 minues, and typically did not stay in one placelonger than 30-45 minutes. No fires on a single floor ever covered more than 63% of the floor at any one time, and on average only covered 25% of a floor. The south side area of the building (floors 98-94), where collapse initiated, had the second smallest burn area, 73%. At collapse only 27% of the south side area was burning. Fires peaked during the time period 9:36 to 9:58 a.m., when fires covered a maximum of 37% of the building area (floors 98-94, all building sides), then diminished until the collapse at 10:28 a.m. Only 24% of the building area was on fire when collapse occurred.

Floor 97, the floor where collapse initiated, had no more than 47%of its area on fire at any one time. It only had 13% of its area on fire at thetime of collapse. 13% of the floor never had fire. The other 74% was burned out. Fires on floor 97 did not burn longer than about 45 minutes.

What the data shows is that it is very unlikely that fires caused floor 97 to collapse. But it was the first floor to collapse. The 30 or so firegroups were not as widespread as thought, they were not singularly large, they did not burn consistently, equally, or long enough, or hot enough. Fires had to be able to do all these things and more in order to cause a near simultaneous symmetrical collapse. Otherwise the collapse would not occur, or not be simultaneous, or be asymmetrical at best. In addition, Underwriter Laboratories (UL)ran tests on the WTC steel and concluded columns could have easily withstood 45-minutefires (this is an industry standard minimum fire-rating time). None of the fires lasted longer than about 45 minutes.

I want to point out that the government fails to do this basicanalysis eventhough it created the data. This fire data establishes: 1) where fires burned;2) for how long; and 3) the temperature (color of flames and smoke). It is irrefutable picture data. But the government chooses to establish extent of fire based on hypothetical models and speculation. Comments about its "modeling" will be made later in this paper, but let me give an example of the speculation used. In its final report the government asserts multiple times that fires weakened and "bowed" columns. On page 148, "The south perimeter wall was first observed to have bowed inward at 10:23 a.m. [5 minutes before collapse] The bowing appeared over nearly the entire south face of the 94th to100th floors. The maximum  bowing was 55 in.[1.4 m] on the 97th floor." Take a look at the picture onpage 33 of the final report. This the government's best evidence. Can you corroborate the government's findings about "bowing"? Of the 59 columns of thesouth face, one can only see about 16 columns that appear to be "bowed". And this "bowing" phenomenon is only seen on 3, maybe 4 floors (98-95), not the 7 floors asserted. The government's overstatements amount to 800% reality. Why? In addition,it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns. In these pictures and others there are places where the aluminum facade has been removed exposing the steel columns underneath. The exposed steel columns are ALL straight. If exposed steel columns were straight, how can it be asserted that deformed aluminum facade is an irrefutable indicator of bent columns? This is nonscientific. In addition, if columns were bent as much as 1.4 meters spanning 7 floors and across an entire building face, where is the evidence of structural fatigue and failure caused by the 40,000+ tons of building above? How can load bearing columns bend significantly but horizontal floors maintain their position and rigidity during thesame fire? In addition, the fires that burned in the "bowing" area were all young, less than 6-25 minutes old. Can random office fires less than 25 minutes old be able to make floors systems sag and bend steel columns with intact fireproofing? Science says no way. For one of the largest public safety events in history, this type of substandard research by the government is a mistake. The Americanpeople deserve better than this.

It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons. This figure is inferred from a 2002 FEMA report and corroborated by data about other hi-rise buildings built around the 1970s such as the Sears tower and the Hancock building. I want to point out that the government's providing of basic architectural informationabout the WTC has been piece-meal at best. NIST mentions in a 2005 presentation that the WTC 1 had 100,000 tons of steel. In a 2004 presentation NIST asserts that the 47 core columns had a factor of safety of about 2.25. The 236 perimeter columns had a factor of safety of about 5.0 (it has been asserted that the higherfactor of safety for the perimeter columns was to handle wind loads). It has been asserted that the core columns, the main load bearing columns, carried 60% of the building load, and the perimeter columns supported 40% of the building load. This was a big building, like a rock in Lower Manhattan for 30 years.

COLUMN STATISTICS
Type	Column Count	Factor of Safety	Load Bearing
Core	47	2.25	60%
Perimeter	236	5.0	40%

The factor of safety is based upon the dead load (building materials) of the building and the intended live load (people, office furniture, and similar). The dead load of a floor was 1,818 tons. The floor area was rated 40-150 psf (1.9-7.18 kPa), dependingon what the area was going to be used for. Higher load ratings generally were for areas that would support larger than normal loads such as mechanical equipment. Below are floor load estimates based on a review of WTC data contained in a 2005 NIST report. This report contained select scanned images of original WTC specification documents. Because of contradictions in the NIST final report this paper relied on the original WTC specification documents. Data was incomplete so inferences had to be made. The load rating for columns in the perimeter area was 50 psf. The load rating for the core area was up to 100 psf. This comesout tobe an estimated 75 psf average for an office floor. The load ratings for floors 110-94 average out to be about82 psf (3.9 kPa) per floor. On average, a floor's design live load was 1,488 tons. The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306 tons. Add the factor of safety and the building structure could handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing. To visualize, imagine 5,500 2-ton cars stacked in a square about 1/3 of a cityblock.

FLOOR LIVE LOAD RATINGS
Floor	Rating
110	75 psf
109	150
108	75
107	100
106	100
105	75
104	75
103	75
102	75
101	75
100	75
99	75
98	75
97	75
96	75
95	75
94	75

CALCULATION:
200000 / 110 = 1818 tons = 1818000 kg
CALCULATION:
200* 200 = 40000
40000 * 82 = 3280000 lbs = 1487783 kg = 1488 tons
CALCULATION:
1818+ 1488 = 3306 tons
CALCULATION:
60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 +200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35

The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. Thecore columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80%of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way. Add the fact that the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority ofthe columns still had fireproofing. Add the fact that fires burned atmost about 45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse nofires existed on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face,and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire.

In fire, the behavior of steel is as follows. It heats up. It weakens. It fatigues. It fatigues more. Failure is gradual. Steel does not go from undetectable, immeasurable fatigue to catastrophic failure like a flick of a light switch. This is corroborated by documented fires of other hi-rise buildings throughout history and by lab tests with steel, including the tests the government has done for  its "modeling". Do you have a piece of steel rod and a welding torch? You can try this experiment (please exercise safety). Warm up the steel hot with the torch. Note how stiff the steel is. Now heat it up so it glows orange hot in the middle- put over 2000 C on it. Note how stiff the steel is- it bends. Now let the steel cool so it is only hot again. Note how long it takes to recover from being orange hot. Did it take 30 seconds or less? Now note how stiff the steel is. Feels the same as it was at the beginning of the experiment,does it not? This is very similar to what was happening to steel columns in WTC 1 as the fires burned then burned out.

