Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ North Tower _ Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof

Posted by: Paul Nov 11 2010, 08:51 AM

Hey look check this out guys this video is great this is flaming fantastic, it is a video of well known 9/11 truther who assembles
some structural steel the way it would have been assembled in the wtc twin towers and other buildings made of structural steel
and he cuts righ through the thick structural steel, well thats kind of a lie he cuts almost all the way through the entire length of
the steel member, using normal thermite using barrium nitrate and sulphur well if this is how it was really done on 911 those cuts even if they dont cut completely all the way still would have weakened the structural steel enough to cause the entire structure to loose alot of it strength enough to bring about a casatrophic global collapse resulting in a gravity driven CD, and watch when he uses the thermite and creates his own charges and the thermite explodes it even creates a hole giving a swiss cheese like appearance, similar to the samples found from the wtc buildings.

Does this video completely destroy the duh bunkers claims that thermite cannot create vertical cuts through steel beams, and also there
claims that you couldnt use normal thermite to demolish a steel framed building?

I have another question why would you use barrium nitrate and sulphur mixed in with normal thermite to cut through structural steel
how would these chemicals improve the thermites cutting power?

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=player_embedded#!



whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 11 2010, 02:39 PM

Nice find Paul. thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 11 2010, 07:42 PM

If our military is anywhere near as competent and equipped as I have repeatedly heard it is today (Veteran's Day) then they have ten zillion ways to blow things up, this one included, and are further able to make it look however they like.
A veritable pyrotechnic smorgasbord. But I guess most people think that's the case on November 11 and all other days except September 11, which must be some kind of annual everything-falls-apart-day.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 11 2010, 08:02 PM

We always knew that thermite can cut steel as can thermate. Jon showed it could blast off bolts and be used to cut through vertical surfaces. Well done Jon.

So we know how steel could be "weakened" and connections made to fail. But most of the steel was not subject to that sort of attack. Most of the steel came apart of the stresses of a gravitational collapse showing no signs of what the few pieces of heat attacked steel show.

We now know conclusively that these materials could have initiated the collapse. Jon showed us. But he didn't show us anything about the actual collapse... such as how thermite/thermate would destroy concrete... of it did.

Posted by: Paul Nov 11 2010, 10:01 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 09:32 AM) *
We always knew that thermite can cut steel as can thermate. Jon showed it could blast off bolts and be used to cut through vertical surfaces. Well done Jon.

So we know how steel could be "weakened" and connections made to fail. But most of the steel was not subject to that sort of attack. Most of the steel came apart of the stresses of a gravitational collapse showing no signs of what the few pieces of heat attacked steel show.

We now know conclusively that these materials could have initiated the collapse. Jon showed us. But he didn't show us anything about the actual collapse... such as how thermite/thermate would destroy concrete... of it did.


Ok SanderO why dont we just all throw up our hands and declare that the terrorist did it huh? If we have no
physical evidence of thermite or explosive cuts damage to the steel then what are we doing here i guess the existence of this forum is a waste of time and that rob balsamo should retire it to the dust bin right? I guess we should just all retire from the truth movement is this what you are saying? And also that it very existence is futile and meaningless and a complete waste of time, what you are say points to exactly all of this.

Why are you here doing here on this forum SanderO? It seems to me like you are support the OCT way too much.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 11 2010, 10:30 PM

Very interesting find Paul. Cheers.

First time I've actually seen a pretty precise replication of the type of beams in the WTC being exposed to thermite/nanothermite. I'd personally love to see more practical experimentation like this done (especially for those of us who are laymen!).
I think it would be very interesting to see if a smaller replica scale model could be made (cement, weight, structure) and experimented on that way. Only problem is that it's a trial and error method so the closest hypothetical device(s) would have to be found first. The guy in the video made the first step. Here's hoping there's more to come.

thumbsup.gif

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 12 2010, 01:44 AM

The other uploads on that guy's YT channel are excellent, as well.

SanderO, I know we've talked about the post-intiation collapse a little bit before, but I'm afraid I'm more convinced by the analyses in physicsandreason's (as he is known) videos. This guy is completely nuts, but his critique of NIST is utterly devastating. I would encourage everyone to take a look.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 12 2010, 08:19 AM

Paul you just keep up the good work. I learned something from this video that I will share with many people. We all need everything we can to help wake up the masses. That is all we can do at this point. THANK YOU for posting the video!!!! cheers.gif

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 12 2010, 08:34 AM

SanderO you mention "what pulverized the concrete?" The concrete used was a lightweight mix poured on the floors without any reinforcment in it. I doubt it would take much to pulverize it. The fall would do the trick not to mention some explosives going off around it. Lightweight non reinforced concrete is not very strong. It's dense so it makes a great sound deadener which is why they use it instead of something like wood.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 12 2010, 09:17 AM

I agree with the assessment of the destruction of the concrete. I certainly do not support the pack of lies packaged and marketed as the official conspiracy theory. There is more wrong with it than there is correct. Not much makes sense and there are holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

My own research into the structure of the twin towers leads me to think that they could collapse by gravity of the tops were first destroyed or broken off and their mass, or a large portion of it descended on the lower section's floors.

The OCT doesn't actually explain the collapse. They explain their initiation and that's all BS. But since they DON'T explain the collapse AFTER initiation, most people assume that they are "hiding" an explosive explanation for the collapse.

The engineering analysis points to the fact that the towers could and likely did collapse once the floors were sufficiently overloaded.

The initiation certainly could involve the kinds of attacks on the steel structure which Jon's work in this video so well illustrates. And it's likely that the initiation DID involve such things. But once they tops were "released" by destroying or weakening the columns up top, and likely the WF ones which were much more vulnerable to attack the huge mass would crash down through the structure crushing everything in the process. The towers weight 500,000 tons and even subtracting the weight of the steel - 200,000 tons, you have 300,000 tons. That will do a lot of crushing.

What exactly about the OCT do I support? Nothing basically. However, I don't support the idea that the towers were exploded from top to bottom and that gravity was not part of their collapse. If gravity wasn't used.. why weaken any columns?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 12 2010, 10:01 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 09:17 AM) *
The engineering analysis points to the fact that the towers could and likely did collapse once the floors were sufficiently overloaded.


Really? Please site your sources?


QUOTE
What exactly about the OCT do I support? Nothing basically. However, I don't support the idea that the towers were exploded from top to bottom and that gravity was not part of their collapse. If gravity wasn't used.. why weaken any columns?

No one is claiming that gravity wasn't part of the collapses. Of course it was.

But you want us to believe that it was only gravity and not explosives that destroyed these buildings. That's why the perps used nano-thermite and fuel/air explosives to get the collapses started. There would be very little explosive residue left behind this way and they wouldn't need as many cutter charges, that you can see going off ahead of the debris cloud when the buildings came down.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 12 2010, 10:11 AM

They had to blow the core columns. Just blowing the top and relying on gravity to do the rest would never work. The top would have taken the path of least resistance. When we see the video of the top starts to fall sideways and then everything comes down. Had they not removed the core columns the top would have fell off to the side. Which is exactly what it started to do. I think they brought the core down just like they any other CD. From the bottom up.The difference is that the outer wall hid what was going on inside. I think they brought the outer wall down from the top a split second behind the core. Since the outer wall was stronger and taller on these buildings they couldn't rely on the core to pull it in and down on it's own. By weakening the outer walls the core was able to pull it down. This is just my opinion!!! I have been wrong before. cool.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 12 2010, 11:44 AM

My engineering analysis is the source. You can read a discussion which lays this out quite well here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-destruction-collapse-model-t264.html

If you PM with your email I can send you some the material.

1. There is no evidence in the debris that any of the core columns were "destroyed" at the bottom of the structure. In fact row 500 and 600 - a total of 16 core columns stood to a minimum of 40 stories, some to 50 and column 501 was 72 stories AFTER the floors collapsed and the facade peeled off.

2. The twins were similar to a CD but one initiated above the crash zones. In both towers the mass which came down was more than enough to crash through the floors. Any tenant floor outside the core was designed to support 100#/SF but with the tops crashing down on them (the 92nd to begin with) the loads quickly grew to almost 2000# (or there abouts). This was also a dynamic load as it was dropping down and it was dropping down in a disorganized pattern of debris over the time that the tops descended and broke apart. This force was more than enough to destroy any single tenant floor outside the core. That floor shattered and the same process repeated all the way to the ground growing in mass as it went.

3. The destruction of the twin towers was not caused by plane strikes or office fires. There had to be additional energy inputs to get the tops dislodged from their support so that they could (and did) descend down and impact the FLOORS.

4. The collapse was through the "path of least resistance" which was the floor system which by volume was 98% air. The path of MOST resistance would be crushing through the columns which were increasingly strong as you descend down. No columns in the lower sections were crushed or show signs of being exploded apart. The debris shows THAT sort of damage on the columns and beams ABOVE the strike zone which makes perfect sense as this is how the tops were able to be freed from their supports.

5. The top of WTC 2 was lost support on the South and East side before it did on the North and West. This is like removing two or 4 legs on a table. It will tilt down and fall to the side where the legs were removed. However in the case of tower two the remaining columns were not able to support the mass of the top and they buckled rather quickly. As they did the top which was tilting began to descend. It was both tilting AND descending down. At the plane where it was severed, the core and the floors then began colliding with the standing lower section. The SE lower corner of the tilting top dug into the SE corner of the standing part and these collisions caused mutual destruction of the floors on that side. The collisions of the floors AND the facade columns and the core columns as the tip tilted and dropped sent shocks up through the top and quickly the joints began to break apart. You can see the top 3 floors bend first, just before the entire top breaks apart and disappears into a cloud of dust and debris. The top was a much more rigid part of the structure because of the hat truss with diagonal beams providing that rigidity. Parts of the top did continue over the side, but the virtual hinge was through col 501 and was more than 150' from the East side. For the entire top section to go over the side, it would have to remain rigid and have a hinge on or about the East face. That hinge would have to be supported by the lower section. This is not possible and as it moved both horizontally and vertically the lower East side was destroyed as it collided with the lower section and so it did not only not go outside the foot print but it provided the mass to cause the lower section's floors to collapse.

