Re: the steel-concrete core controversy:

[laruemtt]

Has anyone here read the book 102 Minutes – The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn? Let me first say I am 100% MIHOP but do not believe whether or not the towers came down with the help of explosives has anything to do with the government’s culpability in the attack.

But I am pretty hesitant to jump in here as I know virtually nothing about engineering and am probably putting myself up for ridicule by posting this, but oh well…..Just putting it out there as more grist for the mill, but probably this is old news to most people here.

There are some interesting passages in the book having to do with the construction of the towers. They talk about the building code in New York in that “the 1938 code had required that the columns of tall buildings be able to stand against fire for four hours; the new code reduced that to three hours.”

<snip>

“And while the old code had ordered concrete cladding or other masonry to provide fire resistance for the structural steel, the new code, in the view of many in the real estate industry, was that it forced buildings to be far sturdier and heavier than needed.”

<snip>

“The outcome of the code revision was that tall structures were “softened,” in the description of Vincent Dunn, an author and analyst of fire-safety practices, and a former chief in the New York Fire Department. In 1995, he wrote an article in Fire Engineering magazine that cataloged the hazards of high-rise fires, and the illusion of safety………Chief Dunn and Chief O’Hagan noted that New York City abandoned the heavy, dense masonry that had defined the interiors of the old-style skyscrapers, epitomized by the Empire State Building, and had provided protection in fire. Now gypsum board and spray-on fireproofing wold be used. Less weight meant that less steel would have to be used. The new code, which ultimately became law in 1968, made it cheaper to build taller buildings…….”

This novice makes of this that a lot of shortcuts were taken to allow for more space, a lighter building, and a lot lower cost.

Comments?

[Christophera]

1. Reinforcement Of Defective Or Inadequate Construction Useless To Free Fall

explanation.

It was not a collapse. It bears no resembalence to a collapse. No collapse can fall like that, that fast. It was pulverized in place by immense forces, then fell. It was blowing upwards all the way to the ground and it was uniform.

The notion that design and construction were compromised for cost is nonsense after examining the design/engineering process. There is FAR too much liability in that. There were measures to lighten the building but they were very carefully done and did not reduce the strength of the towers in any way. In fact, the lightening made them stronger because it reduced loads in critical places.

Cutting steel core columns of the size that were supposed to exist with high explosives looks completly different than what we saw. Major horizontal explosions going straight out perhaps as far as 1000 feet, or further, throwing big pieces of steel into the surrounding city.


The fact we have never seen anything like this makes such distortions as the Vincent Dunn has made half credible. I'll bet there are some firefighters very angry with him. I know that some Mohawk steel workers have already objected to eagers analysis because he left out the 1x3 foot "I" beams between the trussed floor panels in his "pancake theory". Dunn leaves them out too.

The floor beams can be seen in the 2nd of the videos linked in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=69600&mesg_id=69600

[laruemtt]

2. i can't get those videos to play.

tried it earlier too. i should just stay out of this whole controversy re: the core. especially since it doesn't change my mind one way or the other - if they sat there and allowed or helped those planes to hit the buildings, they are no less guilty than if they set the explosives to help them collapse. i had always believed they must have "helped it along" somehow because how could they possibly collapse "in their footprints" as they did when this has never happened before without the help of explosives. i'm still open to whatever you more engineer-minded and physics-minded people can ascertain. hats off to y'all and good luck figuring it out and coming to agreement on it someday..............

[RedSock]

3. newspaper archives

Has anyone bothered to investigate the New York Times on microfilm (and/or the Daily News and Post) during the time of the WTC construction?

That might settle the issue once and for all.

It's highly unlikely that false stories were being planted in the Times back during construction (1966-1973) so as to confuse people post-9/11!