It is a well known fact that steel  is an excellent conductor material. The WTC 1 had a 100,000 ton steel frame. This was like a giant heat sink. When fires heated up steel columns, heat got drawn away from the heat source by the cooler parts of the building frame. A portion of the fire heat is not going to stay local. Add the fact that on average fires did not cover more than 25% ofany one floor. Add the fact that fires lasted at most about 45 minutes and one can seehowsteel members as part of a giant 100,000 ton heat sink were not heating up like the isolated steel pieces in laboratory tests as part of the government's"modeling". What this shows is that the steel in the WTC 1 easily withstood the 45 minute fires as the effective damage by fire was of a shorter duration.

The government has asserted weakening by fire is a primary cause of collapse. From its "modeling" the government concludes fires MAY have heated columns 500-600 C and made them weaken and bow. But NIST commissioned UnderwriterLaboratories (UL) to conduct tests on the recovered physical WTC steeland UL found that most columns did not reach 250 C. This corroborates that the building was acting as a giant heat sink, or that fires did not reach 500-600 C temperatures. The government has repeatedly asserted since 2002 that the recovered steel adequately represents the two towers. The government contradicts itself. It is unable to explain why its hypothetical modeling is superior to physical data. The government goes so far as to avoid discussion of this data in its final report and most of its public presentations. It is quite unscientific to ignore irrefutable data that contradicts the theory you are trying to peddle.

However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever. The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL theirfire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when they were at their weakest state. After the fires burned out, the columns cooled. When heated steel cools, it regains strength. There is nothing "magic" going on here. Since columns had a factor of safety of at least 2.25 this means that column strength during cooling was above 100% of the building load. Those columns had reserve capacity. 87% of the columns on floor 97 were either untouched by fire or were cooling when the collapse occurred. So how could all these columns fail symmetrically and simultaneously by fire? Science says no way.

If a column's strength fell below 100% of the building load then it would have started to fail. It is averaged that 80% of the perimeter columns had to fail in order for what is documented to be caused by a natural gravity collapse. In the picture data, do you see 189 bent perimeter columns at floor 97? No. Can you observe changes to the building structure from all this failing such as widespread misalignment of floors? No.

In summary, fire could not have weakened the necessary number of columns to failure to create what has been documented. This refutes a natural gravity collapse theory. The government has been unable to reconcile the irrefutable data.

 

COLLAPSE ANALYSIS

Below is a summary of the WTC 1 collapse sequence by time instance. Keep in mind that each instant during the collapse occurred for only afraction of a second. It would be helpful for you to review available videos of the WTC1 before continuing as it will allow you visualize the descriptions in this paper. You can find these on the Internet for free. See the References section at theend of this paper for internet links.

COLLAPSE SEQUENCE

Building is motionless with smoky fires.

Collapse sequence begins.

Tower antenna moves slightly east and south.

First Row of explosions at floor 97 is seen.

Upper building above floor 97 moves downward, Second row of a dual set of explosions at Floor 97 are seen.

Upper building moves downward, clouds expanding.

Floor 98 impacts floor 97, clouds expanding.

More explosions, upper building moves downward in unison, cloudsexpanding.

Floor 97 impacts floor 96, expulsion of clouds, clouds expanding.

Floor 96 impacts floor 95, expulsion of clouds, clouds expanding.

Collapse continues...

Below are select observations from video of the WTC 1 collapse.

OBSERVATIONS

Individual floors collapsed in a demolition-like manner. All columns collapsed in near-unison and all four corners of the building fell in near-unison.

There was no detectable fatiguing or bending of perimeter columns prior to collapse. What one sees is a motionless building rigidly retaining its shape, then suddenly goes into catastrophic, out-of-control collapse. There is no in-between state that would be typical of steel in fire.

The building's first point of collapse appears to be from the south side of the building.

Columns on floor 97 did not bend prior to the observed explosions.

Only floor 97 collapsed in the first moments.

Floor 97 has dual rows of explosions around its perimeter at the top and bottom of its columns.

When the upper building impacted and collapsed lower floors,upper building floors did not buckle.

There was no significant pause in collapse when the upper floors impacted floor 97, then floor 96.

I want to point out that if you analyze the collapse videos, it is going to take more than a cursory look to confirm some of the findings, such as the dual rows of explosions. I also want to note that in this paper I make a distinction between a collapsing and a falling floor. A collapsing floor refers to a floor's columns failing and the impact of upper floors. The floor above that is causing the collapse would be considered a falling floor. Example, floor 97 was the first floor to collapse. But floor 98 fell to create the observed collapse. The WTC1 collapse had two parts: 1) a falling part; 2) a collapsing part. Keep this in mind and you will not become confused by the discussion which will sometimes refer to floor 97 or floor 98 when talking about the samesection of thecollapse.

FALL MEASUREMENTS

It is estimated that each floor of WTC 1 was 3.8 meters high. For floor 98 todrop to floor 97 would have taken at least 0.88 seconds in the bestcase scenario- this is free fall in a vacuum. For comparison, it would have taken 9.2 seconds for 110 floors to fall in a vacuum. Below are the best-case fall times for floors 98 through 95.

FREE FALL SPEED OF FLOORS
Floor 98	with Floor 97	with Floor 96	with Floor 95
0.88 sec	1.25	1.53	1.76

CALCULATION:
distance = (1/2) * gravity * time^2
time = SQR(distance/ 0.5 * gravity)
time = SQR(3.8 / 4.9) = SQR(0.776) = 0.88 sec
time =SQR(7.6 / 4.9) = SQR(1.55) = 1.25
time = SQR(11.4 / 4.9) = SQR(2.33) = 1.53
time= SQR(15.2 / 4.9) = SQR(3.1) = 1.76

Below are measured fall times for the same floors taken from video. I took 12 good readings then discarded the lowest and highest value, and averaged. I simply used tape, pencils, a stopwatch, and my eyes. I placed narrow strips of tape on the monitors creen along the vertical edges of the building in the videos. I then marked the floor locations on the tape. I then replayed the collapse repeatedly, taking notes and measurements. The government has also done low-tech analysis of pictures to get data. Anybody can do this and it is credible.