In all three towers it was not gravity alone which destroyed them.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 12 2010, 05:02 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 11:44 AM) *
My engineering analysis is the source.


Are you saying you're Major Tom? If you want to quote his work, fine. But that's a bit different then doing you're own engineering analysis, which sorry dear, no can do on the email. Why don't you just post it here for the rest of the world to see?



QUOTE
4. The collapse was through the "path of least resistance" which was the floor system which by volume was 98% air. The path of MOST resistance would be crushing through the columns which were increasingly strong as you descend down. No columns in the lower sections were crushed or show signs of being exploded apart. The debris shows THAT sort of damage on the columns and beams ABOVE the strike zone which makes perfect sense as this is how the tops were able to be freed from their supports.


So going through a 100 layers of concrete and steel is the path of least resistance, compared to the empty air that surrounded the buildings. You've got to be kidding?


QUOTE
In all three towers it was not gravity alone which destroyed them.


So if it wasn't gravity alone, what was it?

Posted by: SanderO Nov 12 2010, 08:54 PM

I am not Tom, but I concur with that hypothesis and came upon it myself about 1 year ago. I would upload my slides and so forth, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it in this forum. If you are interested I would email them to anyone who is interested. I am referring others to read Tom's presentation which is basically what I believe accounts for the collapse after initiation.

The destruction of the twins involved several phases which were not distinct but blended one into the other. The last phase was the collapse of the "spire" preceded by the gravity driven collapse of the floors and the peeling off of the facade. The spire broke apart as predicted by Euler's equation for slender columns.

The destruction began with the plane strikes, then fires and then there likely was engineered weakening of the core, perhaps with thermite or similar. This led to the tops collapsing down onto and into the top of the lower section which then collapsed as a result of the large dynamic loads.

The initial damage was not enough to bring the towers down, and the fires from fuel and office contents without sprinklers likely did not weaken the remaining steel enough for it to buckle and set off the collapse of the tops.

Gravity pulls things down. There were 3 structural elements in the towers - the core with its 47 columns, the facade with its 236 columns and the floors suspended between the two. The floors were about 97% air by volume and there were no columns to arrest a floor collapse. The columns however would have to be crushed and buckle or topple over. Crushing them is the path of MOST resistance.

Posted by: Paul Nov 12 2010, 11:53 PM

Hi there i see that you can mix sulphur and barrillium in with thermite to create what i believe is called thermate basically
the same stuff maybe you will want to read this post of mine right NOW there was Barillium at ground zero no doubt about
it just ask first responder Glenn Kleinn if you dont believe me, the only problem is someone suggested that the copper pipes
in the wtc could have been made up of Barrilliium, but my only question would this be enough to poison the ground zero workers
and make them very sick, with this additional piece of evidence of the presence of Barillium at ground zero i am now convinced more
than ever that a form of nanothermite was used with a mixture of Barillium and sulphur the pieces are finally starting to fit together and
i can see them now.

Cheers guys Paul

Posted by: SanderO Nov 13 2010, 07:03 AM

My take away from Jon's video is that thermite could be used to weaken the steel. He doesn't say which steel, how many columns or lateral beams were attacked, but he basically trades on the correct assumption that if the structure is destroy it can no longer carry the loads and gravity will cause it to collapse.

This work completely supports or dovetails into the notion that once initiated from structural weakening or dissociating.. and partial unloading of enough columns so that the remaining ones are overloaded and buckle... the mass once supported will collapse driven by gravity.

The other way to destroy the building is to explode them completely... or attack every structural element. But we did not see that and there is no evidence of this in the debris.

Posted by: Paul Nov 13 2010, 07:45 AM

Barrillium At Ground Zero

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20240&mode=threaded&pid=10787357

See my post maybe there was a mixture of thermite barillium and sulphur used to demolish the twin towers
combined together into a nanothermite mix the pieces are starting to fit together now more than ever what you
government wont tell you is it just wasnt asbestos that made the ground zero workers soo sick maybe it was
just all the barillium or maybe a mixture of both either way those bastards have to pay one way or another and
that i am sure of they are our enemies not the terrorsists not no citizens the are, they are the greatest threat to
to america and they must be stopped at any cost.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 13 2010, 09:24 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 06:54 PM) *
Gravity pulls things down. There were 3 structural elements in the towers - the core with its 47 columns, the facade with its 236 columns and the floors suspended between the two. The floors were about 97% air by volume and there were no columns to arrest a floor collapse. The columns however would have to be crushed and buckle or topple over. Crushing them is the path of MOST resistance.


So what your saying is that if I wanted to make a huge white elephant fall directly on his belly it would be better to jump up and down on his back instead of pulling all of his legs out at the same time? The strength of the towers are in it legs (columns) just like the elephant. If you want to get something massive on the ground you take it's legs out. Nothing falls in the path of most resistance.

Posted by: Paul Nov 13 2010, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Nov 13 2010, 10:54 PM) *
So what your saying is that if I wanted to make a huge white elephant fall directly on his belly it would be better to jump up and down on his back instead of pulling all of his legs out at the same time? The strength of the towers are in it legs (columns) just like the elephant. If you want to get something massive on the ground you take it's legs out. Nothing falls in the path of most resistance.


Actually you are wrong a one way crush down type demolition of the towers would have been entirely possible by initaitaing the collapse
with explosives. It is possible when there is enough energy & weight available to have the top crush the button all the way to freaken ground
which is very unfortunate for the people inside the building at the time what a god damn tradgedy.

Sry for the duh bunker type demolition but they are right on one thing only.

Démolition Balzac Vitry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&feature=related

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: amazed! Nov 13 2010, 11:47 AM

SanderO

This is the most persuasive iteration of your theory so far, for this layman.

It does raise several points for me. The floors might indeed have been 'shattered', but by all appearances they were actually pulverized, and I still cannot see how a natural collapse could give that result.

Yes, as you have stated before, additional energy in the form of explosives of some sort was required. And this additional energy also was sufficient to create a fairly symmetrical debris field, and to launch several large pieces of the exoskeleton/skin outwards about 400 feet.

I think I understand your use of the term "path of least resistance", but I'm not sure I agree with it. As another poster pointed out, it was actually the path of most resistance. Without the assistance of other 'additional energy' further down the structure, how can we end up with what is for all practical purposes, a free fall rate of natural collapse?

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 13 2010, 11:49 AM

If it is indeed true that the buildings came down in the 10 second range. Which I admit we don't know that is a fact because me or you were not there to see and time it with our own eyes. But if that is the number. There would be some type a resistance on the way down. You are talking roughly 8 floors a second. Think about that. I'm not disputing any of the explosives or Thermite. I'm not disputing that something was going on high up in the towers. I'm just saying to get that to the ground in it's own footprint at that speed the resistance has to be addressed. Floor by floor we should have seen some change in speed of the collapse do to the mass under it. Remember the columns get much bigger and stronger when get to the lower 2/3rds of the building.
So what your telling me Paul is that you would use the method of jumping on the elephants back to get it on it's belly? eek2.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 13 2010, 03:06 PM

The increasing strength of the columns as you go down has nothing to do with the floor collapse. The columns were larger at the base because they supported the columns above them. Floors were attached to the SIDE of the columns so each column which was 36' tall carried 3 floors and added the weight of 3 floors to the load it carried from above. Since each floor had the same strength and the same connection to the columns regardless of what floor it was, if the load was too large for THAT floor it would collapse and then the one below and so on.

The issue is how long this would take and it would only take about a second to bust through 10 floors or so. But this was definitely not a pancake collapse. The floor top floor was not "attacked" by falling debris evenly overloading the truss seats uniformly. Rather it was a chaotic assault compressed into a fraction of a second... like buck shot. The collapse floors became a chaotic avalanche which grew as it descended. It ground and pulverized everything which was not compressible or tearable into find grained debris and dust, The collapsing floors and their contents weighed north of 300,000 tons. It pressed against the facade from the inside pushing it away and it spilled into the core destroying the shaft walls and many of the lateral beams. None of the connections or components of the floor system could support or arrest the immense dynamic loads of the hundreds of thousands of tons of falling debris.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 13 2010, 04:04 PM

I would be with this all the way except your not explaning what brought the core down. What you explain is the floor sections that fasten to the core like you state. 10 floors a second? You can't drop a rock 80 feet in a second. How does something with floors bolted to steel drop faster than that? Now if you did blow the truss bolts like in Paul's video here. That would remove the resistance. But what about the core? The core size getting bigger doesn't effect the floor system like you said. But it does effect the cores strength.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 13 2010, 08:56 PM

The floor collapse can be timed at about 100 feet per second which is about 63 mph. The collapse accelerated from 0 mph to 63mph which was its terminal velocity if you drop a rock

sec / ft traveled
0 / 0
0.5 / 5
1 / 16
1.5 / 36
2 / 64
2.5 / 100
3 / 145
3.5 / 197


This is at free fall with no resistance. So if the acceleration was 60% of free fall it would reach ~63 mph in about 3 seconds.

