WTC blueprints corroborate NIST

[FactCheck]

You must read this!


"Whistleblower" WTC blueprints corroborate NIST, debunk CT claims
by Henry62. Translated and adapted by Paolo Attivissimo with the author's permission. The original Italian article is available in the 11-settembre blog.

It's been an important week for 9/11 researchers. On March 27, professor Steven Jones, originator and main supporter of the theory of thermite-induced controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, reported via affiliated websites that he had acquired important documents related to the North Tower (WTC1).

These documents were allegedly provided anonymously by an unknown "whistleblower" who was involved in the technical assessments carried out for the lawsuits between Silverstein Properties (owner of WTC 7 and 99-year leaseholder of the Twin Towers) and the insurance companies that objected to Silverstein's request for a double payout for the two attacks of September 11, 2001. The documents include over 200 scans of architectural blueprints of the North Tower in addition to legal and CAD files."


http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/whistleblower-wtc-blueprints.html

[uk_dave]

I must have missed this post first time around.

That guy Henry62 does do a wonderful job of debunking the thermite & wtc blueprints CT

[Newtons Bit]

Unless you see a registered engineers stamp on the drawings, they're pointless for trying to analyze anything about the structure. Architects usually get the dimensions and locations of major structural elements fairly correct, but never perfect. They also may have missed things that were changed in the last weeks before stamping or any change orders or sketches that modified the original contract documents.

[PhantomWolf]

I love the photos of all the steel that Ace Barker, Judy Wood and Fetzer claim doesn't exist because it vapourised.

[hellaeon]

Man, being a truther would be damn hard these days. They are now constantly getting their smoking guns ripped apart and shown for what they are - a misrepresentation of actual facts.

This is a classic example.

Love to see how Bird Avery will spin this one to his 'fans'.

[pomeroo]

You must read this!


"Whistleblower" WTC blueprints corroborate NIST, debunk CT claims
by Henry62. Translated and adapted by Paolo Attivissimo with the author's permission. The original Italian article is available in the 11-settembre blog.

It's been an important week for 9/11 researchers. On March 27, professor Steven Jones, originator and main supporter of the theory of thermite-induced controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, reported via affiliated websites that he had acquired important documents related to the North Tower (WTC1).

These documents were allegedly provided anonymously by an unknown "whistleblower" who was involved in the technical assessments carried out for the lawsuits between Silverstein Properties (owner of WTC 7 and 99-year leaseholder of the Twin Towers) and the insurance companies that objected to Silverstein's request for a double payout for the two attacks of September 11, 2001. The documents include over 200 scans of architectural blueprints of the North Tower in addition to legal and CAD files."


http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/whistleblower-wtc-blueprints.html



Wow! Utterly devastating to the fantasists' fabricated case. If they had a ounce of intellectual integrity, if they weren't conspiracy liars, they'd close up shop and go home.

[tabouere]

The NIST is funny, they are playing with your brain and you don't even notice it.

Here's the first answer of the NIST's FAQ

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

Yep dude, a Boeing made mostly of ALUMINIUM is a large mass in comparison with the LIGHT STEEL... AND CONCRETE.

there's no big difference between the Boeing 707 and 767 fully loaded. The 767 is about 15% heavier fully loaded and fly about at a max speed of 15% slower. And the studies done to make sure the tower will stand a plane crash was made for a Boeing 707 fully loaded and none of the Boeing wich hit the WTC were fully loaded.

And for sure the studies exist, the structural engineer of the WTC talk about it in 1993 after the CIA's terrorist have tested the resistance of the core column.

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

add the http thing for the link below


archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

The NIST play with the words and lie. Funny uh?

[uk_dave]

Hilarious

[boloboffin]

tabouere: please search this forum to see if your concern has ever been addressed before. I assure you, this one has. It's all well and good to pit aluminum against steel and concrete in your mind, but there are other considerations here.

