Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: How did the WTC fall? 

I am not a conspiracy theorist!  I think there are enough weird things going on any single day 
that upon ultra close inspection any day one could find evidence that there is some monster plot afoot. 

Having said this there is one aspect of the events of that fateful day where the official story does not fit 
the events as observed.  In particular I am exceptionally dubious of the official explanation of the collapse 
of the twin towers. As a licensed professional engineer my opinion is not entirely the musing of the ignorant. 
While Jet Fuel does burn at up to 3000 degrees (easily hot enough to melt structural steel) burning at these 
temperatures only occurs under very specific conditions, (which are not present outside of a jet engine. 
Otherwise you can safely smoke around Jet-A’s chemical cousin kerosene. 
Enough said, there is a reason to doubt the fire story. 
However, if we accept the official fire story at face value; that intense fires caused the structural steel in 
the building to soften then sag, the resulting disaster scenario could not be what we saw on 9/11.  
Accepting the fire assertion, what the aircraft strikes and steel softening should have produced a rotation 
then toppling of the portion of the building above the strike in the direction of the plane strike – like felling a tree. 
The top ~30 floors would have landed sideways or nearly sideways on the ground.  A less dramatic option 
but more probable scenario is that 10 to 15 stories are completely burned, with sagged worthless structural 
steel and within a few days the towers need to be imploded.
The softening and sagging effect at the center of the official story is a relatively slow, sluggish event.  
A building that slowly sags down onto its lower stories will be uninhabitable but would have no reason 
to explosively collapse like we saw on 9/11. Theoretically, each floor in a skyscraper can withstand up 
to 4 times the weight of all the floors above it; changing the composition of these floors (sagging and local
collapsing) should not trigger the explosive near instant failure of each floor as seen. A slowly sagging load 
should not have caused a pancaking collapse.
Further, as implied above, since engineers don’t know for sure EXACTLY the results of our calculations, 
a factor of safety is applied to compensate for any unknowable structural conditions.  This is especially true 
for high-rise buildings. In my discipline, where things fly, and weight can have a big negative effect on performance, 
we use safety factors of 20 to 40 percent then test like crazy. For a building, expected to stand at a specific 
location for 40 to 1000 years, the expected safety factor would be 100 (2X) to 300 percent (4X).  It is therefore, 
quite possible that this building was designed to survive if 12 of 16 main columns were cut. 
Another way to look at this is if all the steel on the floors where the plane hit was at 1100 degrees the building 
still could double in weight and not fail.  If the aircraft strike zone was at 1800 degrees, and the steel retained 
only 10 percent of its strength, the build could hold 40% of its weight. Given the softened steel it would sag, 
warp and collapse locally.
Now, for a brief look at some of the “expert” counter arguments against these concerns.

This building was designed to survive a 707 strike. While some may figure that a 767 is much heavier than a 707,  
research on the Boeing website shows that the performance parameters of these planes are very close (within 50,000 
pounds in weight, fly at similar speeds).   The advances of the last 31 years have not raised aircraft weights 
(on the contrary, the drive to reduce costs has led to reduced-weight, higher-strength components.
If a typical factor of safety was applied to this design (4X), the effective weight of the 707 accounted for 
in the WTC designs would be around a million pounds.
Further, defenders of the official story claim that the idea that the towers were brought down by explosives is 
impossible because the plotters would have had to wire up the entire building.  
Even when intentionally imploding a building, they don’t wire the entire building.  To have achieved the effect 
seen on 9/11 only a couple of adjacent floors (perhaps unleased) would have needed to be wired. 
Once the supports in those floors were released, the momentum and energy in floors above where the 
explosives were placed would have driven the violent pancaking collapse that was observed. 
These doubts are primarily a result of the superficial data available. It is possible that new or revised data could 
mitigate these doubts but so far the evidence and the narrative do not fit.  The NIST and Popular Mechanics 
“expert” teams seem to think that their credentials are sufficient to erase all doubt. However, while these teams 
were loaded with Phd Engineers there were few PEs (only one is recalled) on the team.  

Between PEs and Phd Engineers only one group has to PROVE their competence through testing 
and professional activities. That would be the PEs.

Author's Identity Withheld

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart

Privacy Policy
. .