Professor Jonathan R. Barnett
The quote from Jonathan Barnett.
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
He did infact say this, but that was long before any investigation was being done.
Here you can find a mail exchange between Barnett and Elias Davidsson where he explains his comment.
Below is the entire mail exchange.
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been "partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up this observation?
I would be most grateful for your observations.
Sincerely yours,
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7. Professor Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the use of thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully explain these observations.
What is your take on that?
Elias 2 January 2007
I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty.
As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky theory.
[Jonathan] 2 January 2007
Hi,
I am no specialist. However, the thermite theory does not stand alone on its own. Over 100 firefighters, as well as many others (including media people) have testified to have heard, seen or experienced multiple explosions just prior to the collapse of the buildings. The WTC 1-2 were practically pulverized into very thin dust which shot out horizontally at the time of the collapse, a phenomenon not seen in buildings' collapse. Several employees in the WTC testified to explosions that took place in the basement of one of the buildings (or both) prior to collapse. I wonder why have has all of this evidence been ignored in the official studies. Isn't the role of experts to include ALL evidence into account, not just that which fits a predetermined theory?
Elias
2 January 2007
None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.
[Jonathan]
2 January 2007
You mean the numerous explosions' testimonies were not ignored? The reports do not mention, as much as I know, these multiple testimonies. Nor were the witnesses invited to testify, as much as I understand.
You say that the collapse of the towers occurred "exactly as one expect from a fire". Could you refer to examples of other buildings who collapsed in this way due to fire?
You say that there were no predetermined ideas. Yet the hypothesis of controlled demolition was not examined in spite of many elements which suggested this to have happened. Wouldn't a thorough investigation look at all possibilities and attempt to verify which one fits best to the observations?
Elias
3 January 2007
Well, we did talk to eye witnesses. In our opinion the "explosions" were local events, not demolitions but rather the sound of structural failures.
As far as collapse mechanisms, these buildings were unique. There were no other built like them, how can I give you an example of another failure in identical structures? However, when one looks at structural failures in fires in unprotected steel structures (which is what we really had as the fire proofing was knocked off by the impact of the aircraft), you find exactly this kind of failure. The literature abounds with examples, take a look at the last 40 years of the NFPA journal and in almost every edition you'll find an example.
We did meet with and talk to the number one controlled demolition man in the world; Mark Loizeaux. I don't know where you get the idea we didn't do these things. If you'd like, we can continue this by phone. I"m in Australia at the moment and my personal number is +61 – xxxxxxxx . As you see, I'm happy to respond.
Jonathan
2 January 2007
Dear Jonathan,
Could you explain what would occur if you drop a hollow concrete shaft weighing 200 lbs. from a height of say 10 feet on top of a 800 lbs concrete shaft, four times longer. Or hollow metallic constructions of the same respective weights? Or hollow concrete shafts strengthened by steel beams of the same respective weights?
Elias
16 January 2007
Well, it all depends on the sizes, shapes, strength of steel, concrete, etc. Perhaps you could give me more of an idea of what you're looking for
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
I was just speculating on the official story which is premised on the assumption that the 20+ floors including the floor where the aircraft on 9/11 hit, could by their gravitational weight pulverize the lower floors which were at about four times heavier, and all of that could be achieved at free-falling speed (which presupposes no resistance whatsoever from the lower floors) and in a symmetrical manner.
Elias
16 January 2007
Remember, its not the weight, but the momentum. The dynamic load is much greater than the static load which is why the building collapsed the way it did. Also, remember that although the columns on the lowest floors were much stronger than the ones on the upper floors, the transition from less strong at the top to strongest at the bottom occurs slowly through the height of the building. So a floor 1 % stronger than the one above needs to resist the impact of that floor plus all the load above that floor plus the momentum load.
The roughly symmetric failure (of course the top part of Tower 2 didn't fall symmetrically), is to be expected as buildings just aren't strong enough to fall any other way.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
Dear Jonathan,
I know of only two types of total buildings' collapses: One is controlled demolition and the other is the result of earth-quakes.