The columns collapsed from several causes and mechanisms. There were 47 and all of rows 500 and 600 survived the collapse of the floors as high 40, 50 and even 72 floors. Row 500 and 600 were still joined by the lateral beams up to about the 40th floor. A few of the columns stood with no bracing left. One of the topples over to the east. 501-601 wobbles back and forth. It was too tall slender and unstable for its height. Even without any explosives a 600' tall column made up of sections 36' long could not stand without guys and or lateral support. See Euler's formula about column buckling related to slenderness.

Most of the columns in the core cam apart with the avalanche which destroyed the lateral support between them and the debris falling chaotically broke them apart. The splices were not meant to resist that kind of movement and they were only welded at the edges of the splice plates.

The columns above the strike zone which likely were attacked by thermite or similar might have not only destroyed the splices, but destroyed the bearing so the columns buckled or translated laterally. The steel frame broke apart at the joints. This is seen throughout the debris. Have a look see.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 13 2010, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 13 2010, 07:03 AM) *
My take away from Jon's video is that thermite could be used to weaken the steel. He doesn't say which steel, how many columns or lateral beams were attacked, but he basically trades on the correct assumption that if the structure is destroy it can no longer carry the loads and gravity will cause it to collapse.

This work completely supports or dovetails into the notion that once initiated from structural weakening or dissociating.. and partial unloading of enough columns so that the remaining ones are overloaded and buckle... the mass once supported will collapse driven by gravity.

The other way to destroy the building is to explode them completely... or attack every structural element. But we did not see that and there is no evidence of this in the debris.


You're a very all or nothing guy. You try to convince us that gravity alone was enough to the job, but the only other way to bring the buildings down would be to 'attack every structural element.' No CD requires attacking every structural element. I can't believe a real engineer would even make such an ridiculous claim. Especially, in regards to a building where they didn't even bother to weld the steel columns that made up the perimeter walls. I don't think it would be hard to blow those out, if you destroyed the cores with fuel air explosives. Wouldn't leave much for evidence either.

Posted by: tnemelckram Nov 13 2010, 09:36 PM

I hope people do not mis-understand SanderO. He is not saying explosives were not involved. He just questions the relative degree of explosives versus gravity. I think his thoughts are sound, but think explosives were relied on by the plotters more than he does.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 13 2010, 11:28 PM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Nov 14 2010, 02:36 AM) *
I hope people do not mis-understand SanderO. He is not saying explosives were not involved. He just questions the relative degree of explosives versus gravity. I think his thoughts are sound, but think explosives were relied on by the plotters more than he does.


I personally don't believe that the perps would rely solely on the laws of physics to collapse the lower portion of the towers.
What intrigues me is that the experiment in the video shows how exotic explosives, if properly harnessed, would massively reduce the need for "tonnes" of the stuff and would greatly reduce the visual effects one would expect to see from a proposed demolition job.
The cores could very well have been rigged with these types of charges.

I know it's only speculation at this point but it's food for thought.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 13 2010, 11:31 PM

Do You recognizes that a commercial CD does not attack every structural connection. Most of the ones attacked are at the lower part and in the center to have the static loads cause the overloaded structure to collapse inward. The twins were very different from the strike zones down. The tops actually DO resemble a CD, but the bottom's destruction does not. No CDs have figured out a way to break some structural elements at the top and have the roof and a few floors take the whole building down.

What essentially happened with the twins is that the engineered destruction of the top section DID deliver the required overload which would crash through all the floors, strip off the facade and destroy the core so that it was absent enough lateral support to stand.

If the plane or explosive start was at the 105th floors the building would not have collapsed even if there was explosive CD on the top 5 floors. The released mass is less than the safety factor and there would be an arrest of the collapse. You'd be left with a tower with 5 floors of debris piled up on the 105th floor more or less.

Posted by: Paul Nov 14 2010, 04:10 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 14 2010, 01:01 PM) *
Do You recognizes that a commercial CD does not attack every structural connection. Most of the ones attacked are at the lower part and in the center to have the static loads cause the overloaded structure to collapse inward. The twins were very different from the strike zones down. The tops actually DO resemble a CD, but the bottom's destruction does not. No CDs have figured out a way to break some structural elements at the top and have the roof and a few floors take the whole building down.

What essentially happened with the twins is that the engineered destruction of the top section DID deliver the required overload which would crash through all the floors, strip off the facade and destroy the core so that it was absent enough lateral support to stand.

If the plane or explosive start was at the 105th floors the building would not have collapsed even if there was explosive CD on the top 5 floors. The released mass is less than the safety factor and there would be an arrest of the collapse. You'd be left with a tower with 5 floors of debris piled up on the 105th floor more or less.


Oh really is that so is it? Taking the crazy heiwa approach to thing now are we? I wish someone could prove that the collapse could be arrested
but that is never going to happen as we all know.

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 14 2010, 06:58 AM

Not at all. The idea presented is that to cause a progressive collapse which does not arrest, you need to provide the suffient conditions for each floor to collapse. Since there is a safety factor of about 5, a single floors could support about 4 floors without it failing. This is very much like the local collapse of a few floors from the plane strike. That mass was insufficient to meet to minimum condition to fail the floor areas it descended on to this local collapse was arrested.

In both towers the minimum conditions were met and it applied to each floor below 92 for wtc 1 and below 77 for wtc 2. This explanation has nothing to do with small block crushing larger blocks as Bjorkmen and others try to reduce this to. That argument is true but not applicable. If you don't examine the event on a more micro level - that of structure and the composite floors in particular the are not looking at what failed.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 14 2010, 03:35 PM

Because of Willy's testimony I too believe that the lower regions were prepared for the imminent destruction.

Sander

Since the first time I saw the buildings coming down, it seemed that there was some sort of "cascading" dynamic at work there.

But it is true that in order to turn solids into dust, one needs both a hammer and a proper surface--a surface that will not give way. Because of the relative free fall collapse, there was no resistance at all. What happens if you swing a hammer against the air?

It won't make dust, is the answer. blink.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 14 2010, 04:07 PM

The floor collapse included all the collisions of the avalanche front with each successive floor. It was a chaotic highly energetic event where the material in the avalanche acted up itself much like the way a tumbler or rick crusher works.

There was an enormous roar when the collapse was taking place. That was the sound of millions of collisions or the materials in the building grinding, crushing, tearing apart and pulverizing everything in the towers. That sound was part of the energy released by the avalanche.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 14 2010, 11:26 PM

Poor answer, unpersuasive.

Energy is required to pulverize solid objects including concrete floors.

For all practical purposes, the bottom two thirds of the tower offered the falling upper third the same resistance as air. Falling concrete cannot pulverize itself.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 15 2010, 07:18 AM

Falling concrete did not pulverize itself. Collisions of concrete with tens of thousands of tons of falling debris pulverized it.

If you take any floor in the lower section... say 52... Falling on this floor was the mass of 58 floors or about 150,000 tons, less the material which went outside the footprint and into the core. The facade "tried" to contained the avalanche but it was pushed away. You don't think even 2/3's or 100,000 tons crashing down on a 4" slab wouldn't pulverize it to pretty fine material? What do you expect from such an onslaught?

If you look at WTC 7 you will observe the same absence of concrete and the same sort of pulverization and we all saw it collapse DOWN with a destruction zone in the lower part of the tower. The falling mass of the top pulverized almost everything which was not crushable... created a huge dust cloud and left a small pile. We did not see that tower collapse from the top down. but we say a similar fate to the walls, concrete and contents - crushed and turned to dust. This is what one would expect from have such huge mass with so much kinetic energy.

The engineering in all three cases involved releasing the gravitational energy which would destroy everything which could not be crushed or torn to shreds - heavy steel etc.

Posted by: trimble Nov 15 2010, 09:49 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 14 2010, 10:26 PM) *
For all practical purposes, the bottom two thirds of the tower offered the falling upper third the same resistance as air.


Quite incorrect. You are overlooking that the floors have a large inertia. The effect of a floor's resistance on the velocity of the falling debris is indeed minimal (due to the massive momentum of the falling debris), but the resistance of the individual rigid floors against acceleration (aka 'Inertia') is high because they have a high effective mass, and the acceleration will occur over a tiny fraction of a second (the collision is highly inelastic). The first debris to hit will be pulverised by what follows. Due to the chaotic nature of the collapse, these massive forces will be applied unevenly to the concrete slab resulting in further shattering and pulverisation of the slab.

Your rhetorical question, "What happens if you swing a hammer against the air?" is therefore based on a mischaracterisation of the system. The floor being hit might as well have been an anvil.

I came to a similar conclusion to SanderO on collapse propagation some time ago, although I put a lot less thought into the details smile.gif The question in my mind since has not been, "How did the building end up as a pile of rubble?" (it seems to me inevitable, once a lot of mass starts to descend) but "Why did the building start to collapse?". And this is a good video that dispels some of the anti-thermite myths.

*goes back to lurking*

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 15 2010, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (trimble)
Due to the chaotic nature of the collapse, these massive forces will be applied unevenly to the concrete slab resulting in further shattering and pulverisation of the slab.


That's fine on an individual floor by floor basis, but what we saw of the collapses were far from "chaotic". If 7-8 floors were collapsing per second, you're suggesting that every eighth of a second there was a chaotic event which lead to the pulverization of each floor.
I know it's a simplistic way of putting it but you get my point?

Posted by: amazed! Nov 15 2010, 11:32 AM

Welcome to the forum Trimble, but I do not find your post to be particularly persuasive.

Considering the nearly free fall rates of collapse, I see nothing whatsoever, including your random chaos theory, that would act as anvil to the hammer.

