Why 9/11 WTC Collapses were Controlled Demolitions, whereas 2017 Plasco Building's Collapse at Tehran was a Fire-Induced Structural Failure

WHY 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES WERE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, WHEREAS 2017 PLASCO BUILDING’S COLLAPSE AT TEHRAN WAS A FIRE-INDUCED STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Alberto Miatello Abstract The recent tragedy of Plasco Building at Tehran can highlight and clarify some important physical laws, rules and criteria, to distinguish between a fire-induced structural failure and a controlled demolition of a building. Plasco’s 15 stories total destruction by fire is no surprise, as physics is proving that a fire-induced collapse of top floors of a high-rise building can crumble a mass below but a bit larger – at most - than the one of the collapsing stories (here 6 top stories, whose initial fire spread to almost all 11 stories, all finally falling into almost centrally empty 4 floors at ground level, inside a patio/mall shopping center). A brief historical survey of several fires of high-rise buildings is being provided here. Plasco Building’s collapse close scrutiny is totally compatible with a fire-induced structural failure, and cannot but indirectly confirm that 12 collapsing floors of WTC1 on 9/11/2001 could – at most – destroy no more than 15 stories beneath, and therefore the actual reason of the total collapse of 3 WTC towers on 9/11/2001 was a controlled demolition of their basements through blasting charges. § A great tragedy occurred on January 19, 2017 at Tehran, where 21 persons (including firefighters) died, and many have been severely injured, after the blaze, and subsequent collapse, of 11 burning stories of Plasco Building. Firemen battled 3 hours and half against flames, as they propagated up and down from initial location (9th floor) but at the end their battle was lost, and flames succeeded in destroying metal and concrete frames, starting the final and fatal collapse of 11 stories of apartments, making them precipitate inside the 4 floors of empty patio (internal courtyard used as shopping center) Plasco Building was built on 1962, and at that time it was a modern, “high-rise”, 15 floors hotel. However, many sources now indicate as the likely cause of the accident the non-compliance (Iranian sources reported at least 30 safety warnings by authorities to Plasco’s directors!) of safety regulations and the presence of too many inflammable materials inside, due to the attendance of many clothing workshops. And yet – apart from the specific reason (arson or casualty) that provoked the fire and will be the object of investigations by local authorities - this tragedy can be very interesting worldwide also for scientific and physical purposes, above all for thousands architects, engineers, physicists, and many relatives of 9/11 victims, who challenged the “official” version of 9/11 WTC collapses – as a result of a structural failure due to the combination of fires plus airliners impacts – and supported the thesis of total collapse of 3 WTC towers (Twin Towers plus WTC7) as mainly caused by controlled demolitions of their basements through blasting charges. Plasco Building’s collapse was nothing but another experimental proof that top floors of a high -rise building collapsing just for structural fire-induced failure can crumble - while falling – only a mass beneath just a bit larger (at most) than its own! Thus, fire started at 9th and then spread to top 6 floors of Plasco Building - that were entirely engulfed by flames - then spread also to apartments below, and then the whole collapsing mass (11 stories of apartments) imploded vertically inside the 4 centrally empty stories of patio (shopping center), at ground level. a) Last image of 11 stories of Plasco’s apartments fully engulfed by flames, moments before their final collapse into the 4 ground level floors of patio/shopping center. (Source of image: Iranian Tasnim News Agency/Reuters) IMPORTANT! Some images and videos showed just one side of Plasco before the final collapse, where flames were burning “only” 6 top floors. And yet, flames were engulfing, in various ways, all the floors, as clearly proved by photo a) above on the other side, and by photo b) below, where massive fumes of huge fire are clearly visible also on the left side of building, 9-10 floors below the roofline. Thus, almost ALL Plasco Building was burning, before the final collapse! b) Photo showing the left side of Plasco totally burning (as evidenced by fumes emanating from bottom left) (Source of image: Iranian Tasnim News Agency/Reuters) c) Scraps and debris of Plasco after collapse (Source of image: Iranian Tasnim News Agency/Reuters) d) Image of Plasco’s 4 floors of patio/shopping center at ground level (Source of image: Shahre Farang.com) After this Iranian tragedy of Plasco, some advocates of the “official” version of 9/11 2001 WTC collapses, denying any controlled demolition of their basements, said that Plasco’s total collapse would “put in crisis” all the “A&E 9/11 Truth” movement ( supporting the thesis of controlled