"What Goes Up Must Come Down"

[Old and In the Way]

I got this special US News and World Report last Christmas. The Magazine was called "Secrets of the Master Builders". The last article, whose title is noted above was quite interesting. It's been sitting in the bathroom and I finally got around to reading this article today.

Anyway, there were 2 interesting paragraphs I thought I'd share.

"The tools of the destructor's trade range from standard dynamite, used to shatter concrete, to linear shaped charges that concentrate the force of the blast. Shaped charges use a high explosive called RDX, slicing through steel with millions of pounds pf pressure per square inch. In 2001 project, for example, a New York gas storage tank built with 5 million pounds of steel took a mere 80 pounds of shaped charges to come down.

And this unrelated paragraph in the same story:

"The Murrah building was but a prelude to the greater disaster on Sept. 11, 2001. Like most Americans, the Loizeaux's {my note: family business is Controlled Demolition International} were transfixed by the televised destruction shortly after the first jet struck the World Trade Center. But they knew then what few Americans realized, or dared to contemplate. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark. "I was familiar with the buildings structure, and with all that jet fuel and the massive amount of combustibles, a catastrophic failure was inevitable."

[gandalf]

1. What kind of magic expert is this Loizeaux guy...

"I was familiar with the buildings structure". I thought the WTC was built to withstand at least some impact of a crashed airliner. But he could judge already from watching tv that this impact would let the building collapse? After all, he saw that much of the fuel exploded outside. How did he know how much of the fuel would contribute to the destruction inside?

And what might he have thought about WTC 7?

[LARED]

2. massive amount of combustibles

is the key phrase. The jet fuel was the match that lit all the combustibles in the building.

[DulceDecorum]

3. WHY

did the concrete turn to fine fine dust?

[RH]

4. Because

the Towers fell down.

:eyes:

Do I win a prize?

:toast:

or did you have some other reason in mind?

[gandalf]

5. Let's do it again

Nice game, we can play it ad libitum.

[LARED]

6. A better question is

why would some of the concrete not be turned into a fine dust?

You make it sound like having fine dust is unexpected?

[tngledwebb]

7. How would one know what to expect?

WTC was unique. But demolition photos show dust. Explosive squibs too. Or 'lateral venting' if you prefer.
(And don't forget to shout pull to get everybody out safely.)

For the most relevant comparison, just find photos of other skyscrapers that have collapsed due to combustibles and jet fuel temperature fires. Take a look at controlled demoliton websites. No luck? Have to wait then- least until the evil-doers need to scare the sheeple into another illegal war, or maybe to stop that relentless vote-counting in Ohio.

[LARED]

10. How?

Easy

The construction materials in the WTC are well known. There are many materials that easily crush into a fine material. The easy ones are wall board, insulation, and ceiling tiles to name a few.

Spend a few minutes with a calculator and figure out how much of this material is in a building 110 story high and 40,000 square feet per floor. Each floor having a hundred or more offices. The pounds add up quick.

I didn't even mention concrete yet.

[DeadBroke]

15. And that fine material ...

... was, according to the public records, sampled. Thousands of samples in fact. Each sampled marked for exact longitude and latitude and depth, and a chain of custody document from the collector to the labs for every sample was maintained. Each sample was collected in four ounce glass jars, and then broken down into five gram samples; just like the process for evaluating ground soils for chemical contamination. Results? Sure, as stated many months ago, in very few samples - a tiny percentage, just trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons; exactly the same compounds in jet fuels ..... no explosives.

[LARED]

16. Here's a snippet from a report

Cortlandt Street sample. The Cortlandt Street sample was mainly composed of construction debris , quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and glass shards. Chrysotile asbestos fibers were estimated to comprise < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. Some skin cells and dyed cotton fibers were present (5,21–23). The findings of skin cells was consistent with the types of particles usually found in dust in the indoor environment. Approximately 35% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. An example of the typical form of the glass fibers is shown in Figure 4. In many cases the width was . 1 µm (to > 10 µm), and the length ranged from 5 to 100 µm. The fiber shown in Figure 4 is not a "clean" glass fiber; other materials are agglomerated along the rod. This is typical of features noted for many different types of particles in each sample. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur, and some particles were composed of calcium carbonate (Figure 5). Chrysotile asbestos fibers, identified by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), were found in the < 75-µm fraction. None of the analyzed particles contained lead, chromium, cadmium, or mercury, although chromium and cadmium were quantified in this sample by ICP/MS analyses.