For example, do you know the actual weight of those planes, weighted down with sufficient fuel to make a transcontinental flight? The liquid in the aluminum wings would have turned those wings into bludgeons. Here's something that may help you understand this. The next time you run out of dishsoap, save the empty container. Compare it to the new container of dishsoap. Which would you rather have used as a cudgel about your head and shoulders?

And that's just PLASTIC.

Have you examined how the WTC towers were actually constructed? How is it that the buildings were designed to stand under the impact of an airplane? (and you may notice - they did stand. Without the huge fires started over so much area instantly, it is a matter of debate whether the towers would have collapsed at all. Some say yes, some say no).

The energy of the incoming planes was something to consider as well. Did the makers expect a plane to crash into the building full throttle, as the hijacked planes did that day? Or did they expect a slow-moving plane, lost in fog, to hit the towers? The high speed, something you did not feel the need to boldface in NIST's answer, is something that increased the devastating power of the planes exponentially.

All of this stuff is in the forums somewhere. The search function is quite handy in this message board. Please use it before posting again.

[tabouere]

Yes, it is hilarious, it's how they work, it's like the subject of the post, it's black op

It's easy to do.

You create false whistle blower, then you contradict them with facts or half truths.... And it's must be convincing.

What's the effect created by this black op? The skeptics are mislead and non-skeptics are more convince that the official theory is true and the skeptics ares dummies

[tabouere]

tabouere: please search this forum to see if your concern has ever been addressed before. I assure you, this one has. It's all well and good to pit aluminum against steel and concrete in your mind, but there are other considerations here.

For example, do you know the actual weight of those planes, weighted down with sufficient fuel to make a transcontinental flight? The liquid in the aluminum wings would have turned those wings into bludgeons. Here's something that may help you understand this. The next time you run out of dishsoap, save the empty container. Compare it to the new container of dishsoap. Which would you rather have used as a cudgel about your head and shoulders?

And that's just PLASTIC.

Have you examined how the WTC towers were actually constructed? How is it that the buildings were designed to stand under the impact of an airplane? (and you may notice - they did stand. Without the huge fires started over so much area instantly, it is a matter of debate whether the towers would have collapsed at all. Some say yes, some say no).

The energy of the incoming planes was something to consider as well. Did the makers expect a plane to crash into the building full throttle, as the hijacked planes did that day? Or did they expect a slow-moving plane, lost in fog, to hit the towers? The high speed, something you did not feel the need to boldface in NIST's answer, is something that increased the devastating power of the planes exponentially.

All of this stuff is in the forums somewhere. The search function is quite handy in this message board. Please use it before posting again.

Nope I will not use the search function sir, do you know why? I've heard and read this lies a thousand time.

Do I know the weight of a Boeing 767 and 707?

Yep I do.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/aircraftcomparison.gif

It's taken from the FEMA report.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

And structural ENGINEERS OF THE WTC not the one who sign papers and lie(Leslie Robertson), but the one who make the plan and who have make studies to make sure that the tower will stand the impact of a 707 and the fire that will occur after the impact

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."



http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

And that's true, NIST play with word to make people think the Boeing were strong and heavy and the tower weak and light and it lie when they say there's was no study about the effect of a fire after the plane crash.

[gumboot]

The NIST is funny, they are playing with your brain and you don't even notice it.

Yep dude, a Boeing made mostly of ALUMINIUM is a large mass in comparison with the LIGHT STEEL... AND CONCRETE.



Er... the only concrete in the towers was 4 inch poured concrete on each floor pan. Hardly significant.

The small number of steel columns in the aircraft's way were light weight compared with the 100 tonne airliner travelling at 500 - 600 MPH towards them. You obviously missed the key word before "light steel" - namely the word "relatively".




there's no big difference between the Boeing 707 and 767 fully loaded. The 767 is about 15% heavier fully loaded and fly about at a max speed of 15% slower.


Er... you might want to check your sources...