MEASURED FALL TIMES OF FLOORS
Floor 98	with Floor 97	with Floor 96	with Floor 95	Video Used
0.85 sec	1.33	1.71	1.91	wtc1-demolition-2.avi
0.86 sec	1.31	1.68	1.99	wtc1-demolition-4.avi
Averaged
0.86 sec	1.32	1.70	1.95

The upper 13 floors took about 0.86 sec to reach floor 97 and 1.32 sec to reach floor 96. What these times show is that the WTC 1 collapse resembled the behavior of free fall the first few floors. If the times are reasonably accurate, it shows that the building was "pulled down" in its first moments of collapse. This faster than free fall slowed once the upper floors met resistance with the lowerstructure.

Because of the behavior of steel as its weakens over time by fire, a slow-motion progressive fatigue of floor 97 should have occurred. Here is an experiment you can do. Take two books the same size and stand them on their ends. Take a third book and lay it flat across the two standing books. These represent two columns and a floor. Now slowly push against the books until they go into collapse. Did you notice how the collapse started out slow then accelerated? This stage of fatigue before failure is missing from the WTC 1 collapse at floor97. Now take two of the books, stand one vertical, and balance the other across the top to make a 'T'. This is a floor and column. Now quickly, remove the vertical book. Did you notice how quickly the top book fell? That is what floor 98 did on 9-11.

There is no video data showing a fatigue period of the columns. Steel does not simply snap and buckle suddenly in a fire. Here is an experiment you can dowith a steel rod and a torch (please exercise safety). Hold the rod in one hand vertical and press down on it- this is a WTC column. Now take the torch and heat the rod simulating fire. What happens? Did you observe a snap-of-the-fingers "pancake" failure? No. How then does one explain the hundreds of steel columns in WTC 1 doing it? If you think it can be explained by the large weight of the upper floors, think again. Increased weight merely causes steel to fatigue sooner when weakened by fire- but the steel would still have a distinct period of progressive fatigue before failure.

Here is a riddle for you. I have a building with 110 floors. Columns have a factor of safety of at least 2.25. For some reason floor 97 collapses, at which time floor 98 and the other upper floors impact floor 97 with enough force tomake floor 96 collapse. This collapsing behavior continues to the next floors. It is known that each one of the lower floors can handle more building load than any of the upper floors. Why did floor 98 not buckle when it impacted lower floors?

I just pointed out a problem. When two objects of different strengths smash, science says the weaker object will yield. Floor 98 did not buckle whenit hit the lower structure for at least 8 floors. To overwhelm these lower floors requires the mass of the upper building section. So when floor 98 allegedly hit these lower floors to apply the energy of that falling mass why did the columns of floor 98 not absorb some of the impact?

There is another problem. The WTC 1 collapsed "pancake" style at floor 97 but the columns had varying load capacities. The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. There is a large variance of load capacities between columns, over 30% difference. How could columns with such differing load capacities fail at the same time by random office fires? Science says no way.

There is another problem. The first point of collapse was the south side of the building. The government has made this admission. As will be shown later in this paper, the lower floors did not provide much resistance to the collapse. What this means is that there was no significant counterforce to stop a circular momentum. So why did the 40,000+ ton upper building not continue to topple over in the south direction during the WTC 1 collapse?

A "truss theory" promoted by the Mainstream Media attempts to explain awaysome of these impossibilities. The theory basically says that fire made floors sag and this caused inward pulling of columns and made them buckle easily. Fire also caused weak bolts to break and this initiated the collapse. Besides this theory ignoring certain facts about the WTC towers and its general lack of evidence, there is also a problem with its logic. If weak bolts broke to cause the collapse, how is it that these same weak bolts were strong enough to pull on the hundreds of massive steel columns and make them bow? How can weak bolts withstand fire, but entire floor systems droop and sag? How can weak bolts during fire be strong and weak at the same time?

In summary, the WTC 1 did not collapse as science predicts it should have. This refutes a natural gravity collapse theory. The government has been unable to reconcile the irrefutable data.

 

CLOUD ANALYSIS

Below are selected observations from video of the WTC 1 collapse.

OBSERVATIONS

Five main types of clouds are seen: 1) dark grey sooty firesmoke; 2) grey fire smoke; 3) light grey, dirty concrete dust; 4) whitegrey dust; 5) pulverized debris (mixture of building/office materials).

At floor 97 there are two chains of fast explosions along the 200+ steel perimeter columns, starting from the south face of the building, and moved in both direction around the building to the front.One chain of explosions went off at the top of floor 97, the second at the bottom of floor 97. There appears to be equal delay between each individual explosion.

Explosions are occurring before any observable signs of collapse.

Explosions originated from inside the WTC and expelled cloudsoutward. The hundreds of closely spaced steel columns created a "comb"effect of the expelled clouds. Explosions look like they occurred every several columns. After expelling a few meters, the explosions blended together into one continuous cloud.

Explosions can be seen going off on the west and east sides several floors ahead of the collapse in video where the camera looks at the north face head on. This unique view allows one to see building area that is masked by expelled clouds in other videos. Explosionsoccur on floors 90 and below, even though the collapse point wasseveral floors above. These lower floors suffered no damage from fire or plane impact.

Clouds of concrete dust are expelled before floor 98 impacts floor 97. These clouds are denser than smoke and have the same color of pulverized concrete created later in the collapse.

What can be observed suggests explosives, does is not? This is irrefutable picture data. Take a look at it with your own eyes. I want point out that since concrete clouds were being expelled before floor 98 impacted floor 97, this means concrete was not being pulverized by impacting floors, but by some other force.

I want to point out the importance of the clouds. Fires filled the building with smoke. This marks the otherwise invisible air- like a color dye in water. So when the floors collapsed, using thermodynamics and other physics, one can determine how much air volume existed inside floor 97 when collapse initiated. If there is an abnormality between what is measured and what should be, this would indicate use of explosives because explosives creates over pressure. It is impossible for a floor to create more air volume than what science will allow in a natural gravity collapse.

The government has asserted that the volume of air of a single flooris "approximated as 200 ft [61 m] × 200 ft × 12 ft = 480,000 ft3". This gives us 13,592 cubic meters. A researcher estimated that the air volume of the entire building was 1.5e6 cubic meters. From this we get 13,636 cubic meters of air per floor. This corroborates the government data. Below are estimated air volumes for floors 97-94.

AIR VOLUME OF FLOORS
floor 97	with floor 96	with floor 95	with floor 94
13,592 m^3	27,184	40,776	54,368

Since not much more clouds came from the crash hole in relation tothe clouds expelled from the perimeter of the building, it is reasonable to conclude that similar amounts of clouds were being ejected from all sides of the building. This even distribution of clouds is corroborated by picture data from different camera angles. This is also corroborated by the government's own assertions in various reports.

Below are measured cloud volumes at different points of the collapse. Note that clouds were not perfect circles and therefore adjustment has to be made to get an easy-to-work-with diameter number.

