Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses
Both David Chandler and Anders Borkman are members of a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Considering that this book demonstrates that the current technical history of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings is provably incorrect, the author agrees that the general public should demand a sincere investigation into how and why each building collapsed based on non-falsified observations and measurements. However, such an investigation cannot be called for using equally false claims made with overly-simplified block mechanics and exaggerated claims. In fact, false counter-claims based on cartoon caricatures of building movement can only serve to trivialize such a demand. A basic list of claims on which AE911T bases the claims of demolition can be found on the AE911T home page, directly quoted below concerning WTC 1 and WTC 2:
AE911T EVIDENCE LIST
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3) Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4) Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8 ) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9) Isolated explosive ejections 20 �" 40 stories below demolition front
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11) Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12) Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13) Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14) No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1) Slow onset with large visible deformations
2) Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4) High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
______________________________________________________________________
The list can be roughly divided into 3 subgroups: Those that deal with the collapse progression process and resulting debris layout, those that deal with chemical or physical evidence of explosives and a third group comprising other claims unrelated to the first 2 groups. Just as the NIST reports and the Bazant papers can be fact-checked by extracting observable and measurables directly from the visual record of the collapses, this list can likewise be re-examined using the same methods.
ITEMS RELATING TO COLLAPSE PROGRESSION AND RESULTING DEBRIS LAYOUT
First, items on the quoted list related to the collapse progression and resulting debris layout are:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8 ) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
These claims are compared with the visual reconstruction of the collapse progressions provided earlier and checked for accuracy. Examination of individual points:
CLAIM OF NEAR FREE FALL ACCELERATION (#1)
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
This claim can be verified simply by measuring the collapse progression rates as seen in video. The collapse progression rate of the debris front down the WTC1 west face is measured below. The drop of the WTC1 roofline along the northwest corner during the initial downward movement are also measured. Neither measurement indicates near free-fall acceleration.
Collapse front propagation rate down WTC1 southwest corner
Initial data for linear ejecta traversal from West face of WTC 1:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/linear_2/6-0-217
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-217-3 (1280x720px/74.6Kb)
Source video in H264 format (1280x720x25fps):
http://femr2.ucoz.com/ffdemhd_264.avi
Crop of West Face Ejecta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMeTGfCZWMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F5Tw2ITMF8
Position:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-219-3 (1234x731px/67.0Kb)
Velocity:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-220-3 (1224x730px/87.3Kb)
Not only is the measured acceleration not even close to free-fall, it drops close to zero with a leveling off of velocity, which after an initial surge, stays near constant throughout the collapse.
CLAIMS RELATED TO PERIMETER WALL MOVEMENT (#2, 5, 8)
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
One of the most extreme displacements of multi-ton steel sections from the footprint of the towers is the case of the debris extending westward from the WTC1 footprint. In this case sections of perimeter columns hit the Winter Garden as shown below:
The red lines mark the distinct MER extra wide spandrels, so the marked column sections are identifiable as being from the 75-77th floor MER level. How did these large panels end up so far from the WTC1 footprint?
Maybe because the pieces form an interconnected chain back to the base of the building.
Large sections of the wall can be clearly seen falling outward in the following video.
[youtube]samGjZ8nKgk&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
The global movement of the west wall is visually reconstructed at the link WTC1 West Wall Motion
Another extreme case of the perimeter falling outward is the WTC2 East Wall Motion.
The entire height if the WTC2 east wall is mappable. It fell as 3 very large sections in a remarkably well-ordered, identifiable arrangement. The break lines between the 3 large pieces are also identifiable.
And just like the case of the WTC1 west wall, there is a continuous chain of perimeter columns extending out to the sections displaced the farthest.
Both the WTC1 west perimeter and the WTC2 east perimeter are so massive and so easily identifiable within the rubble and visual record of the collapse dynamics that I have designated as separate class of motion which I label HTFCPNST-type movement. One of the many great psychological mysteries of the collapses is how neither Bazant, the NIST or AE911T are capable of recognizing the HTFCPNST-class objects.
After all, how can people not see these giant things??
While aware of the perimeter behavior of these 2 walls, consider the following claims made by AE911T
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
8) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
If perimeter walls tend to fall outward in large pieces as shown and there are 4 walls per tower each falling outward, a certain symmetry in perimeter column debris distributions as witnessed can be anticipated.
Also, the width of the debris field of multi-ton perimeter sections will be determined by how each of the 8 walls falls outward.