The concrete was not broke into smaller pieces, it was pulverized into a pyroclastic flow. An anvil of large proportions would have been required. The dust was so fine that it drifted for blocks in the air.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 15 2010, 12:20 PM

The characteristics of the massive spray of sparks seen in this clip..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo&feature=related

..coupled with its proximity to the point of initial collapse plus the video in the OP is uncanny.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 15 2010, 12:40 PM

You can't pulverize concrete or stone for that matter without "collisions" as far as I know. So the process of turning concrete into granules and even dust would require grinding of some sort which is used in commercial rock crushing. You might want to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusher

which discusses how rock is crushed into smaller aggregates and powder. The concrete of the WTC floors was not especially strong, and had little or not stone aggregate and likely had something like light weight fly ash or crushed lava with lots of entrained air to make it light. This sort of concrete (no large aggregate) with little or no reinforcing was not structural and intended to resist tension. It was basically just a grout over the trusses and supported by the metal pans and would break up very easily.

The metal pans would have to be shredded to small pieces in the process and this is clearly less understood. But we've never see the kinds of forces that the floor avalanche contained before and how thin metal would respond to that.

Posted by: trimble Nov 15 2010, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 15 2010, 10:32 AM) *
Considering the nearly free fall rates of collapse, I see nothing whatsoever, including your random chaos theory, that would act as anvil to the hammer.

I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.

QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 15 2010, 10:32 AM) *
The concrete was not broke into smaller pieces, it was pulverized into a pyroclastic flow. An anvil of large proportions would have been required. The dust was so fine that it drifted for blocks in the air.


Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).

Posted by: Paul Nov 15 2010, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (trimble @ Nov 16 2010, 02:32 AM) *
I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.



Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).


I think a building would have to be very strong to arrest it's own collapse if you where to remove say ten or so floors cut of
the top lift it up and drop down on the remaining floors i think the case of a steel skyscraper you would have to have very thick
out core columns you would have to have very thick floor trussed more like thick long metal beams supporting the underneath of
the floors you would have to have very strong bolted connections you probably even have to have very strong welds as well just think
about like in the case of the wtc you have like 100 tonnes or probaly even more than that maybe like 300 tonnes of upper floors
suddenly dropping and hitting the floors below i think in order to arrest such a collapse you would have to have a building that
can support more than it's static load i think you would have to have a building that could support 1.5 times it's static load or maybe even
almost twice it's actual static load because when you take the top of a building and drop it you have a tremendous amount of energy
and weight that want to go only one way the way the gravity is pulling it and that is straight down, and in order to have a building that could areest it's own collapse it would have be strong enough to catch and hold the entire weight of the upper floors all without buckling having and bolts shear
come out due to the entire weigh of the upper floors that have just been dropped on it, and for a building to arrest it's own collapse in this
manner would be an incredible feat and i dont think most buildings could do it, anyway just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Anyway that's just a few thoughts of mine from a non engineer pretty good huh?

thumbsup.gif welcome.gif welcome.gif

Posted by: Paul Nov 15 2010, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 16 2010, 05:56 AM) *
I think a building would have to be very strong to arrest it's own collapse if you where to remove say ten or so floors cut of
the top lift it up and drop down on the remaining floors i think the case of a steel skyscraper you would have to have very thick
out core columns you would have to have very thick floor trussed more like thick long metal beams supporting the underneath of
the floors you would have to have very strong bolted connections you probably even have to have very strong welds as well just think
about like in the case of the wtc you have like 100 tonnes or probaly even more than that maybe like 300 tonnes of upper floors
suddenly dropping and hitting the floors below i think in order to arrest such a collapse you would have to have a building that
can support more than it's static load i think you would have to have a building that could support 1.5 times it's static load or maybe even
almost twice it's actual static load because when you take the top of a building and drop it you have a tremendous amount of energy
and weight that want to go only one way the way the gravity is pulling it and that is straight down, and in order to have a building that could areest it's own collapse it would have be strong enough to catch and hold the entire weight of the upper floors all without buckling having and bolts shear
come out due to the entire weigh of the upper floors that have just been dropped on it, and for a building to arrest it's own collapse in this
manner would be an incredible feat and i dont think most buildings could do it, anyway just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Anyway that's just a few thoughts of mine from a non engineer pretty good huh?

thumbsup.gif welcome.gif welcome.gif


What are they talking about when they mention buildings and elastoplastics is that like how much strain a particular piece of steel like
steel beam or column can take before it begins to bend buckle fail? Just interested that's all.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 15 2010, 04:57 PM

I guess WTC 7 must have used the same grout, eh?

Posted by: SanderO Nov 15 2010, 05:36 PM

I don't know for sure the floor specs, but the concept was to not use shoring and to create a composite system and the concrete was lightweight and the trusses resisted deflection (concrete in compression).

I don't know what the system used in 7 was, haven't looked into it. The structural system was similar though with a core whose perimeter columns support the outside the core floors with a series of columns just inside the curtain wall. I believe there were girders and beams and perhaps trusses as well. But it likely used metal pans since shoring is too expensive and the underside appearance of the slab was not critical. Open web joists facilitate placement of ducts / services etc which are concealed inside suspended ceilings.

Posted by: trimble Nov 15 2010, 06:23 PM

QUOTE
I guess WTC 7 must have used the same grout, eh?

WTC7 collapsed in a totally different manner, so is (potentially) a different beast. But yes, any concrete floors in any building are generally going to be lightweight and unreinforced: there is no reason for anything else.

But really, why make the question? Who cares? The big point here is that if it is not necessary to "help along" the collapse, anyone trying to achieve total collapse would have done some sums and been sure of this. This was not an operation worked out over lunch. They wouldn't bother chopping the entirety of the towers up into nice 30' sections (the logistics of which are ridiculous, and are often cited in favour of a full CD being 'impossible'), so why look for it when it (probably) isn't there? If initiation is all that is required, and that initiation cannot be explained from the plane and fires (I can't see how it can be), let's expend effort investigating something odd, rather than something obvious (though, in truth, I think there is sufficient evidence already that has not been countered in support of thermite involvement).

QUOTE
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Toppling is only ever possible if the centre of gravity of an object lies outside its vertical projection. A pivot is also required. A building would surely need to be extremely strong to survive significant symmetrical collapse if there is no toppling (think 'pile-driver'). Or rather less strong to survive a collapse if there is toppling (the KE of the upper section no longer has to be absorbed by the lower), but this would necessitate an asymmetrical collapse (either by design or accident) AND a pivot capable of withstanding enough force for the falling block to obtain sufficient angular velocity to clear the lower section.

Posted by: trimble Nov 15 2010, 06:27 PM

I mean horizontal projection, ofc wink.gif

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 15 2010, 06:29 PM

[quote name='Paul' date='Nov 15 2010, 02:26 PM' post='10791123']
just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.


Paul that is exactly what should have happened. When you see the video the top starts to fall over right before something pulls it's legs out from under it. But really this is all just something to talk and nit pick about. We can talk for eternity about how and why. I'm sure everyone on this forum is in agreement they were brought down by something other than jet fuel. What we need to be doing is deciding if and what we are going to do about it.

I'm going to save you all a lot of trouble of asking me. I don't know what. But I can tell you voting is not going to fix it. Greed will just replace one with another. Think about this. Who the hell in there right mind would want to be in politics? We are losing OUR country to these crooks and pysco's more and more as everyday goes by.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 15 2010, 07:14 PM

The entire top could not have tipped over the side... certainly not as integrated mass. When the SE support was destroyed the NW columns were taking all the load for a bit as the SE side came down. Still connected to the core and the floors the entire top hung together for a few seconds and it tilted and dropped. But the load buckled the NW columns and there was no longer any support for the top and it had no resistance to drop vertically. The CG was well within the footprint and ther was not enough momentum nor a strong enough hinge to sustain continued rotation.

The SE corner of the top dug into the SE corner or the bottom and the collisions of the two sent shockwaves through the top and the joints broke apart and it seemed to turn to dust. Most of it had descended into into the debris cloud created as the SE corners collided and gave the illusion that it simply turned to dust when in fact it was hidden in the dust and debris created a few moments earlier.

Bit the material which had made it over the side... the top SE section did continue to drop down and landed outside the footprint.

Claiming the top should have continued over the side is incorrect and shows no understanding of the force distribution of collision of the two masses.

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 15 2010, 08:11 PM

SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 15 2010, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 15 2010, 08:11 PM) *
SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.

This series of pictures illustrates what happened to the top section of the building at the start of the collapse.



The yellow and red bars are exactly the same in each picture. You can see that the top of building compressed in on itself before the floors below the fire were effected at all. There is some additional movement of the antennae into the core. This would indicate that the hat truss started to descend as a unit holding the very top floors together, when the explosives knocked out the core and the bottom corners of the hat truss at the same time.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 15 2010, 10:34 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 13 2010, 10:11 PM) *
SanderO -

I've just watched a video presentation by Gordon Ross (whose work I am otherwise not familiar with), who makes the observation that the antannae sitting at the top of the North Tower drops before any other part of the structure, making it the first visible phase of the collapse. In other words, no other damage to the corners of the buildings was evident prior to the downward movement of the antannae.

He then makes the startling claim that "all 47 core columns had to be severed - had to be disassociated - in order for the antennae to begin to move downwards."

At least, it struck ME as being somewhat controversial, given that these columns are presumably quite fundamental to the overall structure.

I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that particular statement. I'm not in a position to make any qualified comment myself, but I was interested in whether or not it conflicts with your own theory.


It struck me too as very odd, that SanderO completely 'forgot' to mention anything at all
about the existence of the 47 core columns, and the role these would have been playing
in the scheme of things!