Cherry Avenue sample. The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles, glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. We estimated that chrysotile asbestos fibers comprised < 1% of the sample by volume. Much of the chrysotile asbestos had carbonate binder adhered to it. We observed some hair fibers and tarry fragments in the sample. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form, containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron–chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction. The soot particles were in the submicron size range (Figure 6). No particles containing cadmium (detected by ICP/MS) or mercury were found at less than minimum detection limits in the 1,000 particles analyzed from this sample.

Market Street sample. The Market Street sample was also composed of construction debris (including vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, paint particles, mineral wool fibers, glass fibers, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes. Chrysotile asbestos fibers made up < 1% of the sample by volume, and much of the chrysotile adhered to carbonate binder. This result is different from the bulk mass results, which indicated 3.0% asbestos; this indicates that the sample was not homogeneous. Some dyed cotton fibers, tarry fragments, pollen grains, and metal flakes were also present. Approximately 10% of the volume of the sample was in the form of loosely consolidated clumps of fibrous lint, of which the greatest portion was glass fibers. The SEM analysis of the fraction < 75 µm in diameter revealed many glass fibers and cement particles, some in a fibrous form containing calcium, silicon, and sulfur.

[DeadBroke]

18. Thank you LARED ...

... and I recall that you posted that report (usually called the RWJ or Robert Wood Johnson by investigation teams) several months ago when it first became available; however the samples that I am refering to were the samples collected at the collapse grids during evidence recovery.

It is in those samples, in just a few of thousands taken, and only barely measurable in billionths, that petroleum hydrocarbons were found. NONE of the labs that processed these samples, or the other batches collected when the excavated materials were screened for body parts and etc at the Fresh Kills, found explosive residues.

From the months I have spent following the trails of these samplings and from reading the chain of custody forms and from reading - and getting lots of help to read and understand - the test results, it's become abundantly clear to me that testing for explosives is indeed an SOP, or a standard procedure in the investigation of collapse. From my experiences it seems that this testing for subversive acts became an accepted practice and an official protocol in the 60s and 70s.

Evidence recovery techs are trained in public places such as LaGuardia airport where explosive devices have gone off. LaGuardia was bombed, a device was left in a rental locker, in the 60s; and residues are still detected and are recovered in training sessions.

This residue can still be found 40 years later in ceiling grids, on sprinkler heads and on water direction decals on piping at the airport in a few hours with a couple of samples taken by trainees, trainees.

So; trainees can find 40 year old residue at an airport in a couple of hours with a few samples, but experts can't find any residue at the Trade Center with thousands of samplings. I think then it's safe to say that there wasn't any.

[DeadBroke]

19. ... and a PS:

I can't put my finger on the report, and I can't recall the exact number, but some percentage the 5 gram samplings that were drawn from the 4 ounce bottles were put away in cold storage for future testing - when technology and science advances; but with your training and experiences you probably know more about testing processes than anyone ...

[Last Lemming]

26. But how could that building

come down in 8 seconds?

I'm not trying to be provocative--I'm just trying to sort this out myself--I believe you--I think this is important and I haven't seen the point raised before but I believe in Newton's equations as well. How do we reconcile?

[LARED]

27. I'm not trying to be provocative either

but there is no need to reconcile anything. The towers did not fall in 8 seconds, hence Newtons laws are as good as ever. So keep believing in them, and stop believing internet fairy tales.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Wouldn't you expect to see fine dust in a building collapse of this

magnitude? Regardless of the cause for their destruction, the energy released and the building weight would certainly bear on the breakdown of much of the concrete to its elemental components. Concrete starts out in powdery form...wouldn't that be lime powder?

[LARED]

9. Adding the other sources of dust

like the tons and tons of wallboard, insulation, paper, and just plain old dust it is not surprizing to see lots of fine dust during the collapse.

Even buildings that are demolished on purpose create lots of dust and they are stripped of internal materials before they are demolished.

[tngledwebb]

12. Some dust would be expected as walls hit ground...

But voluminous billowing clouds of fine dust almost spewing out of the walls as both buildings collapse nearly straight down?

[LARED]

13. Why not? (n/t)

[LARED]

17. Yes

That sounds about right. AS floors are collapsing where do you expect the volumne the material to go?

[tngledwebb]

21. Talking bout photos.

To some the photos look odd. To those whose eyesight can transform an 18 ft wide damage section into a 90 ft wide 'hole', big enough for a Boeing to enter a building, photographs and video footage evidence are useless, imo.

But the official reports explain everything, I'm sure.

[LARED]

24. photographs and video footage evidence are useless,

Really?

How does that work?

[exploited]

28. Loizeaux's opinion is moot point

It's safe to say everyone watching had an opinion:
a) it would come down
b) it would stay up -- was built to withstand aircraft impact
c) didn't consider the possibility of collapse.

What do you think was the first thing to run through the mind's eye of a demolition worker?