LIGHTEST 767 VARIANT (767-200) empty 80,127kg, max take off 142,882kg
LIGHTEST 707 VARIANT (707-020) empty 46,785kg, max take off unknown (but no more than the 116,570kg max take off weight of the 25% heavier 707-120B)

HEAVIEST 767 VARIANT (767-400ER) empty 103,872kg, max take off 204,116kg
HEAVIEST 707 VARIANT (707-320B) empty 66,406kg, max take off 151,320kg.

As you can see the 767, in all scenarios, is significantly heavier than the 707.

For both the 707 and 767 cruising speed was Mach 0.8. (maximum speeds for airliners are generally not publicised).





And the studies done to make sure the tower will stand a plane crash was made for a Boeing 707 fully loaded and none of the Boeing wich hit the WTC were fully loaded.

And for sure the studies exist, the structural engineer of the WTC talk about it in 1993 after the CIA's terrorist have tested the resistance of the core column.

The debate over the studies is more complicated than you think.

There's multiple claims. Firstly, the lead engineers claim that the scenario envisaged was a slow-moving 707, low on fuel, lost on approach during fog. There are calculations to support these studies, however there was no ability at the time to determine the affect the fuel fires would have on the building, thus this was not calculated. The building was specifically designed with this scenario in mind.

In addition a number of people involved in the WTC claim that an additional study was done post construction which determined the building could sustain multiple impacts from a 707 at high speed. There is no evidence whatsoever that this study ever took place.

-Gumboot

ETA. It is also worth pointing out that both WTC1 and WTC2 did withstand the impacts from AA11 and UA175, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they didn't immediately fall down. Ultimately the fires caused the collapse, and prior to the NIST study no one had ever had the capability of modelling this sort of fire damage. Certainly not in the early 1960's.

[tabouere]

Er... the only concrete in the towers was 4 inch poured concrete on each floor pan. Hardly significant.

The small number of steel columns in the aircraft's way were light weight compared with the 100 tonne airliner travelling at 500 - 600 MPH towards them. You obviously missed the key word before "light steel" - namely the word "relatively".






Er... you might want to check your sources...

LIGHTEST 767 VARIANT (767-200) empty 80,127kg, max take off 142,882kg
LIGHTEST 707 VARIANT (707-020) empty 46,785kg, max take off unknown (but no more than the 116,570kg max take off weight of the 25% heavier 707-120B)

HEAVIEST 767 VARIANT (767-400ER) empty 103,872kg, max take off 204,116kg
HEAVIEST 707 VARIANT (707-320B) empty 66,406kg, max take off 151,320kg.

As you can see the 767, in all scenarios, is significantly heavier than the 707.

For both the 707 and 767 cruising speed was Mach 0.8. (maximum speeds for airliners are generally not publicised).






The debate over the studies is more complicated than you think.

There's multiple claims. Firstly, the lead engineers claim that the scenario envisaged was a slow-moving 707, low on fuel, lost on approach during fog. There are calculations to support these studies, however there was no ability at the time to determine the affect the fuel fires would have on the building, thus this was not calculated. The building was specifically designed with this scenario in mind.

In addition a number of people involved in the WTC claim that an additional study was done post construction which determined the building could sustain multiple impacts from a 707 at high speed. There is no evidence whatsoever that this study ever took place.

-Gumboot

ETA. It is also worth pointing out that both WTC1 and WTC2 did withstand the impacts from AA11 and UA175, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they didn't immediately fall down. Ultimately the fires caused the collapse, and prior to the NIST study no one had ever had the capability of modelling this sort of fire damage. Certainly not in the early 1960's.

My source for the BOEING is FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) dude and yes, the concrete is about 60% to 75% of the mass of the WTC.

Go do your homework. :p

And the quote of Robertson is after the 911, the quote of John Skilling, was made before, in 1993

For me, Robertson is a well paid liar, Frank De Martini told the same thing as skilling, he tell even more.

[Gravy]

My source is FEMA dude for the BOEING and yes the concrete is about 60% to 75% of the mass of the WTC.