MEASURED CLOUD DIAMETER
floor 97	with floor 96	with floor 95	with floor 94	Video Used
7.6 m	13.3	21.9	27.6	wtc1-demolition-2.avi
9.5 m	17.1	21.9	26.6	wtc1-demolition-4.avi
Averaged
8.6 m	15.2	21.9	27.1

Looking at the picture data the clouds expanded outward like an explosion. For simplicity we will treat the average volume of the clouds along each buildingside like a cylinder. Below are the estimated volumes of the clouds along theperimeter ofthe building at different points of collapse.

CLOUD VOLUME OF FLOORS
	floor 97	with floor 96	with floor 95	with floor 94
Original Vol	13,592 m^3	27,184	40,776	54,368
Measured Vol	14,632 m^3	45,736	94,876	145,280
Diff	1,040 m^3	18,552	54,100	90,912
Floor 97 Diff	1,040 m^3	17,512	35,548	36,812
Percent Increase	8%	128	262	271
Floor 97 Vol	14,632 m^3	31,104	49,140	50,404

CALCULATION:
cloud volume = 4 walls * wall length * cross area of cloud
4* (63 * (8.6/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 18.49 * 3.14) = 4 * 3658 = 14632
4* (63 * (15.2/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 57.8 * 3.14) = 4 * 11434 = 45736
4* (63 * (21.9/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 119.9 * 3.14) = 4 * 23719 =94876
4* (63 * (27.1/2)^2 * 3.14) = 4 * (63 * 183.6 * 3.14) = 4 * 36320 =145280

The numbers tell a story. That during the collapse of floor 97, large overpressure developed. This compressed air was expelled by the collapsing floor but not yet fully expanded. It then expanded as the collapse continued, first rapidly,then slowing down. The numbers indicate that by floor 94, the air volume of floor 97 was mostly but not finished expanding.

We have enough information to estimate how much overpressure existed at floor 97. We can visually measure the cloud volume of floors 97-94 from picture data. Since most of the cloud volume of floor 97 was created by floor 94, to keep analysis simple and on the conservative side we will assume that the air volume is 50,404 cubic meters as measured at floor 94.

Air turbulence plays a significant role in the creation of clouds.It has been asserted that one takes about 1/3 off to account for expansion by air turbulence. We end up with 33,603 cubic meters.

We need to consider air volume produced by heat caused by the collapse itself. As each floor fell, it created energy. This energy had to: 1) overwhelm the floorbelow it; 2) make this floor accelerate at the documented speed; 2)pulverize a majority of the concrete of the floor; 3) create large volumes of air. Our first step is to determine the energy of the collapse at each floor. We then will subtract the energy sinks that absorb this energy.

From the free fall calculations and measured fall times we are able to approximate the velocity of floors falling.

FLOOR VELOCITY AND FALL TIMES
At Floor	Falling Floors	Free Fall Time	Free Fall Velocity	Measured Fall Time	Estimated Velocity
97	13	0.88 sec	8.63 m/sec	0.86 sec	8.8 m/sec
96	14	0.37	12.2	0.46	9.76
95	15	0.28	14.95	0.38	11.06
94	16	0.23	16.82	0.25	15.47

CALCULATION:
distance = (1/2) * gravity * time^2
time = SQR(distance/ 0.5 * 9.8)
time = SQR(3.8 / 4.9) = SQR(.775) = 0.88
time = SQR(7.6 /4.9) = SQR(1.55) = 1.24
time = SQR(11.4 / 4.9) = SQR(2.33) = 1.53
time= SQR(15.2 / 4.9) = SQR(3.10) = 1.76
CALCULATION:
v = SQR(2 * 9.8 * h)
v= SQR(19.6 * 3.8) = SQR(74.48) = 8.63 m/sec
v = SQR(19.6 * 7.6) = SQR(148.96)= 12.2
v = SQR(19.6 * 11.4) = SQR(223.44) = 14.95
v = SQR(19.6 * 14.44)= SQR(283.02) = 16.82
CALCULATION:
0.88 / 0.86 = 1.02 * 8.63 = 8.8 m/sec
0.37/ 0.46 = 0.80 * 12.2 = 9.76
0.28 / 0.38 = 0.74 * 14.95 = 11.06
0.23 /0.25 = 0.92 * 16.82 = 15.47

We want to determine the energy that was absorbed by the building. We can do this by taking the kineticenergy (KE) of free fall, the maximum theoretical energy,and subtract the measured kinetic energy. The difference is the amount of energy that was used to overwhelm the columns, break up the structure, pulverized concrete, make accelerated combustion, and other.

KINETIC ENERGY COMPARISON
At Floor	Falling Floors	KE Free Fall	KE Measured	KE Diff
97	13	445 kwh	462 kwh	-17 kwh
96	14	923	612	311
95	15	1436	842	594
94	16	1983	1758	225

CALCULATION:
3306 tons = 3306000 kg
3306000 * 13 = 42978000 kg = 42978 tons
3306000 * 14 = 46284000 = 46284
3306000 * 15 = 49590000 = 49590
3306000 * 16 = 52896000 = 52896
(for free fallKE is same as PE)
fall of one floor at various heights
PE joules = xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx m
PE = 3306000 * 9.8* 3.8 = 123115440 joules = 34 kwh
PE = 3306000 * 9.8 * 7.6 = 246230880 = 68
PE = 3306000 * 9.8 * 11.4 = 369346320 = 103
fall of13 floors at various heights
PE joules= xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx m
PE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 3.8 = 1600500720 joules =445 kwh
PE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 7.6 = 3201001440 = 889
PE = 42978000* 9.8 * 11.4 = 4801502160 = 1334
PE = 42978000 * 9.8 * 15.2 = 6402002880= 1778
total energy of falling floors
889 + 34 = 923 kwh
1334 + 68 + 34 = 1436
1778+ 103 + 68 + 34 = 1983
CALCULATION"
KE joules = 1/2 * m * v^2
KE= 0.5 * 42978000 * (8.8)^2 = 21489000 * 77.44 =1664108160 joules= 462 kwh
KE = 0.5 * 46284000 * (9.76)^2 = 23142000 * 95.26= 2204506920 = 612
KE = 0.5 * 49590000 * (11.06)^2= 24795000 * 122.32 = 3032924400 = 842
KE = 0.5* 52896000 * (15.47)^2 = 26448000 * 239.32 =6329535360 = 1758

If the numbers are reasonably accurate, they show that a lot of energy from the falling floors continued with the collapse and were not absorbed by the building. In fact, at floor 97, no energy was absorbed at all. This means that at floor 97 there should have been no overwhelming of columns, no pulverizing of concrete, and no accelerated combustion. But picture data shows substantial energy was transferred to ALL floors. This contradiction between what is observed and what is calculated has been pointed out by other researchers and cannot be explained by a natural gravity collapse. One researcher created a paradox to describe what was happening: How could floors provide both extreme high resistance and extreme low resistance at the same time?

