Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[Grizzly Bear]

But speaking of ruptured eardrums. If there were explosives used in the towers (you know the stuff that hurled debris hundreds of feet) there would be ruptured ear drums and massive hearing loss like at the OKC bombings. Yet no one went into NYC Er's on 9/11 with those injuries. Why is that?

Now now, you're being unfair - nothing that shatters the explosives theory to bits is allowed now you hear?

 

[TruthersLie]

Crashing planes into buildings is illogical.

for normal adjusted people. Not for folks who want to kill lots of people and do it in a very public way.

Blowing yourself up is illogical (yet people do it all the time)
Jumping off of a bridge is illogical
Going on a shooting rampage is illogical
Paying money to watch a Steven Segal movie is illogical
Stinky Fried tofu is illogical
The duck billed platyapus is illogical.

Yet all of them are real, exist and do happen.

Again and again. Which is more logical?
up to 50 people who are dedicated and determined plan and then execute a simple (and brilliant attack) where they kill the pilots and crash into buildings.

OR
a massive conspiracy where there are thousands of individuals involved (in either the entirety or in just small parts), where no one has ever come out (and kurt sonnefield the FEMA photographer never has come out with any evidence, he murdered his wife and ran... GREAT witness there). Not one person ever complained about random individuals tromping throught their buildings, people who would have to be directly involved (whoever fired the "missles", or controlled the drones, whoever directly wired the towers/wtc) never come out. To get sentiment to invade a country (where none of the hijackers are from)... EVER. ANYWHERE in the world.

says it all...

hmmmm.... which one is illogical? (yea... to most normal folks the latter one is illogical)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is getting a bit off topic, but your challenge is so easy I can't resist taking it up. Richard Gage often pretends to hold a brick up in each hand and ask which one would hit the ground first if he dropped them at the same time: the one supported by tons of structural steel or the one with nothing but fresh air underneath? Everybody knows that the one with no resistance to overcome will fall the fastest, yet in one video I saw, a JREFer who was trying to debunk him said he couldn't say for sure because he was only a history teacher and didn't know anything about physics. This seems to be the exact opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where some people are happy to give their minds away and let government-appointed experts do most of their thinking for them.

And you still don't understand the collapse. You betray that ignorance with this post. Gage is clumsily trying to put forth the "free fall" argument again, and you're buying right into it. Fail. If you understood the collapse, what you should be doing is identifying Gage as the Dunning-Kruger example. But you don't appear to recognize that he's wrong, which sets you as an example of the effect as well.

The towers did not fall at that rate, the collapse was slower than that. This was established. Remedial reading for you:

• http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm
• http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
• http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Also: Remedial viewing:


If the upper floors were indeed in free fall, why did exterior panels from those upper floors outrun the collapse front? That's pretty much an indication that free fall was in fact not happening. Try explaining that.

Given that free-fall of the upper floors is disproven, and given that you are trying to defend something that has been disproven, you firmly establish yourself as being in the wrong. But as those researchers noted:

... people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

... and you end up in Dunning-Kruger territory yourself with your choices. Your erroneous conclusion is in thinking the towers fell at a rate indicating that the upper sections were in free fall. Your unfortunate choice was to cite Gage, a person also making a claim that's in contradiction to all available evidence. And you have demonstrated an inability to realize that he made a mistake. Pure Dunning-Kruger effect. You proved it here, and you've been proving it with each and every post you make.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

've listened to both sides of the argument and my informed judgement is that these scientists and engineers haven't looked into it and are simply relying on the opinions of other scientists and engineers who are lying.

Your "informed judgement" is anything but.

• John Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, studied the collapses independent of NIST for the Lloyds syndicate, the insurers of the towers. If there's a group who has an interest in uncovering a conspiracy and thus saving billions of dollars, that's it. He hasn't found any aspect of the collapse narrative to be a plot.
• Lu Xinzheng & Jiang Jianjing, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, did their own assessment independent of NIST (and in fact, published before NIST). They haven't sounded any alarms about the US government lying about the collapse. You think the Chinese are in on the plot too?
• Tim Wilkinson, faculty at the University of Sydney's School of Civil Engineering, has studied the collapses. His work has been superceded by the NIST report, but he, too, has seen nothing suspicious in the collapses. Or will you be suspicious of his independence too, simply because he has read and cited the FEMA Building Performance Report?
• A.S. Usmani, University of Edinburgh, has independently studied the collapses and written multiple papers on issues regarding the collapses.