So please SanderO, start all over again, but this time take mrmitosis' points and DYEW's
photos into consideration when trying to explain the initial tilting of the top section.
Otherwise, what you described above, makes no sense!

Cheers

Posted by: SanderO Nov 16 2010, 08:34 AM

I have not gone into the initiation of the collapse in most of my comments, but rather the gravitational collapse whcih essentially begins after the top has "disappeared" into the upper part of the top section.

I can speculate based on what I observe as the collapse is initiated, but I cannot asset it with any certainty as there could be several mechanisms at work to achieve what we observe.

The fact that the antenna tilts a bit to the east and seems to oscillate before it descends does not mean that the entire hat truss is compromised, but perhaps the portion of the structure just beneath it has been. If the entire hat truss remained as a unit AND the antenna which connected to it remained rigidly connected to it we would see a measurable lift on the west side of the roof line or a drop in the east I would think. But it appears (and this is hard to see) that the antenna when it tilts and oscillates is free from the roof structure.

Again speculating... I note that as the top comes down it too has a slight tilt to the East and as it descends the West facade seems to slip past the West facade of the lower section. The West facade of the upper section I believe is then sliced off by the lower west facade columns and spandrels. And there is at least one facade panel which descends several stories ahead of the falling debris... being the first section to come off the top.

My guess is that perhaps a number of the beam stubs at 3 floors of the column just above the strike zone were severed using some incendiaries. Once these were cut free the core side of the floors were unsupported and might being to collapse. If the central core columns under the antenna had also been attacked at the same time, perhaps the dropping of the antenna in advance demonstrates this. I don't know how the core columns were displaced.. but the descending antenna might have pulled in some of the perimeter core columns. This is how a typical CD is made to implode... the central columns are taken out and the ones above them drop unsupported they pull the outer columns inward. So this mechanism might have been at work in the top of WTC 1. Central columns taken out, antenna descends signaling this, and the descent pulls in the several core perimeter columns which were no longer connected to the floors which could resist lateral movement. Now those perimeter columns are pulled "off column" and everything above is translated at bit to the west... column splices break and the entire top is freed to descend. It proceeds at free fall for a second or so and the the floor collisions start which slow it down a bit. But these collisions are what delivers more and more mass onto the upper floors of the bottom section and then they fail and the progressive runaway floor collapse ensues.

The above is speculation and since I can't see what's happening in the core I can't be certain. But there is some free fall or close to free fall descent of a second indicating that one column "length" (36') was taken out. Then the collapse slows a bit for the next 150 feet or so. This could be from the collisions every 12 feet or so?

I suspect in the "scheme" of things re collapse initiation the key columns which may have been in play were the four corner ones 501, 508, 1001 & 1008... the central perimeter columns 504, 505, 1004, 1005 and 701, 801, 708 and 807 (row 800 had 7 not 8 columns) It also may have involve the 3 columns under the antenna, 704, 705 & 804. This comes to 14 perimeter core columns and 3 at its center. None of these were box sections at that elevation - all were WF rolled sections.

Not all the columns would have to be attacked or weakened. Once a column is unloaded from some attack the other columns take up the load so perhaps only 17 columns had to be "taken out" and the remaining 30 were not string enough to carry the loads and the torques created would break all the remaining lateral beam connections so the structures integrity was completely compromised.

The top drop was not caused by sagging trusses or office fires.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 16 2010, 10:48 AM

Trimble

You are absolutely correct that it doesn't matter about the mixture of the concrete in either the towers or building 7. Actually, in my remark, I was being a bit smart-ass. rolleyes.gif

There might be a simple answer to this, but for this layman, it just seems odd that the concrete was about 100% pulverized. No large chunks of broken material, but a pyroclastic flow of very fine dust.

Understanding the constant effect of gravity, it seems to me some other energy source was involved in pulverizing that concrete.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 16 2010, 01:06 PM

Laymen don't know the history of skyscraper and what it was about the twin towers which made them unique. There were many new aspects to their construction.

Formerly steel framed high rises had a grid of columns at about 24' OC The twin towers had open floors with 60 column free interiors

Formerly steel framed high rises had steel beams framed into steel girders with cast in place reinforced concrete slabs of 8" thickness. The twin towers had lightweight open web trusses which supported corrugated metal pans with concrete only 2" above the top of the deck and 4" max at the bottom. The concrete was lightweight and did not have re bars

Formerly steel framed high rises had masonry enclosed fire stairs, elevator shafts and vertical duct chases. The twin towers had metal framed partitions with gypsum wall board for all these enclosures (sheetrock).

Formerly steel framed high rises had masonry exteriors and masonry enclosure and fireproofing for all columns. The twin towers had a column exterior with aluminum cladding and 1" of fire proofing sprayed on.

The twin towers used 40% less steel than had the building been framed as the Empire State Building.

The twin towers used the exterior for resisting wind loads. It was a cantilever tube made rigid as a vierendeel truss. The flexing of the facade was resisted by the vaso elastic dampers which used the stiff core to damper the sway from the wind loads.

The structure was designed to have load redistribution if the facade was structure by a large jet. The floors were not designed to sustain the loads when the top section came down on them.

Ask a civil engineer or an architect who has studied the actual structural design of the twin towers and they tell you how a progressive collapse of the floors was possible.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 16 2010, 04:57 PM

Not being an architect/engineer, I couldn't comment on the physics of the collapse or the structural integrity of the towers but I personally don't believe that the perps would leave the total collapse to chance. That they were so confident in math, physics and the nature of the structure, that they left it to gravity alone.
The core had to have been rigged to ensure this.

I'm sure gravity played its part, but on an observational basis, the core was blown and thermite/exotic explosives may have been used to cut through the beams (the massive spray of unexplained sparks so similar to the OP video and what appears to be a massive outpouring of smoke just before collapse).

Beyond that I can't say.

2cents (maybe less lol)

ETA: Are there any more quality videos of unexplained sparks, smoke, bright flashes?

Posted by: SanderO Nov 16 2010, 05:10 PM

There likely was some pyrotechnics used on the core to get the thing going, but it's not a matter of chance what the sort of mass dropping on the floors would do.

The core columns could have remained standing if all or most of the lateral beams were connecting them into a rigid 3 D lattice. So there may have been some mischief on the lateral beams in the lower section. But there is no evidence of the lower core columns found in the debris (photos I have examined) which show evidence of explosives or burning. The columns simply broke apart at their joints likely from oscillating and so forth absent lateral support.

I don't think the perps cared if the core stood. That would still have been shocking. That is fell shows how dependent a steel frame structure is on ALL the members to remain connected. A few local failures would be no problem. But as this become a larger percentage of failures, what remains can't seem to make it. The PE of gravity in the towers was enormous and packed quite the punch when turned to kinetic energy.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 16 2010, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 16 2010, 03:10 PM) *
I don't think the perps cared if the core stood.


Oh Really? What if the objective was to destroy the towers. You are assuming they had different motives. Maybe that was the only motive. Maybe not!

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 16 2010, 05:45 PM

Even he knows what it takes to bring a building down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhbFoCUx5rM

Posted by: SanderO Nov 16 2010, 05:57 PM

Everyone knows if you destroy the bottom - the foundation gravity will drop what's up top. This is not rocket science.

If the perps were a coup they wanted to scare everyone and put the blame on someone else and then crackdown on the people in the name of protecting them. So I don't think it mattered how complete the destruction was as long as it was a devastation never before seen. If the core remained no biggie. Building 7 might have been to destroy evidence, records or give a big insurance settlement to Larry. Hard to know. Maybe flight 93 was supposed to hit it.

It scared the American people and they bought the line and wanted to kick butt and rushed in to enlist.

Frankly, I think that the people would have been scared enough even if the towers hadn't fallen but were hit by commercial jets. But taking them down sure made it clear that the perps mean business and would stop and nothing and had the resources. Those who weren't frightened were intimidated.

That plot was way past the pay grade of Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 16 2010, 07:58 PM

For a little while now, I've been curious about the pronounced quivering that happens 12 seconds before the North Tower comes down. It's on all the footage I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo&feature=related

Could this be symptomatic of some kind of significant explosive event? I'm sure someone somewhere must have investigated this...?

Posted by: SanderO Nov 16 2010, 08:41 PM

I think it's camera shake. The camera was quite far from the towers and this would have shown on every video. Now what caused the camera to shake is another matter of interest. If the camera tripod was on a building roof or near some HVAC equipment which cycled on this may have been the cause. Hard to know.

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 16 2010, 08:49 PM

That's what I mean - why is the camera shaking, and why do all the cameras shake at that same moment?

I'll see if I can find some more examples on YouTube...I'm sure I've seen at least four or five cuts of footage which exhibit this shuddering.

Does anything show up on the seismic readings?

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 16 2010, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 16 2010, 06:49 PM) *
Does anything show up on the seismic readings?


You bet it does. I have seen it but I couldn't tell you where I saw it. If you look you will find it because it is out there. Now I have no idea if it's happening at the same time the cameras shake or not.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 16 2010, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 17 2010, 01:41 AM) *
I think it's camera shake. The camera was quite far from the towers and this would have shown on every video. Now what caused the camera to shake is another matter of interest. If the camera tripod was on a building roof or near some HVAC equipment which cycled on this may have been the cause. Hard to know.


If you look at the right hand side of the tower, an object can be seen falling a second or two after this "shake" (it can be seen more clearly on the zoomed in images)



Vibratios from another angle. Ground floor level:



Look at the "squib" explosions much lower than the rate of collapse can explain:



Sorry for the hit and run posts but I think it's better to see the footage, then comment.