demolitions) because, according to their words, Plasco’s total destruction would prove that top collapsing stories of a building can make it entirely collapse, without any sort of controlled demolition. But this statement is totally false! Nobody can seriously say that a building cannot totally collapse due to a fire-induced structural failure of top stories! Furthermore , in Plasco’s case, the initial fire of top 6 floors spread also to 5 stories and apartments beneath, all full of clothing, so that at the end almost the whole building was burning after 3.5 hours of fire. What we are saying – and we can easily prove! – is a very different thing, namely top “gravity-driven” collapsing stories of a building cannot destroy a mass of stories below larger than 105-130% of their own mass! So, 5 collapsing top stories can totally destroy a 11 stories high building, or 10 collapsing top stories can totally destroy a 22 stories high building. Hence: 6 top blazing stories of Plasco could – as it happened – of course propagate the flames to 5 stories below (full of garment) - not being the first 4 “stories” at ground level apartments, but just a centrally empty patio/mall space, an internal and closed courtyard surrounded by shops on the walls, that was normally used as shopping center - and then after 3 hours and ½ of fire, the whole 11 stories of blazing apartments could definitely crumble and collapse inside the patio. Furthermore, the analysis of design of Plasco Building – where the first ground-level 4 floors were an almost centrally empty structure (a patio for shopping center), and whose lateral walls, pillars and frames could yield a totally defective structural resistance, in case of total collapse of 11 stories above - can prove that in 1962 (when the building was inaugurated) nobody among architects and engineers who planned the structure was seriously forecasting a so extreme occurrence, as a devastating fire burning without control for 3 hours and more, and involving all 11 floors of apartments above the shopping center. Therefore, the total collapse of 15 stories of Plasco Building, after more than 3 hours of fire, is totally compatible with a fire-induced structural failure. What could not happen – as it is prohibited by all physical laws – is that 12 top stories of WTC1 could totally crumble, on 9/11/2001, by collapsing at around 5 m/s² acceleration, for just an alleged fire-induced structural failure, a mass of 98 stories below, i.e. 800% larger!! And the same was for WTC2: 30 collapsing stories of WTC2 could destroy by their own weight at most and underlying mass of no more than 33 underlying stories (= 110% larger than their own mass), but certainly not 80 stories (= 266% larger than their own mass!). In my paper of 2015 [1 ] I was the first proving and calculating – applying a “re-arranged” version of the famous “rocket equation” by Tsiolkovsky to civil engineering - that 12 top floors of WTC1 could only destroy no more than 15 stories below (= 125% of the initial collapsing mass) – were they collapsed for just structural fire-induced reasons – whereas 30 top stories of WTC2 could “only” destroy at most 33 more floors beneath (= 110% of the initial collapsing mass), but surely NOT the whole buildings, namely a mass 8 times (WTC1) or 2.6 times (WTC2) larger! Now the collapse of Plasco Hotel is totally in agreement with my calculation, based on an indisputable equation of physics such as the “rocket equation”, which was many times used to precisely calculate the mass, velocity, and fuel, of rockets in space missions. Here is the “rocket equation”, as I re-arranged it (by differentiating it with time: dv/dt) in order to extrapolate any moment the acceleration “a” of a variable mass in a “gravity-driven” collapse: af = ai –ax ln(Mf/Mi) where: af = final acceleration ai = initial downward acceleration (by kinetic energy) ax = opposite structural resistance (η) to initial acceleration (or thrust) ln = natural logarithm Mf = final mass of collapsing building Mi = initial mass of collapsing building This wonderful equation can show us any time, very precisely, the behavior and variation of an initial mass, changing under two opposite forces, namely gravity and structural resistance by stories below those collapsing. Hence, this equation can show us the simultaneous change and interaction of the 3 fundamental parameters involved in such physical phenomena: 1) mass; 2) force A; 3) opposite force B It can be used to precisely calculate how much the initial mass of a rocket being sent to space is reducing (and how much fuel will be consumed) under the violent “thrust” of the exhausted gases and propellants of the engine (pushing it from Earth to space), and under the opposite force of gravity (tending to pull it again to the earth surface), and what will be the velocity/acceleration we need to reach the escape velocity. But of course it can be used as well to calculate how much the initial mass of a collapsing building is growing, while falling under the downward force of gravity, and also under the opposite and growing structural resistance by metal and concrete frames of underlying