CLAIMS RELATED TO FLOORING (#6, 7, 8)
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Like the perimeter walls, the entire width of the northern portion of the WTC1 core is mappable up to floors 75-77.
[youtube]yKzV1Pfyrl8&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]
Because large sections of both the core and perimeter columns are mappable, the only major component of the construction not directly observable are the floor slabs. The claims #6, 7 and 8 go to the heart of the question, "What happened to the floor slabs?"
To answer this, the AE911T statements basically claim that the floors were somehow pulverized in mid air leaving massive expanding pyroclastic-like clouds and no resulting sign of pancaked flooring at the bases of each building. Since the claims are listed as signs of demolition, the claims insinuation that the 90,000 tons of flooring were pulverized by explosive devices planted within them, leaving massive pyroclastic-like clouds as evidence of their explosive destruction.
Even an ordinary demolition doesn't require the building be blown to bits. An ordinary demolition that splits columns in such a way that gravity does most all the work does not require massive mid-air pulverization of concrete. Likewise, a demolition which intentionally destablizes the structure in a highly organized way in order to set in motion and harnass controlled gravitational energy to destroy the building in a highly organized way does not require decimation of all floor slabs by using an absurd amount of explosives.
So where did the flooring go?
This is an excellent question and since large sections of both the core and perimeter walls are mappable, systematic downward destruction of flooring, stripping it from both core and perimeter, is a key feature of how the collapses must have happened. To understand why please consider the the claims of flooring together with claim #10.
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Please consider how the WTC model shown below would react to the progressive downward stripping of the flooring that connects the core to each perimeter wall.
A large base of the core would be left standing alone and the perimeter walls would be left as large unsupported sheets stripped of their inner supports.
Many of the claims by AE911T about collapse progression of the Twin Towers are rooted in the belief stated by David Chandler as
"A small section of a structure, consisting of a few floors, cannot one-way crush-down a significantly larger lower section of same structure by gravity alone."
or by Anders Borkman as
"No structure or tower can be destroyed by gravity from above initiated by local structural failures up top. "
But in the case of the Twin Towers, the movement of the columns in the core and perimeter are mappable. This means that the Chandler and Borkman statements relate not to the columns but to the flooring claiming:
"a self-sustaining progressive floor collapse within the Twin Towers is not possible".
One would think that the perimeter and core movements witnessed during the WTC collapses would have sparked an interest in the possibility of progressive floor collapse in high rise steel frame buildings, but there is no record within the technical history of the collapses that recognizes such movement to have existed. The most detailed engineering studies available which I could find on the subject of progressive floor collapse are listed below:
Vlassis, A.G. (2007). Progressive Collapse Assessment of Tall Buildings, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London.
Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss �" Part I: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/968/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_I.pdf
Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss �" Part II: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/970/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_II.pdf
Kaewkulchai, G., and Williamson, E.B. (2006). “Modelling the Impact of Failed Members for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Frame Structures,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 20(4), pp. 375-383.
The paper "Progressive Collapse of Multi-story Buildings Due to Failed Floor Impact" by A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli and D.A. Nethercot. is available at this link.
From the introduction:
"It is concluded that such structures are susceptible to progressive collapse initiated by impact of a failed floor, mainly due to insufficient ductility supply under combined bending and axial deformation modes. Moreover, the development of shear failure modes is identified, thus further increasing the observed vulnerability of the studied floor system. Since these shear
modes of failure are expected to be even more pronounced when the actual dynamic rather than the static response of the impacted floor is considered, the need for further research work focussing on the shear capacity of a variety of connection types subject to extreme events is established. Finally, practical design recommendations that can improve the impact response of floor systems exposed to impact from the floor above are made."
page 24: "Hence, it can be easily concluded that in the event of failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below, the lower impacted system, modelled using a grillage-type approximation, is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse."
page 26: "Thus, although assessment is based on a simplified grillage-type approximation rather than a detailed slab model, the explicitness of the results leads to the conclusion that a floor system within a steel-framed composite building with a typical structural configuration has limited chances to arrest impact of an upper floor. This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability."
page 27: "To conclude, although there is room for further improvements with respect to its accuracy and applicability, the proposed assessment methodology provides an effective platform to rationally tackle the scenario of floor impact, which is one of the most prevalent progressive collapse initiation mechanisms."
Therefore, it seems that A.G. Vlassis would disagree with the statements by David Chandler and Anders Borkman. According to the studies above, sustained progressive floor collapse in the OOS regions surrounding the core seem quite possible within the WTC structures and is worthy of further investigation.
