|
|
|
WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
Unseen documents show official
investigations used flawed construction details
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
|
|
A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein
Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed
architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove
beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse
of the towers misrepresented their construction.
The documents were passed to physics Professor
Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who
has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings
and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.
Little is known about the identity of the
whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided
consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the
North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and
basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.
Most of the drawings can be viewed here.
The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded
building, have been withheld from public view since the
9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable
for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society
of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the
collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents
which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never
use the information against the buildings' owners as part
of a lawsuit.
The website 911research.wtc7.net,
one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation
into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what
official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that
the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns
ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning
to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies
of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and
NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures.
Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns --
dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural
drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly
designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal
their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
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 blueprints show that FEMA's report was
inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding"
when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the
core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also
been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied
that the only the corner columns were "massive"
and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher
stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces
of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each
Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to
render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems
that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to
an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports
both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the
buildings fell.
The buildings more or less fell into their
own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks
of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished
and there are only a few companies on the planet that can
do it.
Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the
core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in
total. According to the official story, random spread out
fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally
collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with
no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.
Professor Steven Jones points out that the
total annihilation of the building, core columns and all,
defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:
"Where is the delay that must be expected due
to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational
Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike
lower floors – and intact steel support columns –
the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
If the central support columns remained standing, then the
effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not
the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated
along with the falling floor pans."
Below is an examination of the official reports
in more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers.
Infowars.net is currently
rocketing up the web rankings and is rivaling Infowars.com
and
Prisonplanet.com in terms of hits. This means guaranteed
sales for advertisers. Help support the website and take
advantage of low advertising rates. Click
here for more info.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Explanation of the collapses
of the Trade Towers and Building 7
The official explanation says that the towers collapsed
because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes
and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA
said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower
from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted
in the total collapse of each building".
And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due
to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they
caused the building to collapse [“official theory”]
remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a
low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation,
and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted
with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses.
It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost
immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and
loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India
and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses
consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators
from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed
the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group
was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from
Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal
events in history was farcical:
-
No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated
$600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost
of printing their report.
-
Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT
volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
-
They did not see a single piece of steel until almost
a month after the disaster.
-
They had to guess the original locations of the few
pieces of steel they saw.
-
They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study
(out of millions of pieces).
-
Their report, which called for "further investigation
and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had
been scrubbed.
A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse
was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively
gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above.
This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally
ignores the fact that the building's central core columns
even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed
during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive
pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was
completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar
budget began: NIST's
'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded
with an initial budget of $16 million.
Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse
of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce,
the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly
indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers
shows that:
-
NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse"
of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse."
Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation
was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
-
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to
the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and
separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate
report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just
how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
-
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented
in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This
unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times
as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation."
-
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that
its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led
to "collapse initiation".
The report explains the collapse of both towers with the
following sentence:
"The change in potential energy due to downward
movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded
the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure.
Global collapse then ensued."
So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse"
- ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came
down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.
NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged
portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each
tower in any detail -- its "global floor model"
which consisted of "several stories below the impact
area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally
intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were
excluded from the so called "global" models of
the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even
predicted "collapse initiation".
The excellent research website www.911review.com,
which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover
up perpetrated by the NIST report:
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about
how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through
dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without
being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g.
in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity
to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand,
if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures
enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did,
there would have been many good reasons not to try to model
the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse.
Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from
trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite
non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete
pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely
hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by
the official story as they have ever been.
Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers,
and despite the fact that they published models of the plane
impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations
from its computer models of the collapses.
In an even more startling admission in its own report,
NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables
in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened
in order to save its own hypothesis:
"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC
1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis
of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed
for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated
from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g.,
complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted
the input, but only within the range of physical reality.
Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter
columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST,
2005, p. 142)
NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based
on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings
to collapse.
If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The
investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided
what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