Posted by: Paul Nov 18 2010, 04:43 AM

[quote name='BADBURD' date='Nov 16 2010, 07:59 AM' post='10791131']
[quote name='Paul' date='Nov 15 2010, 02:26 PM' post='10791123']
just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.


Paul that is exactly what should have happened. When you see the video the top starts to fall over right before something pulls it's legs out from under it. But really this is all just something to talk and nit pick about. We can talk for eternity about how and why. I'm sure everyone on this forum is in agreement they were brought down by something other than jet fuel. What we need to be doing is deciding if and what we are going to do about it.

I'm going to save you all a lot of trouble of asking me. I don't know what. But I can tell you voting is not going to fix it. Greed will just replace one with another. Think about this. Who the hell in there right mind would want to be in politics? We are losing OUR country to these crooks and pysco's more and more as everyday goes by.

Yes but in order to do something about the crooks that are running this country we need solid evidence we need rock hard evidence that
they blew up these towers or we have nothing we need evidence so convincing and amazing that not even the debunkers will be able to so much as touch it or scratch it we need something solid that can be used in prosecution proceeding and will stand up in court but we dont have exactly that.
We cannot start a war with them and throw them out of power the military is too powerful. Unfortunatly these sick psychopathic bastards who have no remorse or respect for human lives the same ones that pulled off 911 are still running the county we have mass murderers running the country
they are greedy and all they care about is money and power and more money and power and will do nothing they will stop at nothing to get what they want even if that includes staging terrorist attacks and murdering 3000 of their own innocent citizens in cold blood that means nothing to them
they dont care what are 3000 innocent american lives to them NOTHING it is exactly that and we are powerless to stop them unless we can provide
a way to stop them and one way to do that is to prove that they slaughtered 3000 of their own citizens in cold blood.

Yes i totally agree with you these evil sick bastards must be stopped at any cost they want to control everything and leave us with nothing
no freedom no money no power nothing because soon oneday it will be all theirs and it will be sitting in their greedy laps and we will be able to do nothing to stop them of regain the power money and freedom that we lost. Soon will come a time when we must stand up to them and say we are not going to take their bullshit anymore enough is enough it is time to fight and demand the truth and not stop demanding until our demands are met.

angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 18 2010, 10:01 AM

After participating in many discussions and web sites about the destruction of the twin towers I have come to the conclusions that the vast majority or intelligent and well intentioned people simply do not understand the engineering, structure of those buildings and the physics involved enough to engage in intelligent discussion.

In addition there seems to be a sort of bias or filtering taking place when people describe what they see in the many videos of the towers coming down and the hundreds and thousands of still images of the debris in the immediate aftermath and thew weeks that followed. And by filtering I believe that too many people WANT to see the destruction as a completely engineered event which they called controlled demolition meaning that someone(s) place devices throughout the structure which destroyed it from the top down. Too many people either don't have the technical background or have suspended some of their critical thinking.

Jon Cole demonstrated that steel can be cut with thermite and other energetic exothermic agents. But we already knew this and his well done video only shows how might might attack a steel structure. He doesn't however attack any of the exact same steel sections which were used in the tower such as as column 501 at floors which supported 93-95 and was a 14WF500 with 3 1/2" thick flanges and a 2" thick web. Obviously this is a matter of scale and his chosen steel beam is hardly a comparable section. My conclusion is that we have learned very little, except seen a demonstration of how small steel beans and columns can be attacked by thermite or thermate.

We yet to see a demonstration which accounts for the measured downward acceleration which was less than free fall of the top section of WTC 1 for example. How many columns were attacked with thermite or similar and how many buckled from progressive overloading? Since the top's descent was reasonably straight down was the attack and the buckling failure made to be symmetrical and almost a global failure of the core columns?

If the core was destroyed throughout the height, why didn't the building appear to implode or collapse in on itself? Obviously the core was not destroyed in advance of the collapse or this inward collapse would have been seen. It wasn't.

What was the mechanism to explode large assemblies of the facade off the tower consisting of more than 24 - 10'x36' panels as flat sheets?

No case has been actually made for a controlled demolition which explains how it might have taken place to produce and match everything we saw. And the collapse of the lower section can be described as a gravity driven collapse using sound engineering and physics which does match what we observed. What we can't see is how this collapse was initiated and explosives and thermite are only a sketchy hypothesis at this point in time. This may turn out to be how the collapse was initiated, but the case has not been made.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Nov 18 2010, 10:33 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 18 2010, 10:01 AM) *
After participating in many discussions and web sites about the destruction of the twin towers I have come to the conclusions that the vast majority or intelligent and well intentioned people simply do not understand the engineering, structure of those buildings and the physics involved enough to engage in intelligent discussion.


Did it ever occur to you that you're the one who can't engage in honest, intelligent discussion? Keep trying to convince us that we're all idiots and then you can't understand why no one believes you.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 18 2010, 11:36 AM

It didn't occur to me and I am not claiming people are idiots. I am stating that most of those who I have discussed or debated this matter with do not have a background or practice architecture, structural engineering, material science, physics nor are trained observers. This doesn't make people idiots, as much as incapable of dealing with an issue which is outside their technical understanding.

I don't know boo about chemistry or explosives or flying a plane and so I don't engage with chemists, demolition experts or pilots on those subjects trying to come off as an authority.

A discussion can only go so far when it begins to involve technical matters which one has no understanding. Some of the arguments advanced about the collapse of the twin towers reduce a very complex engineering discussion to something as simple as a small weaker block is unable to crush a larger stronger block. There have even been papers written which use this line of thinking. The concept is factual but reductionist and over simplifies and therefore misses what is actually taking place. If one is not prepared to look at how those towers came apart at the level of individual structural component failures and how unloading of some members leads to increase loading of others and then to a progressive failure then you are refusing to look at the trees which make up the forest.

As I have written many times the cause... the initiation might very well involve explosives or other incendiary devices to weaken structural members, but the collapse was a perfectly predictable and natural event once the over load condition was present on the upper most floors of the lower section.

What appears to be happening is that if the truth movement "concedes" that the twin towers' collapse was natural and was not the result of explosives... their credibility will be out the window... and so they are clinging to an unsupportable allegation.

This is unfortunate because the unseen part - the initiation DOES need to be questioned and this is the part where NIST clearly came up with voodoo science a few different times with the help of National Geographic and Popular Mechanics. Their initiation explanations are pure unscientific hooey. And this is fertile grounds for attack and debunking. But fighting the natural post initiation collapse is tilting at windmills and has morphed into a "credibility issue", I suspect, since so many "truth experts" are wrong about this and have been proven so.

The same thing happened with Jones and his diagonal cut column which was proved to not have been pre collapse but post collapse as part of the clean up phase. No mea culpas from Dr. Jones... just shove it down as deep as you can into the memory hole and move onto the next "theory" presented as smoking gun for controlled demolition. And still no one in the truth movement has attempted to put forth a reasonable scenario of how to demolish the twin towers which matches what we observed. For example, how do the explosions heard in the basement figure into the collapse we saw. What was their specific purpose? Without stating this it sounds like grasping at straws.

What would one explosion on one of the central core columns in the sub basement actually do?

You tell me.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 18 2010, 10:53 PM

And you're an engineer? Sheesh!

An explosion on 1 of the central core columns would weaken that core column to some degree or another.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 19 2010, 06:24 AM

No, I am an architect. My first job in 1971 was as a draftsman with Emery Roth & Sons (they did the construction plans for the Twin Towers). I was licensed to practice architecture in NY State in 1982. How about you?

Yes it would. But it wouldn't cause the tower to collapse. SOme of the central core columns carried hardly any floor loads such as 702, 802, just corridors inside the core.

Posted by: BADBURD Nov 19 2010, 10:05 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 19 2010, 04:24 AM) *
No, I am an architect. My first job in 1971 was as a draftsman with Emery Roth & Sons (they did the construction plans for the Twin Towers). I was licensed to practice architecture in NY State in 1982. How about you?

Yes it would. But it wouldn't cause the tower to collapse. SOme of the central core columns carried hardly any floor loads such as 702, 802, just corridors inside the core.


I'm a early bird but 4:24 am. Damn do you ever sleep?

Posted by: amazed! Nov 19 2010, 10:13 AM

SanderO

I did not say it would cause the tower to collapse, I said that it would weaken said column to some degree, depending on a host of other factors. For example, what if adjacent columns had similar weakness induced by way of explosives?

Me, I'm just a lowly pilot.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 19 2010, 12:02 PM

I get up at 0500 and so the clock setting here must be off.

When one column is "unloaded" ie it is no longer carrying load, the loads it did carry are often re distributed to adjacent columns. Most of this distribution is through the lateral beams and relies on the beam's connection strength to the "neighboring" columns.

Lateral beams and shear or moment connections can and do fail in this type of unloading. This would result from a local collapse. If the connected floors to that unloaded columns are unsupported they will drop, but this doesn't mean that the floors connected to the columns which were above the failed column will also collapse. They will if the lateral beam connection fails. It's hard to know without looking at the loads, the connections and the spans.

However the unloading and redistribution of axial loads will progress through the structure if this load distribution causes additional failures. Then you have a failure which progresses through the structure and can lead to a global collapse. However depending on the safety factor of the structural elements, one column failure will not lead to a progressive failure. That would be a very vulnerable design.

In the case of the twins towers, one could conceptually fail or remove all the 27 central core columns and the tower might stand if the trusses were able to laterally stabilize the 48 perimeter core columns. I have my doubts but perhaps it could stand. If the central 27 were collapse they likely would "pull in" the 48, perhaps separated them from the floors, or even pull the facade in with the floors in an implosion.