stories, till the point where the collapse stops. Of course, when the initial mass is ablating/reducing (as with rockets) then velocity/acceleration is growing, whereas when the initial mass is increasing (as with collapsing top stories of buildings), then velocity/acceleration is diminishing. Now, since in a fire-induced structural collapse of a building the initial acceleration – when the collapse is starting – can never be larger than 5-6 m/s² (we will see why), or a nearby magnitude, and since the initial acceleration of top 12 WTC1 collapsing stories was calculated [2 ] as 5.1 m/s², I could calculate – based on the above equation – that a gravity driven structural collapse of top stories of a building can never destroy a mass of underlying stories larger than 105-130% of the initial collapsing mass. Therefore, it was impossible that the initial mass of 12 collapsing top stories of WTC1 could crumble 98 floors beneath, at most they could destroy just 15 floors. And the same was for WTC2: 30 top stories of WTC2 collapsing for just structural fire-induced reasons could – at most – crumble no more than 33 stories below! So, the only logic explanation of their total collapses was that someone exploded blasting charges on the basements of the 3 WTC towers, as in controlled demolitions, causing the total collapse of the buildings. Now, the question by Readers is (and was):” how can you be so sure that in a structural fire-induced collapse of a building the initial acceleration is only within 5-6 m/s² or very similar?” This crucial question is very interesting indeed, because there is a common mistake, by many supporters of the structural fire-induced failure, and by many upholders of the controlled demolitions. They were both believing that the collapse of WTC Towers was an almost “free-fall” collapse. However, a “free-fall” collapse – i.e. a collapse whose acceleration is 9.8 m/s² would mean that a collapsing building meets no resistance at all while dropping, as if it is falling in the air, and this is clearly impossible. All available data from videos of controlled demolitions, are clearly proving that the usual acceleration of fall, after violent explosion at basements of those buildings, is something very close to 5 m/s², or sometimes a little more (but always within 6 m/s²). Even if we carefully examine the collapse of WTC7 , that is commonly considered – it became a sort of “urban legend” - by many sources as a faster – almost free-fall – collapse than that of Twin Towers, we can find that the actual acceleration was just 4.99 m./s², i.e., even lower than that of WTC1 top 12 stories (5.11 m/s²)! NIST reported [3 ] a time of collapse of 18 stories of the north face of building of 5.4” (before clouds of smoke obscured the vision). As WCT7 height was 190 m. distributed in 47 floors ( 1 floor = 4.0425 meters), the height of those 18 stories was 72.76 m. Thus, since the formula to find the acceleration of falling bodies is: a = 2s (space)/t² i.e. a = (2* 72.765)/5.4² = 145.53/29.16 = 4.99 m./s² This falling acceleration is totally compatible with the ones of other controlled demolitions that I showed in my paper of 2015 (“World Trade Center Collapse and the Problem of Variable-Mass…”), in Texas 2009 (Ocean Tower = 5.11 s/m²) , and in Pennsylvania 1997 (500 Wood Street Building = 5.83 m./s²). Hence – and here is the point! - as in controlled demolitions – where the collapse is caused by the violent destruction, pulverization and removal of part of basements through the displacement of high-speed gases following the explosion of blasting charges – the highest acceleration of fall is always within 5-6 m./s², we can logically derive that a fire-induced structural collapse of a building – where the collapse is “just” caused by the bending and breaking of metal and concrete load-carrying pillars due to heat reaching sometimes 800° C, but there is no violent removal of mass – can only reach accelerations of fall lower than (or at most equal to) those of controlled demolitions, i.e. lower than 5-6 m./s². Thus, a fire-induced structural collapse of top stories of a building never possesses kinetic energy enough to destroy a mass of stories beneath larger than its own mass + something more (≈ 105-130%) Actually, top stories of a building falling at nearly 5 m/s² acceleration means that those falling stories are immediately facing an opposite structural resistance η which is around 4.7-5 m./s² Remember! As gravity is a conservative force, then the sum of kinetic energy (from downward collapse) + potential energy (from opposite resistance η by underlying stories) = mechanical energy, is always constant (= 9.81 m/s²). Therefore, the interaction of these 3 parameters : falling acceleration + opposite resistance + growing mass of collapsing top stories simply means that, according to the “rocket equation”: a) the initial acceleration of fall (around 5 m./s²) is rapidly (logarithmically) decreasing up to 0 b) the initial opposite resistance (around 4.8 m/s²) is rapidly growing up to 9.8 m./s² (= stopping resistance) c) the initial mass of collapsing floors is rapidly growing for a further 105-130%, but