We want to estimate how much energy it took to overwhem the columns of afloor. Using the Work-Energy principle we can estimate the average impact force of a falling floor. We are going to create a situation where the impact stopped so we can isolate the impact force. In reality, the collapse continued after impact. This does not effect the final outcome of the calculations, but allows easier computation. A floor would not have zero elasticity so we are going to use an arbitrary 0.01 meters for the distance traveled after impact. We find that the falling of 13 floors one story creates a force of 160,050,072,000 newtons.

CALCULATION:
average impact force * distance traveled = change in kineticenergy
average impact force = change in kinetic energy / distance traveled
F = 1600500720 / 0.01 = 160050072000 newtons

Now we need to turn this into a pressure. We need to know the cross section area of the building columns. In a 2002 report FEMA asserts "The core columns were box sections fabricated from A36 steel plate and were 36 inches[91.44cm] x 14-16 inches [35.56-40.64 cm] with plate thickness from 3/4 inch[1.91cm] to 4 inches [10.16 cm]. Above floor 84, rolled or welded built-up I-shaped sections were used." FEMA also says perimeter columns were "14-inch by14-inch [35.56 cm]".

I want to stress that the government's providing of basic architectural design information about the WTC has been very poor. This withholding ofinformation has been taken to the extreme by the government's refusal to release the WTC blueprints and locking down information under nondisclosure agreements. It has been asserted that the government is doing this as a anti-terrorism "security" measure. But what security risk is created by releasing dataon buildingslong gone and which will never be built again?

Below are estimates of I-shape beams for floors 97-94. The difference in dimensions and thickness for floors 97-94 were less than a centimeter,so for simplicity of analysis an averaged column is calculated. There was a total of 2.28 square meters of steel for the core columns and 4.71 square meters for perimeter columns. Total area of column steel is about 7 square meters. To simplify calculations we will assume that maximum impact occurred on the columns before impact contributed to other aspects of the collapse.

COLUMN DIMENSIONS
Column Type	Width	Depth	Thickness	Cross Section Area
Core	91.44 cm	36.29 cm	3.07 cm	484.69 cm^2
Perimeter	35.56	35.56	3.07	199.49

CALCULATION:
40.64 - 35.56 = 5.08
5.08 / 110 = 0.05 cm
13 * 0.05= 0.65 cm + 35.56 = 36.21 cm
14 * 0.05 = 0.7 + 35.56 = 36.26
15 * 0.05= 0.75 + 35.56 = 36.31
16 * 0.05 = 0.8 + 35.56 = 36.36
36.21 + 36.26 +36.31 + 36.36 = 145.14 / 4 = 36.29 cm
CALCULATION:
10.16 - 1.91 = 8.25
8.25/ 110 = 0.08 cm
13 * 0.08 = 1.04 cm + 1.91 = 2.95 cm
14 * 0.08 = 1.12+ 1.91 = 3.03
15 * 0.08 = 1.2 + 1.91 = 3.11
16 * 0.08 = 1.28 + 1.91 =3.19
2.95 + 3.03 + 3.11 + 3.19 = 12.28 / 4 = 3.07 cm
CALCULATION:
((2* 36.29) * 3.07) + (91.44 - (2 * 3.07)) * 3.07) = (72.58 * 3.07) +(85.3 * 3.07)= 222.82 + 261.87 = 484.69 cm^2
((2 * 35.56) * 3.07) + (35.56 - (2 * 3.07))* 3.07) = (35.56 * 3.07) + (29.42 * 3.07) = 109.17 + 90.32 = 199.49 cm^2
CALCULATION:
484.69* 47 = 22780.43 cm = 2.28 m^2
199.49 * 236 = 47079.64 cm = 4.71 m^2

Now let us calculate impact pressure of the falling floors. For 13 floors falling one story this is 22,864 MPa.

CALCULATION:
impact pressure = impact force / impact area
IP = 160050072000/ 7 = 22864296000 N/m2 = 22864 MPa

Below is information on ASTM A36 steel used in calculations. Steel strength is similar in compression and tension. To overwhelm ASTM A36 steel incompression would take on average 475 MPa.

PROPERTIES OF ASTM A36 STEEL
Tensile Strength, Ultimate	400 - 550 MPa
Tensile Strength, Yield	250 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity	200 GPa
Compressive Yield Strength	152 MPa
Bulk Modulus	140 GPa
Shear Modulus	79.3 GPa

We need to account for weakening by heat. Earlier it was calculated that the average air temperature on a floor with fire was 148 C at the time of collapse. Using a general steel strength versus temperature chart, one finds that the steel would have lost about 2% of its strength if it was heated to this temperature. Adjusting our figure we get 466 MPa.

We also have to account for weakening by the plane impact. In a 2004 presentation NIST asserts from its "modeling" that in the "Realistic Case", 3 core columns were severed, 10 were damaged. In this same presentation the "Realistic Case" for the perimeter columns was 34 severed columns and 5 damaged.

CORE COLUMNS
Columns	Damage
3	Severed
4	Heavy Damage
6	Moderate Damage
PERIMETER COLUMNS
Columns	Damage
34	Severed
3	Heavy Damage
2	Moderate Damage

CALCULATION:
2/3 * 3 = 2
1/3 * 2 = 2/3
2/3 * 4 = 2 2/3
1/2 *6 = 2

NIST used a three-level damage rating: Severed, Heavy Damage,Moderate Damage. We will assume severed equals 100% damage, heavy damage is 2/3, and moderate damage is 1/3. We find that the equivalent of total severed perimeter columns is 36. We find that the equivalent of total severed core columns to be 8. Now we need to determine average severed columns per floor. From a building damage chart in a 2005 NIST report I count the following severed perimeter columns:

SEVERED PERIMETER COLUMNS
Floor	Severed Columns
97	13
96	15
95	15
94	16

On average, about 15 perimeter columns were severed per floor. This is about 40% of the total severed perimeter columns. Using this percentage we can scale and estimate how many severed columns per floor. We find that the equivalent severed column average is 16 for the perimeter and 3 for the core per floor. This means the perimeter was weakened 7% and the core weakened 6%. This corroborates that the impact of a Boeing 767 at high speed did not cause overwhelming structural damage to the WTC 1. The average weakening of a floor comes out to be 6.4%. Adjusting our steel figure we get 435 MPa.