But we didn't see that.

Posted by: Paul Nov 19 2010, 12:33 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 20 2010, 02:32 AM) *
I get up at 0500 and so the clock setting here must be off.

When one column is "unloaded" ie it is no longer carrying load, the loads it did carry are often re distributed to adjacent columns. Most of this distribution is through the lateral beams and relies on the beam's connection strength to the "neighboring" columns.

Lateral beams and shear or moment connections can and do fail in this type of unloading. This would result from a local collapse. If the connected floors to that unloaded columns are unsupported they will drop, but this doesn't mean that the floors connected to the columns which were above the failed column will also collapse. They will if the lateral beam connection fails. It's hard to know without looking at the loads, the connections and the spans.

However the unloading and redistribution of axial loads will progress through the structure if this load distribution causes additional failures. Then you have a failure which progresses through the structure and can lead to a global collapse. However depending on the safety factor of the structural elements, one column failure will not lead to a progressive failure. That would be a very vulnerable design.

In the case of the twins towers, one could conceptually fail or remove all the 27 central core columns and the tower might stand if the trusses were able to laterally stabilize the 48 perimeter core columns. I have my doubts but perhaps it could stand. If the central 27 were collapse they likely would "pull in" the 48, perhaps separated them from the floors, or even pull the facade in with the floors in an implosion.

But we didn't see that.


Sander O maybe you just dont belong here fo this forum anymore if you dont believe in the possibility that the towers came down due to
a controlled demolition anymore, we dont need you here and we certainly dont need to be listening to your crap you have already tried
debunking me in other new thread i started on the 911 explosions just like a typical little the govt loyalist site would why dont go going another forum
where OCT believers typically hang out i am sure you would fit right in there, im sure they would be interested to hear you rant on you
are an engineer by the way so they would like having you there, i will say this again i am sick of listening to you rant on and it seems as though
other people are getting tired of it to so plz stop it or move on and go find another little forum to play on please for god sakes this forum is
for people who believe in the same ideas as the rest of the 911 truth movement does THIS FORUM IS NOT FOR DOUBTERS THEY DO NOT BELONG HERE do you get that? Do you understand what i am saying? you are starting to really piss me off and get on my nerves. I am sick of listening to your tone, you sound like such a typical OCT believer, well you are starting to.

angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif

Posted by: Paul Nov 19 2010, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 20 2010, 02:32 AM) *
I get up at 0500 and so the clock setting here must be off.

When one column is "unloaded" ie it is no longer carrying load, the loads it did carry are often re distributed to adjacent columns. Most of this distribution is through the lateral beams and relies on the beam's connection strength to the "neighboring" columns.

Lateral beams and shear or moment connections can and do fail in this type of unloading. This would result from a local collapse. If the connected floors to that unloaded columns are unsupported they will drop, but this doesn't mean that the floors connected to the columns which were above the failed column will also collapse. They will if the lateral beam connection fails. It's hard to know without looking at the loads, the connections and the spans.

However the unloading and redistribution of axial loads will progress through the structure if this load distribution causes additional failures. Then you have a failure which progresses through the structure and can lead to a global collapse. However depending on the safety factor of the structural elements, one column failure will not lead to a progressive failure. That would be a very vulnerable design.

In the case of the twins towers, one could conceptually fail or remove all the 27 central core columns and the tower might stand if the trusses were able to laterally stabilize the 48 perimeter core columns. I have my doubts but perhaps it could stand. If the central 27 were collapse they likely would "pull in" the 48, perhaps separated them from the floors, or even pull the facade in with the floors in an implosion.

But we didn't see that.


blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif yes1.gif yes1.gif doh1.gif doh1.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 19 2010, 12:55 PM

Paul,

I'll pass on your rudeness but note that I do not support the OCT. I do support truth and accuracy and have done my onw research using my professional background as an architect.

I was a volunteer with AE911T and invited onto the board of directors where I served for a brief period. After I left I looked closely at the twin tower's destruction, something that AE911T actually don't do.

What I discovered is that several of their "evidence of CD" claims were factually untrue and this related to the post initiation phase of the collapse which I believe could have been and likely was natural and gravity driven. But I have not made any claims about the initiation and I have found the NIST explanation for the initiation to be factually incorrect as well. It certainly seems possible and likely that there was some engineering and pre placement of explosives and or incendiaries above the "impact zone".

I don't follow any one I do pursue the truth and try to pass on my insight to others who can take it or leave it.

9/11 was a massive deception and it continued on through the 9/11 Commission reports and the NIST, FEMA, and other reports which covered up many many inconsistencies in the official account.

If you don't care to discuss technical matters about the twin towers, be my guest and hide behind whatever belief you choose to follow.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 20 2010, 11:03 AM

I understand what you're saying SanderO, but it's true that you somehow come across in a strange sort of way, seeming to be trying to have it both ways.

Gravity is a constant and therefore it goes without saying that gravity was a factor in the collapse. It's almost like you're throwing out a red herring in that regard.

You have admitted that explosives were used, and that is the big point here. AQ did not plant those explosives, somebody on the inside did.

And if Willy Rodriguez' testimony is true and accurate, which I believe to be the case, there were also some sort of explosive devices planted in the basement area.

Whoever dreamt this attack up was professional. Whoever planned and executed the attacks on the buildings was professional. To me, that is the point.

And yes, we completely agree that the coverup is worse than the crime.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 20 2010, 11:53 AM

Amazed,

My arguments are not a red herring at all. First let me be quite clear on my position about what happened pre collapse - I can't assert anything with certainty, certainly with not as much confidence as I do about the collapse being gravity driven.

Let me also make a distinction in the stages of the collapse - the beginning of collapse for me is the period when the first discernible movement takes place (seen in the movement of the antenna) until the top section above the "impact" zone comes down and appears to disappear into or onto the section below the impact zone. This took about 4 seconds.

The collapse phase I refer to as gravity driven then begins and this lasts about 10 seconds or so.

The problem in initiation (phase I) is that buckling of the core columns alone from heat of any amount would likely not exhibit what happened at initiation. The application of heat from fires would accumulate over time weakening the steel which likely would show signs by beginning to deform. If these deformations were symmetrical, which seems unlikely... that is some columns would buckle north and equal number south and so forth so that the net effect was that the structure would sink down - not to the north or south, east or west or twist somewhat slowly until they gave way. And when they did they the above section of this heated portions would have to then descend acceleration as we saw. It was a "sudden" release (seen at the roof line) not a slow "deformation" and downward creep.

What we saw seems to indicate that not only did the columns let go almost simultaneous, but in so doing the top was offset a something less than 2 feet which is seen in the facades of the top slipping passed one another. The suddenness and the translation is hard to explain from a gradual build up of heat and easier to explain if there was some impulse or perhaps well timed diagonal cuts causing the top to slip over and then drop. The problem with the later is that we don't have evidence of such cuts but I believe some rather serious bent WF column sections from the area above the impact zone. And with the plane strike being rather symmetrical we need to account for the asymmetry of phase I. We note the Antenna tipping first to the east which does indicate asymmetry and east side compromise of it's support.

The asymmetry may be attributed to the failure of the hat truss on one side (east) which would show the antenna tipping its top to the east. And since the antenna DID lead the collapse in phase I there is reason to believe that whatever was directly supporting (underneath) was essentially "gone". Those 3 columns were not meant to provide the only support for the antenna - the hat truss distributed the loads to at least 8 perimeter core columns, 8 central core columns and 8 facade columns.

Rodriquez

I have mixed feelings about WR. I am not sure he is not confused as to the timing and he told one interviewer that the blast he heard was micro seconds before the plane struck. I don't know who looks at their watch at such times but he seems to have. I also can't make sense of a massive destruction of the central columns - which is were the car 50 freight elevator was and the fact that no one else reported sagging further up in that location in the core up to the actually collapse.

He's also be a sort of "self promoter" sky rocketed into prominence as a hero and he seems to be milking this a bit. But I really can't tell. The explosions he and others heard are certainly troubling. Could have been a bomb to destroy the sprinkler pumps in advance of the plane strike? I can't tell.

Further, destroying the center of the core would not have much if any effect on the floor areas outside the core. Those three columns were quite small compared to all the other core columns because they supported so little floor loads within the core. My hunch is that the engineers used the hat truss to distribute the antenna loads instead of beefing up those three columns all the way to the top. The hat truss provided stiffness for the top of the facade combined with the stronger mechanical floors up top.

When looking at a "CD" explanation you need to look at what and how this would be done, what columns, connections etc would be attacked - what that would do and so forth. It has to make sense. Why would WTC 1 have a different plan than WTC 2?

Clearly explosive and incendiaries can destroy a building. But that doesn't mean that they did or if they did we need to show HOW they did what we saw.

I think that the planners understood that the building would collapse down by gravity and that could "conceal" the cause... initiation.., and they would expect it to be blamed on destruction from the planes and the fires. But this seems not to be enough energy to initiate phase I even if (though) once initiated it could set of the gravity driven collapse. These guys did some serious engineering analysis.

Posted by: Paul Nov 21 2010, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 21 2010, 02:23 AM) *
Amazed,

My arguments are not a red herring at all. First let me be quite clear on my position about what happened pre collapse - I can't assert anything with certainty, certainly with not as much confidence as I do about the collapse being gravity driven.

Let me also make a distinction in the stages of the collapse - the beginning of collapse for me is the period when the first discernible movement takes place (seen in the movement of the antenna) until the top section above the "impact" zone comes down and appears to disappear into or onto the section below the impact zone. This took about 4 seconds.