Earthquakes shatter the foundations of the buildings which may bring the entire building to collapse like a card castle. Yet in all cases of earth-quakes collapses that I have seen pictures of, there are huge piles of debris. In the debris one finds victims, furniture and other items from the building. In such collapses one does not observe huge dust clouds emerging during the collapse, let alone that this dust is forcefully ejected from the collapsing buildings (as observed with the WTC). Some dust is caused by debris reaching the ground, but such dust settles in rather a short time.
Viewing the collapse of the WTC on video, it reminds one primarily of either controlled demolition or vulcanoes' eruptions, in which enormous dust clouds are ejected and rise up.
Incidentally, what was the title of the inquiry/investigation in which you took part and what was your specific role in that task?
Elias
17 January 2007
Well, hitting a building with a plane can cause total collapse too. Also, remember that the WTC buildings used unique construction that has never been used before. You need to factor that in as well as the height to width ratio of the structure.
Earthquakes don't just shatter the foundation of a building. The apply a large lateral load which can destroy a building by causing failure of shear walls, etc. this is often the cause of collapse, not foundation failure.
Having viewed slow motion close up pictures of the collapse, I don't think the clouds of dust were unusual, they appear what one would expect as gypsum wallboard was pulverized. Remember that all of the interior partitions plus all of the shaft enclosures were made of gypsum.
By the way, the scenario of controlled demolition assumes that explosives were placed in advance at the impact floors. Allegedly, these explosives were supposed to have initiated the failure mode that I suggest was caused by heating of the steel columns on these floors. So the subsequent collapse, etc is just as would have been caused by the fires. No one is suggesting that explosives were placed on every floor. If it was, how would you get that much into the buildings? How could you hide it?
The name of the report is the ASCE/FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA report 403. I was one of the 5 key authors. You can see in the table of contents what each of us did. There were 25 authors involved in writing the report.
[Jonathan]
16 January 2007
Hi,
In the weekend before 9/11, power was taken down in the South Tower for 36 hours, apparently an unprecedented measure. This meant that all security was inoperative. At this period many unidentified workers and engineers came into the building to do work at the upper part of the building. No official explanation was given what was done during that week-end. The Commission of Inquiry did not show any interest to know what was done at that weekend in the Tower.
Have you heard about this?
Elias
17 January 2007
But they still could only have installed explosives in the upper floor as 36 hours is not long enough to install explosives on 200 floors (the two buildings). Now, let's say they did. Detonating such explosives would only have caused the upper floors to collapse....you would have had exactly the same collapse as happened on the day of 9/11. On the day, we know we had fires and a plane impact that was capable of causing the building to collapse. Why use explosives when the plane and the fire was all that was needed? Nothing that occurred on 9/11 needs an explanation other than that resulting from the plane impact.
So, why explore the explosive issue? One might just as say the Bush is a Martian. He's an idiot who led us into a war. Only someone not from this planet would do that. My point is, there is a logical and complete explanation of what occurred on 9/11. Why do we need explosives?
Jonathan
17 January 2007
One of the reasons for suspecting that explosives were used to collapse the WTC is that the aircraft which crashed on the WTC were not piloted by human beings. The story about the 19 "hijackers" is a fairy tale. There is not the slightest evidence that any of them boarded the aircraft which crashed on 9/11. Anyone accusing a person of mass murder better present the evidence if he wishes to remain credible. The US authorities did not present any evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the "hijackers" boarded the aircraft: Their names do not appear on passenger lists; no person saw them board the aircraft; their bodily remains were not identified. For all purposes the US government is simply diffaming people who have disappeared (perhaps murdered).
In addition to the above fact, many other facts refute the official fairy tale. The collapse of the three WTC buildings remains a mystery, if not for you, at least for many others.
B.t.w. would you allow me to post our discussion on my webpage?