It is impossible to discuss the mechanics of demolition outside of a realistic description of the actual collapse progression mechanism of each tower. Ironically, the existing technical history of the buildings describe neither collapse progression nor the collapse initiation process in a remotely accurate way. Within the official history collapse progression is described in the archaic language of "blocks" and the collapse initiation movement is grossly falsified. There is no realistic concept of either collapse progression or initiation within academic or government literature.
Like Bazant, AE911T also misrepresents the collapse progression mechanisms by describing them in terms of blocks. Both notions of collapse progression are expressed in terms of block mechanics. This is shown within the wikipedia portrayal of the collapse progressions. But AE911T takes an extreme view compared with that of Bazant. In the "official" version according to the wikilink, the upper block crushed to lower block until striking the earth and crushing itself. In the AE911T version the upper block is incapable of crushing the lower one to earth, hence the collapse progression required assistance in the form of intentional destruction.
Both versions express collapse progression incorrectly in terms of homogeneous blocks, but AE911T claims the upper portion cannot descend to earth without the lower portion being removed deliberately. By taking such an extreme view, AE911T treats demolition as no less than the equivalent to total decimation of the structural frame. Even though both descriptions are provably incorrect, AE911T takes what is by far the losing position in any debate between them.
According to these extreme views expressed by David Chandler and Anders Borkman, AE911T takes the position that a demolition based on destablization of an upper portion to create the conditions for a highly controlled collapse utilizing gravity is not a possibility. As a result, AE911T takes the unreasonably extreme position that 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking must have been "pulverized" in mid-air by an extreme number of explosive devices. They take the extreme position that multi-ton steel sections ejected up to 600 ft laterally were somehow thrown by extremely forceful explosive devices.
Just as labels of "global warming denier" or "holocaust denier" are commonly used within the media, so the AE911T position on the collapse progressions of WTC1 and 2 can be considered to place them in the unreasonable position of being "gravity deniers". This odd, unreasonable position on the possibility of self-sustaining progressive floor collapse within the OOS regions once certain initial conditions are reached leads to an ever increasing number of demonstrably incorrect claims.
A careful, surgical and steered demolition is ruled out as a possibility and only methods that require absurdly large blasts and devices on most every floor are considered. In truth, the moments leading up to and during the collapse initiation sequence are the places to look carefully for signs of demolition. But as long as both the official version of history and AE911T describe the propagation of collapse progression in terms of blocks, no meaningful discussion of the most relevant structural questions is possible. Because the true collapse modes are not included within the historic record of either (false) choice, a false dichotomy is taken to represent historical fact. AE911T and the NIST are represented in the popular media as having a large, unbridgeabe gap between them in that the NIST accepts the possibility of a gravity driven collapse progression while AE911T takes the extreme, unnecessary position that collapse progression is impossible without outside assistance.
"Is it possible to address the collapse mechanics or demolition question for WTC1 or 2 without knowledge of the ROOSD process and perimeter stripping?"
No. It is not possible to discuss collapse mechanics or the demolition question without being aware of the possibility of ROOSD processes. Even in demolition the ROOSD process would be intentionally utilized. It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion of anything concerning demolition, including detonation devices, placement or quantity needed without awareness of the ROOSD process.
That means it is possible to avoid any meaningful discussion on demolition by misrepresenting the collapse progression mechanism?
Absolutely. Many people have made the same mistake of misrepresenting the collapse progression process. This assures endless debate in circles that goes nowhere.
Only within the context of ROOSD is meaningful debate on the Twin Towers possible.
But few people discuss WTC1 or 2 within the context of ROOSD.
And they are guaranteed to get nowhere discussing blocks and homogeneity until boredom ends the "debate". So much for historic review.
"AE911T doesn't study WTC1 or 2 within a ROOSD context."
Correct, both Gage and Chandler explain the twin towers in a block context. This is why they exaggerate the number of devices needed and think that all ejections must be little bombs. This is an image David Chandler uses to point to evidence of bombs:
Outside of a ROOSD context, some people see all ejections as bombs.
Please note the definition of "decimate" (Merriam-Webster): to cause great destruction or harm to. "Decimation" is what seems to characterize the AE911T approach to the "lower block" of each building.
For some confused reason, AE911T takes the extreme approach of equating claims of demolition with the need to decimate the lower parts of each tower. Stuck within this (block) mindset, whole classes of absurd, physically unreal arguments emerge in which every ejection must be proof of a little bomb, there being simply no way for an ejection to emerge naturally, no way for any process to sustain itself naturally.
Continue to part 4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction