[quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza. Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions. It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it. And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

I can sleep at nite with the official version. It's just nagging. How did those pancaking floors break, not bend and twist, 47, 1100 foot long steel columns, like tooth picks about every 20 feet or so. Ok, all strutural integrity was lost when the floors started to go and the core went down.  Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel? There were a few longer pieces, about sixty feet or so but nothing relative in size was found. This was unexpected.

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed. The fire was a conventional office building fire, without fuel fueled high temps. The building had an achilles heal. From the day it was built it was weaker than many similar buildings of its size. That is, builders had to contruct an unusual steel girder frame around an obsticle at one end of the building. I believe that obsticle was a ConED transformer and an oil tank. While this construction didn't compromise its day to day integrity,when burning it relatively quickly weakened the struture to the point of no return. When viewing its collapse you can clearly see the building collapse from its weak end to its strong end. The point is, it was a conventional fire, and the building collapsed the way strutural engineers would have predicted, one end drag down by the other. It didn't collapse it the flat pancake fashion of the twin towers.  Once down, the building presented no surprises. It was a mass of twisted girders, some several hundred feet long. Nothing like the twin towers wreckage. Why, is this? Most of the twin tower steel wasn't affected by heat or fire. yet it still snapped as if it had been cut by a torch, floor after floor after floor. That's the mystery. It doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto. And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing. Just because we can't imagine it doesn't make something true or untrue. There is that pesky "you don't know what you don't know" level of knowledge (verus you know what you know and you know what you don't know). So who knows? Maybe the questions will lead to some new understanding.

[quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza.

I ask because all the reports refer to it as "1 Meridian Plaza".

Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions.

"Everyone"? Kind'a a stretch, eh?

 It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it.

Obviously that's not the majority opinion, and I find the comparison of the inner core, damaged by the planes, the fuel, explosions and eventually the weight of the outer shell to Meridian survival unconvincing.

And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

 Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel?

Look at the site on Staten Island, there was plenty of long, twisted inner core pieces. This sounds like the "the plane vaporized"....

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

 It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

That I can buy. It isn't as if engineers haven't been surprised before. There are plenty of bridge collapses and the KC walkway failure to prove that. OTOH, I'm not sure what you mean by "whole twin towers story".

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto.

They don't need anything to hang on to. Look what they do with the Pentagon attack even though 200 witnesses saw a 757 hit it.

And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing.

So long as they're questions about the phyics of large buildings that we don't understand. When they turn in to innocent but uninformed people coming to believe we were attacked by our own gov't, well, that's very, very destructive.

[/quote]

[quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[/quote]

I have a picture just like that taken with my brother, sister-in-law, nieces and nephew, and I with my 1 yr old daughter in a back pack.  It was taken summer '01 on the observation deck.  Weird to remember being there that recently.  The obervation deck was one of my favorite places in all of NYC!

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[/quote]

I have a picture just like that taken with my brother, sister-in-law, nieces and nephew, and I with my 1 yr old daughter in a back pack.  It was taken summer '01 on the observation deck.  Weird to remember being there that recently.  The obervation deck was one of my favorite places in all of NYC!
[/quote]

Same here. I have similar pictures I can't look at and I always made it a point to hit WOW and the Bar on top of the world on every visit.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza.

I ask because all the reports refer to it as "1 Meridian Plaza"

I worked in that building for years. Over that time period it changed ownership twice. While the name changed the number remained 3. At least that's the way i remember it.

Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions.

"Everyone"? Kind'a a stretch, eh?

Everyone as in everyone who is asking questions not everyone on the planet. I thought this was self explanatory

 It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it.

Obviously that's not the majority opinion, and I find the comparison of the inner core, damaged by the planes, the fuel, explosions and eventually the weight of the outer shell to Meridian survival unconvincing.

The comparison is absolutely valid. Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history. It's steel frame was not as large or as heavily built as the very same steel frame construction used in the twin towers. As a percentage, the compromised struture of Meridian was much larger than the WTC, something over 30% VS less than 10% with the towers. Time is the biggest factor in high rise fires. While it's possible that the Meridan fire was not as hot as the trade center fire, it burned for almost a day. Still, Meridian, sagging floors, twisted support girders and all did not collapse. And, by the way, Meridian was twisted by the heat. Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane is akin to burying one's head in the sand. Accepting that it was a hot fuel fire that doomed the towers is stiil conjecture. It's our best guess. No question that the fire melted the truss floor system causing the tube wall to collapse. Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame. Obviously, the frame collapsed. Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why. I'm in the very small camp of skeptics who don't believe in any conspiracy theories, yet question the official version of events.

And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions. Neither building layed over on its side. Certainly the pancaking floors did compromise the inner core. The questions are how and why?

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

 Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel?

Look at the site on Staten Island, there was plenty of long, twisted inner core pieces. This sounds like the "the plane vaporized"....

Didn't you hear, the government had a secret steel twisting machine in a large building on site. Seriously, nothing longer than about 60 feet was found. Surprising considering that most of the 47 columns holding each building up were totally undamaged within a few floors below the impact area. And yes, I'm aware that there were fires on lower floors caused by debris and dripping jetA. Nothing overly hot though.

Twisting as in the steel frame twisted laying the building on its side, didn't happen. Yet, Seven twisted. Hmmm? Lots of physics involved here.

A plane vaporized?