CALCULATION:
40 * 7 = 280
60 * 6 = 360
280 + 360 = 640 / 100 = 6.4%
CALCULATION:
475* 0.02 = 9.5
475 * 0.064 = 30.4
475 - 9.5 - 30.4 = 435 MPa

We have enough information to determine how much energy it took to overwhelm the floor columns. Since we calculated an average column's dimensions,the result will be the same for all floors 97-94. It took about 9 kwh to overwhelm the columns of a floor. Not much energy compared to what the collapse created per floor, 200+ kwh. I wanted to walk through calculating how much energy the columns could handle because I observed in my research that people mistakenly believe columns would have resisted the collapse significantly. It is true, they can support large loads. But they cannot handle that same weight dropped from a height. If you have ever dropped a book on your bare foot, you know that the normally benign book becomes painful when it falls. Likewise, the upper floors created a lot more energy when moving.

CALCULATION:
435 / 22864  = 0.02
445 * 0.02 = 9 kwh

How much energy did it take to pulverize the concrete? Using an asserted 60/40 steel to concrete ratio, we find that the WTC 1 had 66,667 tons of concrete. Other researches have made estimates upwards to 90,000 tons. Let us take a middle of the road figure of 78,000 tons. This works out to be 709 tons per floor.It has been asserted that the majority of the concrete in the WTC 1 was turned into dust. We will assume conservatively that 40% of concrete was pulverized. Using an asserted 1.5 kwh/ton it takes 426 kwh to pulverize the 284 tons of concrete per floor that is documented as dust.

One finds that of the 2,836 tons of concrete of floors 97-94, 26% was pulverized. Does this match what is documented in the picture data? No. Documented are voluminous amounts of concrete clouds being created. This required energy to BOTH pulverize the concrete AND expel it into clouds. Where is this energy coming from?

AMOUNT OF CONCRETE PULVERIZED
At Floor	Falling Floors	KE Available	Concrete Pulverized	Percent of Floor
97	13	0 kwh	0 tons	0 %
96	14	302	201	28%
95	15	585	390	55%
94	16	216	144	20%

CALCULATION:
709 * 4 = 2836
CALCULATION:
311 - 9 = 302
594 -9 = 585
225 - 9 = 216
CALCULATION:
28 + 55 + 20 = 103 / 4 = 26%

The purpose of this series of calculations was to determine how muchenergy of the collapse contributed to air volume. We were unable to get that far. We ran into a problem of not having enough energy to pulverize concrete as documented. Enough concrete was pulverized at floor 95, but what about the other three floors? Picture data shows that concrete was pulverized at floor 97 and that large amounts of concrete were pulverized at floors 96 and 94.

After you subtract energy for other aspects of the collapse, there is really nothing left over to contribute to air volume. From the fire data it can be inferred that 73% of the building area (floors97-94) was burned out or burning at the time of collapse. Even if accelerated combustion occurred, there was not much fuel available on these floors. In addition, most of the available oxygen that would be used for combustion was expelled when floors collapsed.

But for sake of discussion, let us say the extra 159 kwh ofenergy at floor 95 created heat to expand the air. The government asserts fires MAY have been 500-600C. At the time of colapse, fires only burned in 24% of the floors, 98-94. I will use 21 C as the ambient air temperature. The average temperature per floor with fire works out to 148 C.

CALCULATION:
246088 - 36913 = 209175
CALCULATION:
550 * 24 = 13200
21* 76 = 1596
13200 + 1596 = 14796 / 100 = 148C

Below is information on air. The makeup of air has been generalizedto keepanalysis simple.

PROPERTIES OF AIR
Makeup	80% N2 (28 g/mol), 20% O2 (32 g/mol)
Average Atomic Weight	28.8 g/mol
Average Heat Capacity	0.24 cal/g

We first determine the weight of air inside floor 97 at ambient temperature.Then we figure out heat created by the kwh energy. Then we figure out the air volume caused by this heat. We use gas laws and its derivatives. We find that159 kwh created 7,022 cubic meters of air volume. Subtract this from our unaccounted air volume and we get 26,581 cubic meters. Subtract off the original air volume of floor 97 and we get 12,989 cubic meters. We still have almost an entire floor volume of air that is unaccounted for. In addition, we now have an unexplainable for the large amounts of pulverized concrete clouds that there was no energy for. Where is the energy coming from?

CALCULATION:
13592 m^3 = 13592000 L
PV = nRT
(1 atm) * 13592000L = n * 0.08 * (273 + 21) K
13592000 L = n * 0.08 * 294 = 13592000 = n *23.52
n = 577891 mol
577891 * 28.8 = 16643261 g
CALCULATION:
159kwh = 136715391 cal
grams air * heat capacity * number degrees = calories
16643261* 0.24 * T = 136715391
3994382.64 * T = 136715391
T =  34 K
PV =nRT
(1 atm) * V = 566327 mol * 0.08 * (273 + 148 + 34) K
V = 566327 * 0.08* 455
V = 20614303 L = 20614 m^3
20614 - 13592 = 7022 m^3
33603- 7022 = 26581 m^3
CALCULATION:
26581 - 13592 = 12989 m^3

I want to note that in this paper I am not trying to create a detailed, exhaustive model of the WTC 1 collapse. This will have to be done. But this does not prevent me from pointing out obvious facts to you using a simpler model. I docover the major factors of the collapse and make estimates conservatively to account for margin of error and to cover for factors not considered. I have not been paid for my time to do this research. The government has paid $16 Million of your money to a bunch of hack scientists to use fantasy modeling and illlogic to prove impossibilities. That is deception. If the government cares to pay volunteer researchers like myself what it has paid to these hack in-house "scientists", a detailed thermodynamic model of these explosions could be developed.

Floor 97 contained about 33,603 cubic meters of air at the moment of collapse. That is a factor of almost 2.5 times the normal volume of air inside floor 97. This finding corroborates the work of another researcher who measured the entire cloud volume created by the WTC 1 collapse, not just of a single floor as I am doing. In his research he estimated the building cloud volume expanded over 3.4 times. Considering analysis of the entire building introduces more error than analyzing the first floor of collapse, his estimates are credible. It begs the question: Where is all this air volume coming from?

Let us pause for a moment. This is simply a phenomenal amount of air volume. To visualize, a floor of the WTC is about 1/3 of a city block. As one researcher put it, you don't need a wall of degrees to be an expert in common sense. Could a gravity collapse somehow explain this? Science says no way. There is no phenomenon in a natural gravity collapse that can account for this large volume of air. It is artificially produced. What phenomenon can produce this amount of air?