And that's just a small sample. Let's see if our newest resident conspiracy babbler can identify which elements of any of the aboved cited researchers works simply took at face value the word of "the scientists and engineers who are lying".

 

[Mangoose]

ElMondoHummus: The best video showing the duration of the WTC2 collapse is Clip 8 in P200015.mpg on the Moussaoui trial exhibits website. The collapse begins at 10:00 and the last portion of the collapse (core columns obscured by the dust cloud) is visible at 10:27. That's 27 seconds of from start to finish.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Now you sound like he chopper 5 pilot who also said something about 3,000 people vanishing from the face of the Earth. I was thinking more '9/11 Island'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYnMiN7teho Jeff/Chopper 5

Of course you would Bill, that's why your searching for fictional evidence.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

But speaking of ruptured eardrums. If there were explosives used in the towers (you know the stuff that hurled debris hundreds of feet) there would be ruptured ear drums and massive hearing loss like at the OKC bombings. Yet no one went into NYC Er's on 9/11 with those injuries. Why is that?

Just to expand on this: I once had made it a mission to read up on instances of barotrauma in New York area emergency departments after 9/11. I barely found any instances; what few I found were mild cases (i.e. a rescue worker reporting a single eardrum burst, things like that). In contrast, looking up barotrauma for, say, the Israeli bus bombings, or the Madrid train bombing returns papers instantly.

The difference between 9/11 and other, known bombing events is striking.

Here's an example of a 9/11 paper in the journal Critical Care Medicine, titled "The experience at St. Vincent’s Hospital, Manhattan, on September 11, 2001: Preparedness, response, and lessons learned":

In the initial period, the majority of the patients had inhalation and ocular injuries. Chemical burns to the corneas related to the lyme content in the concrete of the WTC were common. Five percent of patients presenting to the ED had an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Less than 2% had an ISS > 25. These patients had sustained primarily crush injuries, multiple fractures, and blunt trauma. Three early fatalities occurred in this group, none of whom were expected to survive. One fatality was the result of severe inhalation injury and two the result of massive blunt trauma. Fifteen patients had serious second-degree or third degree burns. Four of these patients had burns covering>85% of their body surface area and required transfer to the burn unit at New York Hospital after initial stabilization in the intensive care units at St. Vincent’s. One reporter stationed outside the ED had the acute onset of crushing chest pain radiating to the back and was found to have an acute dissection of a thoracic aneurysm requiring emergency surgery.

I failed to find this using the search term "barotrauma" in Google Scholar. I eventually had to just look for "September 11" and "Emergency Department". Now, T.A.M. and I had a discussion before on this topic, and we both concluded that this lack of information by itself doesn't mean there were no instances of bomb-induced barotrauma, such as eardrum puncture. As T.A.M. noted, studies like the above article recorded no instances, but as far as nonlethal barotrauma goes, that's to be expected in the rapid treatment of dozens to hundreds of patients.

However, lethal and potentially lethal instances - such as blast lung injury - would be a diffferent matter entirely, and you'd fully expect those to be recorded, especially as those patients would either be admitted, or be recorded as a death. Yet with 9/11, there's a total lack of any such instances reported.

In contrast (like I said above) searching for articles on known bombings returned studies recording instances of barotrauma instantly. Let me just quote the title of a paper returned high in a Google Scholar search on the terms "Israeli bus" and "barotrauma": "Blast Lung Injury From an Explosion on a Civilian Bus".

That was the first link returned in Google Scholar.