Go do your homework. :pTabouere, meet the Stundie Awards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78360). Stundies, meet tabouere.

And does anyone really have to remind you that the towers did withstand the aircraft impacts?

[Hokulele]

My source is FEMA dude for the BOEING and yes the concrete is about 60% to 75% of the mass of the WTC.

Go do your homework. :p


But apparently you did not read the FEMA report as your quoted bit was a section describing various aircraft sizes vs. building heights. Note that the 767 listed in your quote is the 200 series, i.e. the lightest possible variant. It does not mention the heaviest variant (400 series) that gumboot lists. So basically, it looks like you are saying that even the lightest possible 767 is still heavier than the heaviest 707, so therefore the damage done would be even greater.

[Gravy]

For me, Robertson is a well paid liar, Frank De Martini told the same thing as skilling, he tell even more.

Please provide evidence of any lies that Robertson has told. You are posting on a forum for critical thinkers. You will always be asked to provide evidence that backs your claims. Please be prepared to do so.

Was Frank DeMartini involved in the design of the towers? You should know that answer before making claims of expertise on his part.

[MG1962]

[Was Frank DeMartini involved in the design of the towers? You should know that answer before making claims of expertise on his part.

Oooh oooh - pick me pick me. I know the answer..... I really do

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, it is hilarious, it's how they work, it's like the subject of the post, it's black op

It's easy to do.

You create false whistle blower, then you contradict them with facts or half truths.... And it's must be convincing.

What's the effect created by this black op? The skeptics are mislead and non-skeptics are more convince that the official theory is true and the skeptics ares dummies
Evidence?

[Mr.D]

The NIST is funny, they are playing with your brain and you don't even notice it.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

...

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

The NIST play with the words and lie. Funny uh?


This quote doesn't mean what you think it does.

The structure of the WTC towers survived the impact of the airplanes.

The biggest problem WAS the fire afterwards.

Where's the problem?

[gumboot]

My source for the BOEING is FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) dude


Well, if FEMA says so, it must be true. The model cited by FEMA is the 707-320C - the heaviest model of the 707, and half again as heavy as the original 707. In contrast they compare this with the 200-series Boeing 767 - the very lightest model. UA175 was a Boeing 767-222, however AA11 was a Boeing 767-223ER - an aircraft that has a slightly heavier airframe but a significantly heavier maximum take off weight.

Whereas your source is FEMA, which doesn't identify the model of 707, my sources include Boeing, aviation-history.com, aviationhistoryonline.com, aircraft-info.net, and aerospaceweb.org. These cites do identify which model is being referred to, and further cite their sources, including the manufacturer and Jane's Civil Aircraft.

If you want to get your facts straight, here (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/707.htm) is the portal to Boeing's detailed technical characteristics for the Boeing 707.





and yes, the concrete is about 60% to 75% of the mass of the WTC.

Go do your homework. :p


Please tell me you're joking?

Based on this (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml) summary of various concrete densities, we can allow a maximum likely density of 2,400kg/m3.

Each tower had 110 floors, with concrete approximately 0.1016m thick (4in), across an area of 63m x 63m (for now assuming total floor coverage and ignoring things like elevator shafts and stairwells).

This gives a total volume of 63m x 63m x (110m x 0.1016m) = 63m x 63m x 11.176m = 44,357.544 m3. This gives us a total concrete weight of 44,357.544 x 2,400 = 106,458,105.6kg = approximately 100,000 tonnes.

The total estimated weight of each tower was 500,000 tonnes, thus meaning concrete accounted for about 20% of the building's weight.

This is, of course, based on a number of factors that increase the total concrete weight calculations. For example, were we to use the most extreme lightweight concrete density, which is only 300 kg/m3 the total weight would only be 13,307,263.2kg, or 2.6% of the tower's entire weight.