It may be argued that air pressure inside the building was higher because of fire. The WTC 1 generally had an open-floor plan. There was a large crash hole. Many windows were broken. This is like a big bag of air with holes in it. If pressure built up in the building where is it going to go? It will follow the path of least resistance and go out the holes. Substantial pressure would not be able to build up.

It may be argued that the additional air volume was created by the core collapsing first. Take two paper plates and push them together. There is only so much air between those plates, it doesn't mater if you push the plates in the middle. There has to be another force, such as intense heat to expand the air to the volume documented.

It may be argued that floor 98 was actually the first floor to collapse and the upper floors contributed air volume. There is no supporting evidence for this. No columns at floor 98 bent. Floor 98 did not buckle for at least 8 floors of the collapse. In addition no clouds were expelled as floor 99 allegedly fell- there was a whole floor of air volume from floor 98 that would havebeen expelled. This is not documented in picture data.

It may be argued that the impacting upper building pulverized concrete and created additional clouds. It has been calculated earlier in this paper that the energy of a natural gravity collapse did not pulverized much concrete. In addition, pulverizing concrete is not the same thing as creating clouds. This takes additional energy that was not available naturally.

In summary, the amount of air that existed in floor 97 at collapse defies what science predicts. This refutes a natural gravity collapse theory.The government has been unable to reconcile the irrefutable data.

 

DISCUSSION ON EXPLOSIVES

Science has pointed out several phenomena, from fires, to behavior of collapse, to air volume, that point to the use of explosives. In addition, picture data reveals the signature of explosives. But you don't know me. Do not take my word for it. I have done my best to provide the necessary data and to describe the logic and methods I used to arrive at my conclusions. I encourage you to replicate the analysis in this paper and come to the conclusion yourself.

I want to point out that a building demolition is normally difficult to reverse engineer. This is because of a number of factors, the main ones being: 1) building typically falls all at once making modeling complex; 2) not much explosives is used and so its over pressure may not stand out from the rest of the collapse; 3)air volume changes during collapse would be difficult to measure.

But the WTC 1 collapse is a unique situation. The building did not fall all at once, but floor by floor. Lots of explosions were observed indicating use of a large quantity of explosives (large over pressure). And air volume changes can be measured with reasonable accuracy. This is because there was fire, fire creates smoke, and smoke marks the air- like a color dye in water. Many experts in the fields of physics and explosives have not realized that analysis of the WTC 1 collapse is feasible because they are blinded by the faulty assumption that no demolition can be credibly reverse engineered.

I want to point out that the WTC 1 had massive steel columns. The building used 100,000 tons of steel. Large columns would have required large demolition charges. To corroborate, this is what a well-known demolition company, Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), had to say about a demolition of the JL Hudson building,a structure about 1/2 as massive as WTC 1:

"Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties."

 

WHAT EXPLOSIVE TYPE USED

Below is a list of some high explosives that may have been used onWTC 1.

Explosive	Melting Point
TNT	81 C
PETN	140 C
RDX	205 C
HMX	285 C

Some researchers have asserted that a thermite compound was used.Thermite is an incendiary "explosive". It very well could have been used in other parts of the building such as on the core columns near the foundation. Since one form of thermite uses iron oxide/aluminum, it appears that its use might avoid casual detection- no signs of a bursting force, by products are aluminum and iron that would blend with the steel and aluminum of the building. Because of its non-explosive nature, thermite would not leave a telltale seismic signature.

But for the areas of the building I analyzed, it is clear that high explosives were used and not an incendiary type. The dual rows of explosions documented indicate this. The large cloud volume indicates this. Because thermite melting is a slower reaction than explosives, one would not have the necessary control to guarantee a quick, near simultaneous, symmetrical collapse as is documented.

In my research, I have concluded that HMX, or an explosive with similar properties, was likely usedto pull down WTC 1. HMX is a military grade explosive that has been in wide use since the 1940s. It can survive 270 C+ heat without premature detonation or failure. Add fireproofing and it can handle higher temperatures. This explosive has high brisance, excellent for cutting thick steel. RDX, a less powerful cousin of HMX, has been used on steel bridges. A consultant of Controlled DemolitionInc (CDI) once said "RDX, which creates 3 million pounds of pressure per square inch, will slice [steel]... like a "razor blade through atomato." "HMX also creates large amounts of air volume and has a shock wave that shatters concrete.

 

WHERE CHARGES WERE PLACED

I am not a demolition professional but I can point out the obvious. Basically one answers the question: If WTC 1 was pulled by explosives, where would the charges be placed to create what was observed?

Picture data points out that explosives were used at floor 97. The dual rows of explosions indicate columns were being compromised top and bottom. This explains the sudden fall of that floor with no stage of progressive fatigue before failure. Video indicates that the next few floors were wired similarly. One can see explosions on these floors. Compromising these floors would ensure that the upper building mass would build momentum so that further explosives would not be necessary except on the core columns to help keep the collapse centered so the building would fall into its footprint.

It appears charges were staggered every few columns. This is because of the behavior of the clouds being expelled. The columns of floor 97 were acting as a "comb". Clouds were not evenly being expelled every column, but every few columns. It appears that charges were placed inside the building where the floor joists and trusses connected to the perimeter wall. This would explain why pulverized concrete existed before any floors had impacted yet. Thiswould also duplicate the "truss theory" promoted by the Mainstream Media (minus the "bowed" columns). It would also have created a quick overpressure inside the building. This overpressure would have been pushed out as the floors collapsed. This overpressure then equalized into the oversized clouds seen in video. The reason this high pressure was not readily detected when the first floor collapsed was because the perimeter charges exploded inward, most of the pressure went towards the center of the building. This overpressure was then pushed outwards by the collapsing floors. It takes a while for an air volume of a city block to expand. It is not going to happen like a small balloon popping in your hands.

Use of HMX explosive can explain the occasional, random, and abrupt "overpressures" that occurred during fires. The government acknowledges this phenomenon but is unable to credibly explain it. What was likely happening is that temperatures in some parts of the building were exceeding the melting point of fireproofed HMX and this caused some charges to prematurely detonate, like bullets in a campfire.

It appears explosives were placed at the core columns lower down in the building. There were the pools of melted steel found at the column foundations. In addition to other witnesses, the President of Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI) made the admission when his company uncovered the melted steel during WTC clean up. To corroborate, WTC maintenance personnel witnessed large explosions in the below ground levels on 9-11, even getting severely burned by them. This information is public record. These lowerlevels of the building were undamaged by either fire or plane impact.