Now, this is not 100% definitive; there may indeed be instances of blast induced barotrauma attributable to 9/11. But the lack of citations when taken in contrast to the plethora of such mention in relation to other bombings really paints a picture, at least in my opinion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

ElMondoHummus: The best video showing the duration of the WTC2 collapse is Clip 8 in P200015.mpg on the Moussaoui trial exhibits website. The collapse begins at 10:00 and the last portion of the collapse (core columns obscured by the dust cloud) is visible at 10:27. That's 27 seconds of from start to finish.

Thank you! That's helpful. I hate wading through Google video and YouTube for such vids; you have to muck through tons of truther stuff to find something usable.

 

[Mangoose]

And Clip 10 on the same video is also the best video showing the duration of the WTC1 collapse, starting at 11:53 and ending after 12:25 (yielding at least 32 seconds of collapse). Same thing for Clip 11: the collapse starts at 12:36 and is visible to about 13:10 where WTC7 obscures the final part of the collapse (duration of at least 34 seconds).

 

[332nd]

He's an actor reading from a script.

Why do you say that? What's his educational/professional background?

 

[gumboot]

I don't understand how anyone can still try to make the "freefall" claim. Loose materials can clearly be seen falling faster than the collapse propagation in both collapses. This material cannot be travelling faster than freefall. Ergo the building must be collapsing at a slower rate than freefall.

You don't even need any science to grasp that basic fact.

 

[bardamu]

And you still don't understand the collapse. You betray that ignorance with this post. Gage is clumsily trying to put forth the "free fall" argument again, and you're buying right into it. Fail. If you understood the collapse, what you should be doing is identifying Gage as the Dunning-Kruger example. But you don't appear to recognize that he's wrong, which sets you as an example of the effect as well.

The towers did not fall at that rate, the collapse was slower than that. This was established. Remedial reading for you:

• http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm
• http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
• http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Also: Remedial viewing:


If the upper floors were indeed in free fall, why did exterior panels from those upper floors outrun the collapse front? That's pretty much an indication that free fall was in fact not happening. Try explaining that.

Given that free-fall of the upper floors is disproven, and given that you are trying to defend something that has been disproven, you firmly establish yourself as being in the wrong. But as those researchers noted:


... and you end up in Dunning-Kruger territory yourself with your choices. Your erroneous conclusion is in thinking the towers fell at a rate indicating that the upper sections were in free fall. Your unfortunate choice was to cite Gage, a person also making a claim that's in contradiction to all available evidence. And you have demonstrated an inability to realize that he made a mistake. Pure Dunning-Kruger effect. You proved it here, and you've been proving it with each and every post you make.

Richard Gage was using the bricks to demonstrate that WTC 7 couldn't have collapsed the way it did without being demolished. Let's suppose we have 58 bricks and we place one brick on top of each of the 57 exterior columns. Then we dangle the remaining brick from a string so that it's at the same height as the others. Now we cut the string at exactly the same time as the edge of the roofline begins to move downwards. What happens? Well, for the first couple of seconds at least, all the bricks drop at the same rate. That's not possible without columns being removed intentionally. End of story.

 

[BigAl]

Richard Gage was using the bricks to demonstrate that WTC 7 couldn't have collapsed the way it did without being demolished. Let's suppose we have 58 bricks and we place one brick on top of each of the 57 exterior columns. Then we dangle the remaining brick from a string so that it's at the same height as the others. Now we cut the string at exactly the same time as the edge of the roofline begins to move downwards. What happens? Well, for the first couple of seconds at least, all the bricks drop at the same rate. That's not possible without columns being removed intentionally. End of story.

Gage's demonstration bears absolutly no relationshi to WTC7's structure and what happened to it on 9/11 in ways that are essential to Gage's claim.

 

[BigAl]

And Clip 10 on the same video is also the best video showing the duration of the WTC1 collapse, starting at 11:53 and ending after 12:25 (yielding at least 32 seconds of collapse). Same thing for Clip 11: the collapse starts at 12:36 and is visible to about 13:10 where WTC7 obscures the final part of the collapse (duration of at least 34 seconds).

Link to the whole set?

 

[bardamu]

Your "informed judgement" is anything but.

