Sunday, September 11, 2016

9-11 News: Architects, Engineers and Scientists Conclude WTC Structural Building Collapses Were Anomalous


Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter. (2016). 15 YEARS LATER: ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES. Europhysics News 47/4, 2016, p. 21–26.

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf


[excerpted from the introduction] In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11): the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane. 

NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. 


Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally. 

Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation....

 

6 comments:

  1. Anomalous is just the word. Actually the word collapse is misleading except for Bldg 7. The Twin Towers seemed to turn into dust--one scientist coined the word dustified. A collapse would have left a vast amount of building material at the base--but as you may remember the amount of debris was surprisingly small. Probably micro nukes is at present the best candidate for the Towers; and traditional demolition for Bldg 7. My first response was that skyscrapers should not be erected if they came down that easily; about a week later I learned about the plane that flew into the Empire State Building in the late 1940's; and of course it is still there. So it was a big hoax. Still it might have been the work of ET's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know this going sound outlandish but hear it goes. The towers resemble a huge tuning fork. I don't have the information to calculate the frequency of the two towers but if the plane strikes set the fork in motion it could conceivable resonant with the other buildings and bring them down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This seems like a very odd place to advertise home repair including pest removal? Especially in Arabic. Still it sounds like this blog is read by many Muslims and Arabs.

      Delete
    2. I deleted it. I always delete spam with links because I'm concerned about malicious code....

      Delete
  4. Is it Ella Fitzgerald or Memorex hitting that note that resonated with the crystal. The crystal burst. Also, the enormous amount of weight crashing down to grade may have induced vibrations in the surrounding soil.

    ReplyDelete