It should be pointed out that the highest density concrete is STRUCTURAL concrete, however the concrete used in the towers was not structural, but merely there to provide a flat floor surface. Thus it is likely the density was much lower than 2,400kg per cubic meter.





And the quote of Robertson is after the 911, the quote of John Skilling, was made before, in 1993

For me, Robertson is a well paid liar, Frank De Martini told the same thing as skilling, he tell even more.


To be fair, I don't really care overly about opinions. I care about scientific facts. There is scientific evidence to support the assertion that the WTC could sustain a low speed single unladen 707 impact. there is no scientific evidence to support the assertion that the WTC could sustain several high speed heavily laden 707 impacts.

Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, none of these studies, alleged or otherwise, were capable of determining the impact the ensuing fires would have on the structure. Thus their relevance in discussing 9/11 is limited.

-Gumboot

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, this is another self-contradiction by the CTers:

Now, NIST and everybody else are liars. Some CTers even claim explosives were built into the towers.

Yet, when essentially the same sources claim that the buildings could withstand airplane impacts, that must be true.

Face it, dudes: The designers of WTC1 and 2 claimed their construction could withstand an aircraft impact. The designers of the Titanic claimed their construction was unsinkable. Both were wrong.

... And actually, that was not even what either of them claimed. What they claimed was that the construction was made to resist those things. It is only the public hype that has later made absolute claims out of it. No engineer in his right mind will make an absolute claim about something he has no possibility to test.

Hans

[westprog]

Actually, this is another self-contradiction by the CTers:

Now, NIST and everybody else are liars. Some CTers even claim explosives were built into the towers.

Yet, when essentially the same sources claim that the buildings could withstand airplane impacts, that must be true.

Face it, dudes: The designers of WTC1 and 2 claimed their construction could withstand an aircraft impact. The designers of the Titanic claimed their construction was unsinkable. Both were wrong.

... And actually, that was not even what either of them claimed. What they claimed was that the construction was made to resist those things. It is only the public hype that has later made absolute claims out of it. No engineer in his right mind will make an absolute claim about something he has no possibility to test.

Hans

What's really strange is that there is such utter confidence in this particular claim, while all the other assertions can be totally disregarded. If an engineer thirty years ago says that the building is designed to resist the impact of a smaller, slower-moving plane, then this overrides the opinion of every other engineer in the world subsequently.

I wonder how this will turn out -

Disappear from the thread completely - 2/1
LOL, you are all so stupid/shills/evil - 11/4
Deals with each point in detail - 40/1
Changes mind, accepts analysis - 1000/1

[Foolmewunz]

What's really strange is that there is such utter confidence in this particular claim, while all the other assertions can be totally disregarded. If an engineer thirty years ago says that the building is designed to resist the impact of a smaller, slower-moving plane, then this overrides the opinion of every other engineer in the world subsequently.

I wonder how this will turn out -

Disappear from the thread completely - 2/1
LOL, you are all so stupid/shills/evil - 11/4
Deals with each point in detail - 40/1
Changes mind, accepts analysis - 1000/1

Can I get a tenner on "LOL, you are all so stupid/shills/evil". He/She will make a dog's breakfast of trying to deal with each point, but will ultimately go to fingers-in-ear mode. (My humble prediction.)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nope I will not use the search function sir, do you know why? I've heard and read this lies a thousand time.

<snip>
Then why are you here? How do you hope to defend your position if you refuse to address counter-arguments made against your claim? Such intellectual dishonesty does nothing to further understanding and knowledge. You would be better off in a tree-house with a 'No grlz alowd' sign on it.

[ZouPrime]

Tabouere, are you from Quebec?

[Foolmewunz]

Tabouere, are you from Quebec?

Is there any other place where "tabouere" is a word?

[uk_dave]

Is there any other place where "tabouere" is a word?

Yeah.

Manchester.;)

[ZouPrime]

Is there any other place where "tabouere" is a word?
That's what I was asking myself :) Either he's a quebecois pure laine or this is just one of those stranges coincidences.