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today. It was compromised by its construction. The point is it collapsed in a conventional way, so to speak, no surprises, no pancake. The building went over sideways leaving steel girders hundreds of feet long. Lots of twisting. A real mess to cut up and cart away. Conspiracy theorist point the expected wreckage of this building as opposed to the complete surprise found at the twin towers wreckage. Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete. Had they been imploded, it would have been a tall order for any pro to do a better job of putting down those buildings within their own foot prints. Like I said, not expected.

 It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

That I can buy. It isn't as if engineers haven't been surprised before. There are plenty of bridge collapses and the KC walkway failure to prove that. OTOH, I'm not sure what you mean by "whole twin towers story".

I mean we can't adaquately explain all the reasons that these buildings collapsed.

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto.

They don't need anything to hang on to. Look what they do with the Pentagon attack even though 200 witnesses saw a 757 hit it.

Yeah, it gets ridiculous doesn't it?

And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing.

So long as they're questions about the phyics of large buildings that we don't understand. When they turn in to innocent but uninformed people coming to believe we were attacked by our own gov't, well, that's very, very destructive.

I think questioning government is healthy.  Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

[/quote] [/quote]

The comparison is absolutely valid. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences in the nature of the damage are simply too great. Meridian wasn’t struck by a plane flying at 550 mph, it didn’t have another building surrounding it that collapsed on it, the fire temperatures varied greatly with the JP fuel fires at the WTC being much, much hotter, Meridian didn’t suffer any secondary explosions from burning fuel.

Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

The WTC didn’t collapse due solely to fire damage, so the streak continues.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane…

I haven’t heard anyone say that. What’s been said is that the impact of the plane was a contributing factor not present in the incidents the WTC collapse is being compared to.

Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame.

Those are a minority. Reports I’ve read say that the heat involved was enough to reduce the strength of the core elements by at least 50%, not to mention the effects of the secondary explosions reported down elevator shafts. Add to that weakened structure the weight of the outer building and the collapse isn’t a mystery, it’s a horrible first of a kind.

 Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why.

You can certainly ask why, but the answer will continue to return to the effects of a reduction in strength on the order of 50% due to a jet fuel flamed fire and those secondary explosions.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions.

I feel those questions have been answered with the effects mentioned above.

 

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

I don’t think that’s exactly the language used by the engineers that reviewed the facts  ;)

 

Lots of physics involved here.

No doubt about that.

A plane vaporized?

That’s the line the “Loose Nuts” guys use about the 757 that hit the Pentagon (despite the pieces found everywhere) and against that distortion of the facts they overlay other issues to create something from nothing.

 

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today.

That’s not my recollection. The fires at seven, fueled by diesel hadn’t been fought to any extent (again, IIRC, the firefighters, overwhelmed elsewhere anyway, weren’t aware the fires in Seven with being internally fueled) AND falling debris from the towers compromised that corner you mentioned.

Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete.

That’s because Seven collapsed from the bottom where it was compromised, the towers, weakened most in higher floors began to collapse there first.

Like I said, not expected.

And like I said, engineers, whether they like to admit it or not, have seen unexpected and unanticipated things before.

I think questioning government is healthy. 

I think we’ve seen that there’s a point where it isn’t, where it borders on delusional.

Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

A conspiracy of heretofore unseen physics at work? 

 

[quote=mikebutler222]

The comparison is absolutely valid. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences in the nature of the damage are simply too great. Meridian wasn’t struck by a plane flying at 550 mph, it didn’t have another building surrounding it that collapsed on it, the fire temperatures varied greatly with the JP fuel fires at the WTC being much, much hotter, Meridian didn’t suffer any secondary explosions from burning fuel.

Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

The WTC didn’t collapse due solely to fire damage, so the streak continues.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane…

I haven’t heard anyone say that. What’s been said is that the impact of the plane was a contributing factor not present in the incidents the WTC collapse is being compared to.

Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame.

Those are a minority. Reports I’ve read say that the heat involved was enough to reduce the strength of the core elements by at least 50%, not to mention the effects of the secondary explosions reported down elevator shafts. Add to that weakened structure the weight of the outer building and the collapse isn’t a mystery, it’s a horrible first of a kind.

 Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why.

You can certainly ask why, but the answer will continue to return to the effects of a reduction in strength on the order of 50% due to a jet fuel flamed fire and those secondary explosions.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions.

I feel those questions have been answered with the effects mentioned above.

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

I don’t think that’s exactly the language used by the engineers that reviewed the facts  ;)

Lots of physics involved here.

No doubt about that.

A plane vaporized?

That’s the line the “Loose Nuts” guys use about the 757 that hit the Pentagon (despite the pieces found everywhere) and against that distortion of the facts they overlay other issues to create something from nothing.

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today.

That’s not my recollection. The fires at seven, fueled by diesel hadn’t been fought to any extent (again, IIRC, the firefighters, overwhelmed elsewhere anyway, weren’t aware the fires in Seven with being internally fueled) AND falling debris from the towers compromised that corner you mentioned.

Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete.

That’s because Seven collapsed from the bottom where it was compromised, the towers, weakened most in higher floors began to collapse there first.

Like I said, not expected.

And like I said, engineers, whether they like to admit it or not, have seen unexpected and unanticipated things before.

I think questioning government is healthy. 

I think we’ve seen that there’s a point where it isn’t, where it borders on delusional.

Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

A conspiracy of heretofore unseen physics at work? 

[/quote]

ALL WRONG

JUST KIDDING!

Good discussion.

Have a great weekend.