911 Conspiracy

While visiting Boris Epstein's blog Building a Pyramid I came across where Boris had linked to a PDF file (see here) of a paper written by Brent Blanchard that reports on an analysis by demolition experts as to whether explosives could have caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC towers 1,2 and 7.

First let me praise Boris for providing the link. While Boris is what I would call a conspiracy theory advocate, he evidently is willing to entertain arguments that run counter to his opinion. In other words, he still maintains an open mind. He even helps publicize such arguments and opinions. I think this proves that Boris is, in fact, a truth seeker.

Back to Brent Blanchard's article. Brent reports that demolition experts, experts that are involved in hands on demolition of buildings, have examined the evidence and have reached the conclusion that explosives are not part of the explanation for why the towers collapsed. These experts did not attempt to explain what could have caused the collapse, they stick to their area of expertise, building demolition, and do not attempt to offer an opinion on areas beyond their expertise.

While I am not an expert on much of anything, certainly not this area, I still wish to apply a dose of common sense, with just a smidge of knowledge thrown in, towards trying to understand how it could have been possible for the impact of the airliners and subsequent fires to explain the collapses. I would not delve into this area if true experts were willing to take this on, however I have yet to be exposed to where any real expert tries to explain what happened. Since the experts are unwilling to explain it, I am going to take it on myself. Any real expert who has opinion on the subject is encouraged to jump in and correct me if my reasoning is incorrect.

Conspiracy theory advocates ask how it is possible for the steel girders within the buildings from only a jetfuel fueled fire to cause the collapse since the fires should not have gotten hot enough to melt steel. They explain that even if some girders were severed or weakened by the impact, the buildings were overengineered so that those remaining should have been sufficient to support the weight of the floors above. I wish to theorize that the fires would not have had to be hot enough to melt steel to explain the collapse.

First let me explain what I personally witnessed as to what happens to steel when exposed to jet fuel fires. I can not get too specific about the details, since specific details are probably classified. Please forgive me like starting to sound like our President George Dubyah Bush when it comes to classified information: "I know a secret I can't tell. If you knew the secrets I knew you would think like me." However I do not want to risk being thrown in jail in order to make a point by exposing classified details.

I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer. On one of the warships I served, we once had a fire that could nearly be classified as a conflagration. The fire started off being fueled by 55 gallon drums of mogas (ordinary gasoline) however the mogas fire caused a JP5 (jetfuel) pipeline to rupture resulting in an even larger fire. The ship's Damage Control Team responded to the fire quickly and professionally, extinguishing the fire in an amazingly rapid amount of time after it was discovered.

Now this fire did not last anywhere near the time the fires from the jetliner crashes into WTC towers 1 and 2. Let me explain things as I understand them. The mogas fire was hot enough to rupture the JP5 pipeline. The fire did not get hot enough to cause the JP5 pipe to melt, however the heat was enough to cause the pipe to expand to the point that fittings gave way due to the pressure that was created as the pipe expanded due to the heat it was subjected to.

The combined mogas and JP5 fire was hot enough that it caused high strength steel bulkheads, decks, beams and hatches in the immediate area to warp and buckle.

Now, taking this occurrence into account, what could be the explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?

Jetliners flew into the WTC towers 1 and 2. The impact itself might have severed or weakened some of the steel girders in the towers at the point of impact. Certainly the impact would have been enough to knock loose some of the fireproof protective coatings on the girders, directly exposing them to the heat of the jetfuel fires from the ruptured fuel tanks of the jetliners. The damage from the impact alone is not enough to explain the collapse, or else the towers would have collapsed at the moment of impact.

When the jetliners flew into the buildings their fuel tanks ruptured with jetfuel feeding the resultant fire. Jetfuel would not have been spread equally throughout the floor impacted. It would have been most heavily distributed from the point of impact to where the forward momentum of the fuel tanks was stopped. There would have been some spread of the liquid fuel beyond this path, however the fire would have been hottest and most intense at these locations. Following gravity, much of the spread of the fuel might have been downward to areas immediately below.

Fires evidently spread throughout the immediate area, however the fires probably would have been most intense and hottest in areas with plentiful amounts of jetfuel feeding the fire.

When heated, steel expands. Steel girders where the heat was most intense would have expanded to a greater degree than would have steel girders that were further from the center of the inferno. Steel girders that lost their protective insulation of fire proofing would have also expanded to a greater degree and sooner then girders where the fireproof coating remained intact.

As these girders started expanding due to the heat they were subjected to, interesting things would have been happening. Expanded girders, already weakened by the heat, would have been taking on increasing shares of the combined weight burden the entire girder system was designed to bear. As the burden they took on exceeded their design limits, these girders would have started to warp and buckle. After they warped, they were unable to contribute to the overall designed system of weight sharing because this buckling compromised their designed structural integrity. To understand how warping and buckling could do this, you need to understand that an I beam or even a piece of channel iron is able to support much greater weight then a piece of flat iron of similar thickness. Bend the I beam out of shape and it is no better then a piece of flat iron.

After the first girder warped and failed, greater shares of the weight burden were passed on to the remaining girders. As the fire continued to burn, other girders continued to expand, and by this expansion, started taking on weight burdens beyond their design limits until they too warped and failed. After this process had weakened enough girders, the remnants of the system were unable to support the combined weight of the floors above and suddenly... well, we have all seen videos of the results.

That WTC 7 also collapsed is explained by the storage of diesel fuel within the building for emergency generators that fueled that fire that engulfed that building.

I feel the conclusion I have reached is a rational and logical explanation for why the towers collapsed. Yes, a fire fueled by jetfuel is enough to compromise the integrity of the weight support structure of the towers, even allowing for overdesign.

Again, I encourage experts in the field to correct me in any area where my understanding is limited. All I will say is that if the experts were doing their jobs, it wouldn't be necessary for an ignorant truck driver to explain things. Shame on them.