"WHy The Towers Fell" Nova, PBS Tuesday evening

[Kanary]

Didn't catch the first part of the promo.....

Kanary

[serryjw]

1. REPEAT!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[Kanary]

3. Geeeeeez, it was just a heads up........

no need to pounce so gleefully.....

There are undoubtedly some who are interested and haven't seen it, y'know.....

[hang a left]

6. I haven't seen it.

But I just checked and it is not on the left coast.

[serryjw]

10. You can see it online was my point..........

Many may not be able to catch it on TV.

[underseasurveyor]

12. ""But worth watching again""

if you've already seen it. But certainly do if you haven't :bounce: Quite thought provoking, for those of us who enjoy having our thoughts provoked ;-)

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. This is a good program, it was on a couple of years ago.

[Kanary]

4. Thanks..... helps to know it's worth seeing....

:hi:

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. There was another program that was also very good

It was a history of the WTC. It was several hours long on PBS also.
Thanks for the heads up. I would like to see this one again.

[BlueJazz]

8. I've watched it twice and it's like a deep cerebral CD

..You learn something more ever time. I found it fascinating and
somewhat irritating the way the builders
"experimented" with new building techniques ...especially around the support beams and the elevator shafts. Grrr!

[Kanary]

9. "Grrr" is right...... isn't that sorta like

"experimenting" with a jet design????

Kanary

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. There's a very touching scene

showing one of the original architects of the WTC looking out his office windows at where the towers used to stand. All in all, an excellent episode.

[blackowl]

11. Disinfo

Piece is comprehensively debunked here:

<http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html>

[ParanoidPat]

13. Debunked? Where?

The site you linked to does no such thing. Just a bunch of :tinfoilhat: BULLSHIT. Not a single FACT anywhere. Perhaps you can watch the program tomorrow and thrill us all with your brilliant observations. :)

Oh, and welcome to DU. :evilgrin:

[blackowl]

14. WTC7

I'm not sure why you take issue, friend. Silverstein already admitted demolishing WTC7.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

So take it up with Silverstein. Or the laws of physics. Or common sense. Because buildings don't simply collapse into tidy piles of rubble when small fires break out. If they did, there would be no need for demolition companies. You could simply drop a match in a waste-paper basket and watch your target structure disintegrate.

Regarding the other two towers, well, here’s what the site had to say about the film:

<http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/index.html>

NOVA/Eagar Use Deceptive Techniques
Images and movies misrepresent the towers as flimsy structures just waiting to pancake:
· animation:
o Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
o Implies floors rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.
· structural schematic:
o Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.
o Spandrell plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.
· plane approaching:
o Plane is size of 747, over twice size of 767
o Horizontal ribs replace vertical columns.
The Truss Failure Theory According to FEMA
FEMA's BPAT gave the truss failure theory the official stamp of legitimacy in their report.

tall freestanding columns??We see only short freefalling column fragments.
They say the perimeter and core columns would self-destruct if the floor diaphragms collapsed:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The columns were not freestanding:
· The perimeter columns were grids with horizontal spandrell plates linking the columns.
· The core structures were lattices, densely cross-braced.
Note legalistic CYA language possibly central core columns:
Engineers knew floor failures would not destroy core structures.
FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:
The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.

The Truss Failure Theory is a Diversion
It avoids the glaring deficiencies of the column failure theory, but likewise doesn't begin to explain total collapse.
· Prerequisites didn't exist.
o Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor.
o Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing.
· Domino-effect floor failures were not possible.
o The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below.
o Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense.

The towers collapsed straight down.
Discounting demolition, they followed the path of most resistance.

[nostamj]

16. the same lies and BS every time...

"pull it' refers to pulling the NYFD back as the building was lost.

"small fires"? apparently you don't live in NYC. it was fueled by diesel stored in the building.

it burned for 7 hours and was NOT a 'small fire'

[Sterling]

27. Pull it?

Why would he not say eveacuate "them" or pull them if he was refering to the fire crews?

Oull it is the standard industry term for controlled demolition.

[Dookus]

17. That's quite a stretch

to say "Silverstein already admitted demolishing WTC 7" based on that one quote you provided.

[theboss]

22. How many times can you erroneously use that same quote?

I've seen that stupid "pull it" quote on here over 100 times, it seems. And everytime, people point out that it means that the FDNY simply stopped fighting the blaze.

[ParanoidPat]

24. You can't honestly be that uninformed!

Are you from NY? Have you ever been in the WTC? Did you watch the towers get built? Have you ever worked with the NYFD?

I HAVE! I grew up in NYC and was at the WTC site more times than I care to remember. I was down in the 'bathtub' 7 stories below street level before the first column was bolted down. I watched the towers get built floor by floor. I was a member of a volunteer ambulance corps in NYC and worked closely with the FD. One of my younger brothers works for the Port Authority of NY and worked in the WTC.

First off, when Silverstein said the words "pull it" he was referring to the 'Incident Command Center' that was set up in building 7 early in the disaster. Do you remember where Rudy was that morning? To take those two words so totally out of context and twist them that way is soooo Republican of you!
Perhaps you can post a link to the entire conversation in it's original context to prove your assertion of the meaning of his words. :)

As far as the 'laws of physics' are concerned, I've been paid a 6 figure a year salary for my understanding of them. How about you? Do you have a clue as to what F=ma means? For you to post something so ignorant as "The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below." is mind boggling! Go back and look at the footage of the collapses. Count the number of floors above the point of failure and calculate the total mass of those floors and then factor in the acceleration of a one story drop. Now that you know the force acting on the structure, tell me with a straight face that the floor below "would easily absorb" that force. (Keep in mind that most of the steel was rated at between 36 Ksi and 50 Ksi.) I guess 'common sense' isn't all that common after all!