Another indicator is the artificially accelerated fall of floor 97. It collapsed faster than free fall speed. If the core columns were compromised lower in the building, the resulting additional weight of the building structure above this failure point would "pull" floor 97 faster than free fall. This is corroborated by how the collapsing building acted as a "funnel" to the upper structure to keep it centered. The south tower collapse clearly shows this behavior of self-centering. The upper building did move around during the collapse, but it did not stray too far from its footprint. In controlled demolition,to keep a tall building centered one makes sure the core of the building collapses first. Granted, the core columns of WTC 1 had a smaller factor of safety than the perimeter columns, but the inside of the building would have to be substantially compromised ahead of the collapse to get the "funnel" effect. Otherwise the upper structure would have likely slid around randomly during the collapse and toppled off to the side before the 90+ floors reached the ground.

Another indicator is that when WTC 1 fell, several floors ahead of the collapse jets of white clouds were expelled through one or more windows. This phenomenon cannot be explained by simple collapsing of floors. It may be argued that pressure from the upper crushing floors created those hundred foot white cloud "jets"- like an "air pump". But most of any compressed air was going out to the building sides or upwards when floors collapsed and then broke up. This was the path of least resistance. Regardless, this would not explain the expelling of white clouds. This phenomenon is occurring in parts of the building that are undamaged and did not have fire. The collapse is still several floors above. How could impacted floors give birth to white smoke- especially at floors 97-94 which had sooty fires-that made its way down to these lower floors in a split second and then expel at high pressure hundreds of feet from windows? Take a lookat the videos yourself. However, HMX detonating at a number of the 47 core columns would create clouds from concrete and other building materials such as drywall, and would cause local overpressure that would break select windows and expel the white clouds at high velocity.

 

HOW MUCH EXPLOSIVES WAS USED

I believe far more explosives were used on the WTC 1 than would be typically used in controlled demolition. Keep in mind that a building the size of WTC1 had never been taken down before. This level of uncertainty would prompt the use of an overkill amount of explosives. There would be concern of collateral damage to surrounding real estate from miscalculation. The parties using explosives probably wanted to make sure that the building did a "pancake" collapse to support an official story. In addition, the charge detonation needed to be masked. If a normal amount of charges was used, the low number of detonations would easily stand out in video footage. But an overkill amount of charges, especially placed near concrete, would produce loads of clouds where little stands out (I note that adiversion of fire and smoke was also helpful in masking charge detonations).If evidence was discovered by persons with a conscience this would havelikely prompted an investigation into the use of explosives, the security breaches at the WTC and of its blueprints, other parties involvement with 9-11, and more. A critical look at coincidences would be made, such as president George Bush's involvement with WTC security, why whole floors of the WTC towers were quarantined off several weeks before 9-11 for "maintenance", why FEMA and the FBI repeatedly refused to investigate for explosives, and why the government has put certain citizens undergag orders to keep them from speaking publicly what they know about 9-11. A massive connecting-of-the-dots would occur with a sincere criminal investigation. Perhaps the plan was to compromise the building core first in hopes that this would cause a "natural" collapse. With the building's high redundancy design, it was questionable whether this would be enough. The back up plan was to compromise select floors. But I digress. Some things to think about. Let us continue with the analysis.

For floor 97 we have 20,011 cubic meters of unaccounted air. How much ofthe high explosive HMX does it take to create this? Below is information about HMX used incalculations.

HMX DETONATION PROPERTIES
Reaction Equation	C4H8N8O8 --> 4CO+ 4N2 + 4H20
Gas Production	1 mol HMX/12 mol gas (40.56 mol gas/kg)
MolarMass	296.17g/mol (3.38 mol/kg)
Explosion Temperature	4077K (3804C)

CALCULATION:
33603 - 13592 = 20011 m^3

According to the government fires 500-600 C MAY have existed. Only 13% of floor 97 was on fire at time of collapse. The average air temperature is estimated to be 90 C. Expanding gas from explosives can be modeled as an adiabatic process,a gas expanding so quickly no heat is transferred to the surrounding air. We have enough information now to start plugging in numbers. For simplemodelingwe will use the Ideal Gas law PV = nRT. Plugging in the appropriatenumberswe find that one kg of HMX creates 14,407 liters of gas volume.

CALCULATION:
13 * 550 = 7150
87 * 21 = 1827
7150 + 1827 = 8977/ 100 = 90C
CALCULATION:
PV = nRT
T = 273 + 4077 + 90 = 4440K
(1atm) * V = 40.56 mol * 0.08 * 4440 K
V = 14407 L

It took 1,389 kg (1.4 tons) of HMX to create the unaccounted air volume.This is an above normal quantity of explosives used in controlled demolition. But keep in mind what has been documented in the picture data. The camera doesnot lie. And keep in mind that in controlled demolition explosives are not used on every floor of a building. The entire WTC 1 did not have to be wired. In the previously mentioned JL Hudson building demolition, 1,237 kg of explosives was used on 9 floors. The building was pre-weakened so small charges could be used. How much explosive would have been used without this pre weakening? Twice as much? That is 2,474 kg. The WTC 1 had over twice as much floor space. So if the JL Hudson building was the same size as WTC 1, that would require about 5,616 kg of explosives. That is 624 kg per floor. What this shows is that the 1,389 kg number is a large number, but not unbelievably large. It represents an overkill amount of explosives. It comes out to be about 5 kg of explosive per column. Recall earlier in the paper where it is discussed why lots of explosives would have been used. Then go look at the videos and see the explosions, the massive amounts of clouds, the premature pulverization of building material, and other that cannot be explained by a natural gravity collapse. As it is said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

CALCULATION:
20011m^3 = 20011000 L
20011000 / 14407 = 1389 kg
CALCULATION:
1389 / 283 = 4.9kg

 

CONCLUSION

Why has no person of conscience done this analysis yet?

Keep in mind that this is a DRAFT version of a paper. A rigorous peer review is necessary before anyone firmly accepts this paper's findings. A careful frame-by-frame analysis of videos, a more detailed modeling of the fire, collapse, and clouds,should be done to confirm measurements and observations.

The findings are beyond astounding. If this paper proves its accuracy, then it is undeniable that explosives were used to pull down WTC 1. This radically changes the perspective of 9-11 and everything associated with it. I leave the discussion of the implications to YOU the reader.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A thank you to other researchers whose efforts have provided the stepping stone for this work. And a thank you to those with a conscience who have step forth and raised the red flags and prompted me to look at 9-11 beyond skin deep. I concur.

"Just because the gun and bullet was not recovered from a crime scene does not mean it cannot be established that a particular weapon was used. A bullet hole is a bullet hole." -Anonymous

 

SELECTED REFERENCES

Government Documents
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ 
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ 

WTC Videos and Pictures

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#stills
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523

 

THIS PAPER IS NOT COPYRIGHTED