Let's see if our newest resident conspiracy babbler can identify which elements of any of the aboved cited researchers works simply took at face value the word of "the scientists and engineers who are lying"..

John Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, studied the collapses independent of NIST for the Lloyds syndicate, the insurers of the towers. If there's a group who has an interest in uncovering a conspiracy and thus saving billions of dollars, that's it. He hasn't found any aspect of the collapse narrative to be a plot.

Your professor of structural engineering thinks burning jet fuel can melt steel:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm

The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem.

The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer.

http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm

The dramatic final collapse of each tower was a result of the fire melting the steelwork in the core.

And he's not the only structural engineer to believe the steel would have melted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

Oddly, Lloyds don't seem to have told John Knapton who owned the buildings:

http://www.john-knapton.com/wtc.htm

The World Trade Center was owned by The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.

Lu Xinzheng & Jiang Jianjing, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, did their own assessment independent of NIST (and in fact, published before NIST). They haven't sounded any alarms about the US government lying about the collapse. You think the Chinese are in on the plot too?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

This paper is anything but thorough. They provide very little data and no dimensions at all for the core:

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/lu-jiang-model

Few details of the Lu-Jiang model are given in the paper. While they mention the inner core and outer perimeter, they only give some of the data related to dimension of the perimeter components (columns and spandrels)...

A full evaluation of the Lu-Jiang model is hampered by the various unknowns, an extensive discussion with the authors would need to be initiated to fill in the missing blanks. In spite of these difficulties, some observations can be made. Lu-Jiang discuss the results they achieved in the cases where the plastic deformation limit of the steel has the value 0.5%, 1.0%, and 5.0%. A complete collapse of the towers can only be achieved for the value of 0.5%. In the case that the plastic deformation limit is 1.0%, the collapse haults about 100m below the aircraft impact area. For the 5.0% case, there is no collapse and only a part of the building near the impact area is damaged. For a value of 0.5%, the buildings collapse completely. The simulated collapse time in this case is about 110 seconds for WTC 1 and 90 seconds for WTC 2. Hence, it can be seen that the Lu-Jiang model does not adequately characterize the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Tim Wilkinson, faculty at the University of Sydney's School of Civil Engineering, has studied the collapses. His work has been superceded by the NIST report, but he, too, has seen nothing suspicious in the collapses. Or will you be suspicious of his independence too, simply because he has read and cited the FEMA Building Performance Report?

All Tim Wilkinson does is state FEMA's conclusion:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

And he has no opinion on WTC 7:

What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism.

A.S. Usmani, University of Edinburgh, has independently studied the collapses and written multiple papers on issues regarding the collapses.

This is a 2D model dealing with collapse initiation and the author seems to rely Bazant & Zhou for the rest.

He also believes WTC 7 collapsed entirely due to fire. If he posted this statement here, he'd surely be flamed:

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

Although the Twin Towers themselves had sustained considerable structural damage, WTC 7 which had not, also collapsed (being the first recorded case of the collapse of such a structure entirely because of fire).

 

[funk de fino]

Oddly, Lloyds don't seem to have told John Knapton who owned the buildings:

Do you know what lease means?

 

[twinstead]

I've always been amazed how much energy some people put into arguing totally untenable positions. No planes indeed! LOL

 

[bill smith]

Your professor of structural engineering thinks burning jet fuel can melt steel:





And he's not the only structural engineer to believe the steel would have melted:




Oddly, Lloyds don't seem to have told John Knapton who owned the buildings:







http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

This paper is anything but thorough. They provide very little data and no dimensions at all for the core:







All Tim Wilkinson does is state FEMA's conclusion:



And he has no opinion on WTC 7:







This is a 2D model dealing with collapse initiation and the author seems to rely Bazant & Zhou for the rest.

He also believes WTC 7 collapsed entirely due to fire. If he posted this statement here, he'd surely be flamed:

Now that's what I call a comprehensive drubbing. Nice one bardamu.

 

[triforcharity]

And here is just a smattering of what we have.

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

 

[Mangoose]

Link to the whole set?

Link is at post #745.