Your characterization of the fires from jet aircraft, fully laden with fuel, exploding into buildings full of combustible materials as "small"
is breathtaking. What on earth would you consider a BIG fire?

Perhaps the best bet is to have you read the actual report and have you argue your position from an informed POV.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm

Read the report, do the math and then come back and tell us all about how wrong they are and why.

I for one can't wait. :evilgrin:

[bpilgrim]

30. video of wtc7 falling in it's own footprint

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

somebody gave the order to take it down and if they could do it with wtc7 they could do it with others.

what else are they lying about to the american people :shrug:

psst... pass the word

peace

[WarIsPeace]

29. Theres a great compilation of articles and videos found here:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html#bombs

I highly recommend doing your own research, your healthy skepticism will help you greatly to sort through the lies and disinformation!

[Protected]

19. Wow, so the computer graphics aren't completely correct

That's a first. :eyes:

Naturally this NOVA show won't convince the tinfoil hat types, but everybody else should find this to be an interesting program.

[aquart]

32. Never set foot in NYC, have you?

[Sterling]

34. Plz explain

I live here and I think something is fishy about 7. What was the point you were trying to make?

[Kanary]

15. Kick for the day crowd, who may want to watch, rewatch, record....

:kick:

Those in a bad mood can desist..... :)

Kanary

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

18. Thanks for the heads up

I saw it a while back and want to see it again.

[Kanary]

21. You're certainly welcome, and here's an idea...

Since you've already seen it, you know whether you want to record it.

What I've been doing is recording programs that I think are well done, and have good info for those who only get their news from ........ (you know what I mean....)

I see it as an educational project........ having tapes available for those who don't really know the facts, and are open enough to hear other views.

Just an idea to consider.

Kanary

[Dookus]

20. thanks kanary

I haven't seen it. I just set my Tivo. Looks interesting.

[theboss]

23. Excellent program

It explains what happened extremely well and points out how the unique designs of the buildings helped create their undoing.

[Kanary]

25. Reminder for the evening crowd.....

:kick:

[blackowl]

26. DUH

“"pull it' refers to pulling the NYFD back as the building was lost.”

So there’s no confusion about the context;)

<http://webfairy.911review.org/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv>

“it burned for 7 hours and was NOT a 'small fire'”



“The total collapse of Building 7 is officially blamed on fires.

This would be the first case in history in which fires alone were blamed for the total destruction of a steel-frame high-rise.

The fires in Building 7 were not severe:
· Limited to isolated regions of 2 floors
· No broken glass on north side
· Puny compared to other building fires

“apparently you don't live in NYC. it was fueled by diesel stored in the building.”

What Caused Building 7's Collapse?

This question would appear to be the greatest in engineering history. In over 100 years of experience with steel frame buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure.

What was done to answer this most important question? The only official body that admits to having investigated the curious collapse of Building 7 is FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which blamed fires for the collapse but admitted to being clueless about how fires caused the collapse.

People who have seen buildings implode in controlled demolitions are unlikely to be as challenged as FEMA's team in understanding the cause of Building 7's collapse. They will notice, upon watching the videos, that Building 7's collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled demolition.

Despite having the appearance of a controlled demolition, is it possible that Building 7 could have been destroyed by some combination of damage from tower debris, fuel tank explosions, and fires? Let's consider the possible scenarios.

The evidence does not support the idea that Building 7 was damaged by fallout from the tower collapses, nor that there were diesel fuel tank explosions. Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

Building 7 was about 5 times as tall as it was deep.

(Furthermore the very idea of a tank of diesel fuel exploding taxes the imagination, since diesel fuel does not even begin to boil below 320 degrees F. 1) Fires have never been known to damage steel columns in highrise buildings, but if they could, the damage would be produced gradually and would be localized to the areas where the fire was the most intense.

No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions, and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode. The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great given the ratio of its height to its width and depth. Any asymmetry in the extent and timing of the damage would cause such a building to topple.

“Your characterization of the fires from jet aircraft, fully laden with fuel, exploding into buildings full of combustible materials as "small"
is breathtaking.”

I was referring to WTC7

“Wow, so the computer graphics aren't completely correct”

Not only are they not “completely correct”, they are highly deceptive.

Again:

o Omits cross-trusses, which would spoil zipper effect.
o Implies floors rested on trusses. In fact, trusses were bolted to steel floor pans every few inches.
· structural schematic:
o Core depicted as horizontal slabs instead of vertical columns.
o Spandrell plates linking perimeter columns are omitted.

“The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel frame building to collapse, before or after September 11th.

Steel-frame highrises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been widespread for over 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.

The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.

Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; 1 and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". 2

Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Perfomance Study contains the following:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

In actual building fires, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Chorus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C. 3

[Sterling]

28. I am confused.

The link you posted does not show the context of the quote. I for one would love to see it as I have only seen it in "Painful Deceptions" the video and it does not provide any context to suggest he was refering to anything but the building.

[blackowl]

31. PULL IT

"WE'RE GETTING READY TO PULL BUILDING 6"

"WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW WE DEMOLISH BUILDING 6"

But I don't suppose there's any point in getting bogged down in semantics.

It's already clear from the video footage that WTC7 was demolished. It couldn't have happened any other way.

[Sterling]

33. The quote I have on video is not refering to 6.

He was talking about 7. Some here that I respect say that it is taken out of context and he is actually refering to "pulling" the emergency command center? I just want to see a transcript or the whole interview the quote is from.

I don't have a dog in the fight I just want the truth that's all.