This guy must have been particularly zealous about his trade to have informed himself about 'the building's structure' prior to 9/11. Can any demolition guy get hold of building plans for a building owned by the Port Authority, I wonder? Didn't the Federal Emergency Management Agency collapse investigation run into problems accessing the building plans?

Another "red herring" testimonial IMO -- this time it's OCT -- so once again the BS conjecture found on both sides can return to perfectly balanced harmony.

[k-robjoe]

11. About the Murrah building

I came across a very interesting site:

"Somewhere between ten and fifteen explosives experts and professional engineers have written strongly worded opinions that the Murrah building had to have been destroyed by interior bombs and that the ANFO truck could not have done the damage. These experts included a NASA scientist and demolition experts who have worked in the field for thirty years. What is most eye-opening is that even a government report concluded that the ANFO truck bomb couldn't have possibly destroyed the Murrah building. In early 1997, Wright Laboratory at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida constructed a concrete, steel-reinforced structure that was similar to the Murrah Building, and then did a series of explosions to test bomb effects. The Air Force structure was not nearly as structurally as sound as the Murrah Building, and the bombs used against it were more powerful than a 4,800 pound ANFO bomb. Minimal damage was done to the structure. Afterwards, the Air Force released a 56-page report that was entitled Case Study Relating Blast Effects to the Events of April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The report, which included an extensive technical analysis that the Air Force commissioned from construction and demolition expert John Culberston, concluded that ". . . it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO . . . It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself . . . The procedures used to cause the damage to the Murrah Building are therefore more involved and complex than simply parking a truck and leaving . . ." Six explosives experts strongly agreed with the report's findings."

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2461/pg2/

[Old and In the Way]

14. The AF released that report????

Holy moly...that's news to me. I recall that one of thge TV stations had reported that unexploded bombs were also found in the remaining portion of the building.....it really makes you wonder if McVeigh was Oswalded...

[k-robjoe]

25. Came across this

Pretty telling (If approximately correct) :

"One last note to consider: The June 25, 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment building in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 23 Americans was briefly referred to by the media as "proof" that a truck bomb could do the damage to a building that the ammonium-nitrate packed Ryder truck supposedly did. But the claims quickly died when it was determined that 1) the building was built with poor grade materials and was not reinforced to American standards; 2) that only the front wall fell and little damage occurred past that point; 3) the Murrah building was built to strict modern codes using the strongest materials; and 4) the explosives used were in excess of 5,000 pounds of RDX and Semtex high explosive. A bomb twenty-five times as powerful as the "Ryder bomb" did only one-tenth the damage."

On edit : Needs to be added : How could they tell that the Khobar bomb was that strong? Apparently by the crater :

"the crater in front of the Khobar Towers was 35 feet deep and 85 feet wide."

( "In comparison the crater in front of the Murrah Building was 20 feet deep and 30 feet wide." )

So the Murrah bomb was much smaller, but supposedly did ten times the damage.

[DeadBroke]

20. Did you forget something?

That job according to the trade journals and magazines was possible with "a mere 80 pounds" if it's actually considered a small amount, only because of the prep work; removing rivets and bolts and using oxy-act torches to cut beams part way through. Published interviews with the project manager and foremen detail the prep work, the number of man hours, and the complaints about prevailing wage and expenses during the extended prep work; all necessary by the way to address the City's concern about asbestos being spread during demo.

[Old and In the Way]

22. No mention was made in the article I quoted.

No doubt there was preperation work to bring it down. I just thought the physical amount of RDX needed to bring it down was interesting. Certainly the amount of preperation required for a normal demolition would entail the prep work you mention. IF there were charges used on the WTC, I doubt they'd have any special government/industry regulations that they'd be required to follow....probably just a bit more explosive to accommodate the lack of prep work.

[LARED]

23. You raise an important point

Buildings that are demolished, are stripped clean before the blasting starts. Typically only the shell remains and as much of the built-in design safety factors, and structural redundancy as can be safely removed from the structure is perform long before the first charge goes off.

There are lots of legitimate reason why a tank could be demolished with just 80 pound of explosives, and as many reason as why this has no relationship to the WTC collapse. It really is comparing apples to oranges.

A few basic reasons for this are;

1. The tank was stripped as mentioned above. The WTC were not
2. The tank is a fundamentally different type of structure than a high rise steel framed building. I think these tanks were located on Staten Island, if so I used to drive by them every day going to work. There were basically massive hollow structures. A vastly different shape than the WTC that had a internally had an egg crate like structure.
3. 5 million pounds of steel is not really a lot of steel compared to the WTCs. A single WTC tower had at least 150,000 tons of steel. Something like 60 times more steel.