no more than that Another very important point is that it is not so easy to find cases of top stories fire-induced collapses in high-rise buildings. When fires are blazing in high-rise buildings, fortunately firemen many times manage to extinguish them before they can cause the collapse of buildings. Other times fires are burning almost the whole building, but structures and columns are so strong that no final collapse is taking place [4] http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm And of course the influence of the impact by the airliners with the Twin Towers was not decisive – as admitted even by several official versions – in weakening the resistance of structures, since they were built to resist an impact by airliners, and the impacts of 9/11 were “absorbed” in a few minutes of oscillation. Sometimes strong winds (hitting the whole buildings) were making WTC oscillate even more! On July 28, 1945 another famous airliner crash (caused by a thick fog that confused the pilot) between a B25 Mitchell bomber and the Empire State Building in New York caused 14 casualties ( 3 crew of B-25 and 11persons inside the Empire). e) Crash on the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, by a B-25 bomber (Source of image: Wikimedia, US fair use) And on April 18, 2002, a Rockwell commander 112 crashed against Pirelli Tower, in Milan, Italy. (reasons of crash: still unclear). Pirelli Tower after the crash on April 18, 2002. (Source of image: Wikipedia, US fair use) And yet, no important fire, and/or collapse, was recorded, even after so violent impacts by airliners and highrise buildings. Thus, it is a very rare occurrence that fires in high-rise buildings are making collapse them. Several times skyscrapers and high-rise buildings did not collapse even when they have been totally burned by fires! Conclusions: 1) Plasco Building’s collapse cannot be compared at all with WTC 9/11 collapses. Plasco was a totally different building structure, only 15 stories high, whose structural resistance to long lasting fires was very questionable, as the whole structure was supported only by “perimeter-wall columns” at ground level, as the first 4 floors were a centrally empty patio/shopping center. Thus, a fire such as that of January 19, 2017, which started on 9th floor, and then engulfed 6 floors above, before spreading also to lower floors (full of garment, in violation of safety regulations) can sadly explain the total collapse of the building, after more than 3 hours of flames so impressive that many firefighters died in a desperate and vain attempt to extinguish them. And also, noises of alleged “explosions”, at the moment of Plasco’s collapse, are totally compatible with violent impacts of metal and concrete frames + air displacement, inside the building, when they finally broke and crashed, seconds before the final collapse. 2) On the contrary, the collapse of Twin Towers (+ WTC) on 9/11 has no rational and physical explanation, other than a controlled demolition of their basements through blasting charges. WTC fires were limited to top stories (for WTC1 only top 12 floors out of 110!). Moreover, resistance of both Towers was assured by many very stout bearing-columns, particularly in center of buildings. And finally, fires of Twin Towers lasted only 56’ and 102’, namely less than ½ of 210’ of Plasco. In addition, whereas high temperatures above 300°C (capable to deform and bend steel bearing-columns) in case of 9/11 WCT collapses have been constrained to top stories only, (and therefore stories below them could not bend due to heat), in case of Plasco the much smaller size of building (15 stories, of which only 11 stories were apartments) and the rapid “up and down” diffusion of blaze and high temperatures - well above 400°-500° C – everywhere inside the building, and for more than 3 hours, is totally explaining the final failure of structures, and its tragic collapse. And finally, many sources pointed out that signs of use of thermite explosives were found at WTC ground zero (where lots of scrap metals were still burning days after the collapse!), whereas no sign of explosives has been reported for Plasco. It is true – as many commentators outlined – that many skyscrapers resisted many times important fires that sometimes burned the whole building, without collapsing. But this does not guarantee at all that a weaker structure (it would be advisable to perform also a very meticulous survey on the quality of materials used in the construction of Plasco. It seems their quality was poor) , burning for 3 hours and more, can always resist without collapsing. Alberto Miatello January 27, 2017 © Alberto Miatello 2017 All rights reserved REFERENCES 1) A. Miatello “World Trade Center Collapse as Inelastic Collision, and the Problem of Variable-Mass in Physics…” 2015 2) G. Szuladzinski, A. Szamboti, R. Johns “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis” 2013 3) NIST “Draft Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation” (retrieved on January 2017) 4) “Serendipity” website “Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings” (retrieved on January 2017)