The psychological impact of 9/11 was dependent on making the WTC collapse. It was a TV event. But because such buildings never collapsed due to fire, it was necessary to demolish them by other means, using the aircraft as distraction.
In the post below you did not tell me whether you had heard about this power down. It is also puzzling why nobody paid any attention to this unusual event, just two days before 9/11.
Elias
17 January 2007
You may post our discussion.
1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity, etc.
2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.
I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.
Finally, I don't see why you need to have explosives present to prove or disprove your theories. Why don't you just assume that the buildings collapsed due to the impacts of the planes? That will not change your conspiracy theory one iota, but will eliminate the need for you to prove that explosives were in the building. You can then focus on the crux of your message instead of fighting an engineering battle that you are incorrect on.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
Thank you for your kind permission. I appreciate your conviction. Does your analysis about the buildings' collapses extend to WTC7 which was not hit by an aircraft? Does your analysis conclude that all high-rise steel buildings built in the 60s and 70s are at risk of collapsing if fire would occur? If so, why did nobody warn against such a possibility before, if an "engineering analysis would predict" such an outcome? Why did various other high-rise steel buildings not collapse even after a much longer and fiercer fire?
B.t.w the powerdown was reported by Scott Forbes, a Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust whose office was at the 97th floor of the South Tower. He went public with his report and contacted the Commission of Inquiry. There is no reason to distrust him. I even talked to him on the phone. He says many of his co-employees (those who survived) can corroborate his account. He does not claim to explain what all these unidentified workers did on that weekend. He only reported an event which he never experienced during his 3 years at that location and which happened just two days before 9/11. He said that we he saw the buildings collapse, he had a uneasy feeling that the collapse was somehow related to what was going in the weekend. You can find interviews with him by googling his name.
Elias
17 January 2007
The difference between Towers 1 and 2 and all other steel construction is that the fire proofing was knocked off the steel by the aircraft. This left the steel vulnerable to ordinary office fires. We have lots of examples of bare steel structures which have collapsed due to a fire. This contrasts with protected steel structures where such a collapse had never been seen in the past (this is why you can rest assured about the safety of other high rise buildings).
Tower 7 is another issue. I was under the impression that the fires were unusual in that diesel fuel in large quantities became involved in the mid-afternoon. This would exceed the protection provided by the fire proofing. Of course the mechanism of collapse is still an unknown. There were large transfer trusses in the building, so perhaps those we compromised. I don't pretend to have the answer to tower 7. But I anxiously await NIST's final report on that tower.
Another building of interest is Tower 5 where there was interior collapse but no impact near the collapse. I'm currently doing a study of this to see what happened.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
You say the aircraft "knocked off" the fire proofing. Isn't this merely a guess? Moreover how can one assess how much of the fire proofing was knocked off and whether the bared areas were those most subject to the fiercest fire? Aren't these merely conjecture? More generally, isn't the official explanation of the collapse based mainly on speculation rather than on observations and forensic evidence?
Elias
17 January 2007
No. We examined hundreds of beams. In no case did we find the fire proofing still on the beams. This type of fire proofing material is easy to dislodge by hand, let alone by the disintegrating plane. By knowing the adhesive properties of the fire proofing and by looking at the scenario of aluminum and other plane parts traveling well over 100 miles/hour, we determined that the fire proofing had to be dislodged. As little as 30% missing fire proofing would be enough to cause failure in an individual member. This isn't guesswork. Its engineering analysis based on observations, calculations, an understanding of material behavior and of structural behavior.
On the other hand, guessing that there was an explosion is just that, a guess.
Jonathan
17 January 2007
One more thing, NIST's analysis included an assessment of how much fire proofing would be knocked off by the impacting plane. They did careful computer simulations of the breakup of the aircraft. They reached the same conclusion we did. So two different sets of engineers reached the same conclusion using two different approaches. Sounds pretty convincing don't you think?
Jonathan 17 January 2007