The collapse phase I refer to as gravity driven then begins and this lasts about 10 seconds or so.

The problem in initiation (phase I) is that buckling of the core columns alone from heat of any amount would likely not exhibit what happened at initiation. The application of heat from fires would accumulate over time weakening the steel which likely would show signs by beginning to deform. If these deformations were symmetrical, which seems unlikely... that is some columns would buckle north and equal number south and so forth so that the net effect was that the structure would sink down - not to the north or south, east or west or twist somewhat slowly until they gave way. And when they did they the above section of this heated portions would have to then descend acceleration as we saw. It was a "sudden" release (seen at the roof line) not a slow "deformation" and downward creep.

What we saw seems to indicate that not only did the columns let go almost simultaneous, but in so doing the top was offset a something less than 2 feet which is seen in the facades of the top slipping passed one another. The suddenness and the translation is hard to explain from a gradual build up of heat and easier to explain if there was some impulse or perhaps well timed diagonal cuts causing the top to slip over and then drop. The problem with the later is that we don't have evidence of such cuts but I believe some rather serious bent WF column sections from the area above the impact zone. And with the plane strike being rather symmetrical we need to account for the asymmetry of phase I. We note the Antenna tipping first to the east which does indicate asymmetry and east side compromise of it's support.

The asymmetry may be attributed to the failure of the hat truss on one side (east) which would show the antenna tipping its top to the east. And since the antenna DID lead the collapse in phase I there is reason to believe that whatever was directly supporting (underneath) was essentially "gone". Those 3 columns were not meant to provide the only support for the antenna - the hat truss distributed the loads to at least 8 perimeter core columns, 8 central core columns and 8 facade columns.

Rodriquez

I have mixed feelings about WR. I am not sure he is not confused as to the timing and he told one interviewer that the blast he heard was micro seconds before the plane struck. I don't know who looks at their watch at such times but he seems to have. I also can't make sense of a massive destruction of the central columns - which is were the car 50 freight elevator was and the fact that no one else reported sagging further up in that location in the core up to the actually collapse.

He's also be a sort of "self promoter" sky rocketed into prominence as a hero and he seems to be milking this a bit. But I really can't tell. The explosions he and others heard are certainly troubling. Could have been a bomb to destroy the sprinkler pumps in advance of the plane strike? I can't tell.

Further, destroying the center of the core would not have much if any effect on the floor areas outside the core. Those three columns were quite small compared to all the other core columns because they supported so little floor loads within the core. My hunch is that the engineers used the hat truss to distribute the antenna loads instead of beefing up those three columns all the way to the top. The hat truss provided stiffness for the top of the facade combined with the stronger mechanical floors up top.

When looking at a "CD" explanation you need to look at what and how this would be done, what columns, connections etc would be attacked - what that would do and so forth. It has to make sense. Why would WTC 1 have a different plan than WTC 2?

Clearly explosive and incendiaries can destroy a building. But that doesn't mean that they did or if they did we need to show HOW they did what we saw.

I think that the planners understood that the building would collapse down by gravity and that could "conceal" the cause... initiation.., and they would expect it to be blamed on destruction from the planes and the fires. But this seems not to be enough energy to initiate phase I even if (though) once initiated it could set of the gravity driven collapse. These guys did some serious engineering analysis.


Come on Sander O why dont you just say fire did it if thats what you truly believe.

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 21 2010, 03:33 PM

I won't say it because I don't believe it and never have.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 21 2010, 05:30 PM

You're not persuasive SanderO

Let's face it--the operation was a tremendous display of sleight-of-hand, perfectly executed for the most part.

My guess is that it was planned many years in advance.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 21 2010, 07:09 PM

I am not here to persuade anyone. People need to do their own research and not listen or follow anyone. There have been all sorts of theories floated... all sorts of evidence presented which supports various theories. Lots of this has turned out to be incorrect and it becomes hard to even know what anything about the events. 99.9% of what we all know is through digital media and some testimony. Whatever happened was definitely a "first" and witnesses have nothing historically to refer to. The media flooded people with mis and dis information... emotional pitches and the government proceeded to obfuscate and conceal and essentially fabricated a not too believable explanation.

The truth may be just as hard to believe and that may be the resistance people have no matter what side of the issue they are on.

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 21 2010, 09:22 PM

Guys, for Christ's sake.

SanderO has an opinion - and from what I can tell, it's a relatively informed one. I don't necessarily agree with or understand the complexities of his arguments, but I appreciate reading about his point of view nonetheless.

I'm sure the purpose of this forum is not to ostracise people just because they choose to express a more moderate, diluted version of the hardcore AE911 theory. Wilfully blinding ourselves to the potential inaccuracies and inconsistencies of our own personal perspectives makes us less equipped to deal with these issues when rabid debunkers confront us with them. And we all know that they will.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 22 2010, 10:11 AM

Good post Mr. Mitosis, and I agree completely.

I think SanderO has brought something to the conversation, no doubt.

His point about a "natural" collapse is valid, but not profound. Everybody understands that gravity is a force exerted 24/7

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 23 2010, 07:36 PM

Sure thing, amazed. The events of 9/11 were so unprecedented in so many ways that the task of making sense of it is naturally going to lead to frustration among people who are interested in discussing it. But the reason I like P4T is because it's like a safe-haven from trolls. The issues tend to be fleshed out in a way which is neutral, mutually respectful and well informed. It's a valuable resource to me.

Anyway, in breaking news:

"Termite live of wood, clay and dead organic mater, they do not attack concrete nor steel or plastic.

The WTC where made of steel and concrete as well as plastic not wood, nor clay.

Even if some Termites where introduced, all they could live off would be paper and files or some wood furnishing, nothing that could harm the integrity of the buildings them self.

Even for their nest, termites need wood, clay and or other organic matter. They can not harm Steel nor Concrete.Termite live of wood, clay and dead organic mater, they do not attack concrete nor steel or plastic.

The WTC where made of steel and concrete as well as plastic not wood, nor clay.

Even if some Termites where introduced, all they could live off would be paper and files or some wood furnishing, nothing that could harm the integrity of the buildings them self.

Even for their nest, termites need wood, clay and or other organic matter. They can not harm Steel nor Concrete."


I couldn't resist Ctrl-C/Ctrl-Ving the above comment. I'm not sure if the guy was disingenuous, drunk or just a certified retard plane, but it certainly brightened up my morning.

laughing1.gif

Posted by: SanderO Nov 23 2010, 10:02 PM

It's not always as civil as it should be... discussion that is. There is a tendency to distrust someone who does not agree with the "truther" main line position. If you don't pass that litmus test you are dismissed as a troll, a dis info agent and worse!

Figuring out 9/11 is a major problem. It was such a huge event, so emotional, and we all experienced it "digitally" except the few who were actually there. Then the evidence has been removed so it can't be studied and we are left with a story and then a commission to explain it which is hardly credible.

Most of the alternative conspiracy case is made from inference and "reading the evidence" which we have access to. And it's been shown that much of that evidence has been played with and so is unreliable. It's almost like trying to solve a fictional murder mystery using real science and logic.

The thermitic material - found in the dust is a perfect example of trying to figure out what the animal looks like from finding a single bone or some DNA.

Jon Cole's work shows that thermitic material can be used to produce some of the effects seen in the recovered steel we were shown. His work doesn't show how it was used, how it could result in the collapse we saw, or how the concrete was pulverized as many claim it was from explosives. (I believe it did not require explosive to pulverize it). But when you claim that only explosives can pulverize or destroy everything in the towers as we saw, you need to show how that is done don't you? I believe that physics and fluid mechanics can explain it, but this is outside my expertise.

There are too many mysteries and we are still waiting for the answers.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 24 2010, 10:27 AM

I would say that it is YOU, or anybody else making the claim, that natural forces pulverized the concrete. So far we cannot find the anvil, and are only supposing about the hammer.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 24 2010, 11:37 AM

Amazed,

What you have in the gravitational driven collapse thesis is a huge mass impacting on each floor. That impact shatters that floor... not pulverized (guess). But this descending mass of debris is somewhat contained within the exterior and for core and it acts like the material in a tumbler grinding itself into smaller and smaller pieces. The pressure / weight of this mass is enormous. It is NOT in free fall and its descent is NOT accelerating. But like a flow in a tube or like a river it is a turbulent affair with lots of mixing... and 100 major collisions which each slab on the way down.

This certainly is not something which is common or even seen before. It may be hard to conceptualize. But I suspect that the science IS there to explain how gravity would turn a 80 or so floors into pulverized material of fine structure if sufficient mass were present to initiate the runaway collapse and subsequent grinding process which the avalanche would become.

Collisions cause internal stress in materials which depending on their properties will break apart. And so traveling down an 1100 foot chute will provide or can provide the millions or billions of collisions to stress and destroy the integrity of materials which are subject to break up from collisions. We wouldn't expect this to happen to steel, but we would expect it to happen to dry wall, concrete etc. This is a materials science and fluid dynamics problem. I suspect there is enough energy present in the stored gravitation potential energy once turned into kinetic energy to do what we saw. We saw the same level of pulverization in all three towers despite the fact that i and 2 were destroyed from top to bottom and 7 was destroyed by removing support at the bottom of the structure. Both types had enormous crushing falling mass and both turned it to dust and fine grained size material.

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 25 2010, 12:10 AM

I don't think I got an answer to a previous post about gravitational collapse. Apologies if I did.Are we to assume that the perps drew up a collapse scenario where they relied on natural physics to "finish off the job" after initiation? That they didn't foresee any problems with this, so much so that they knew 100% that all 3 towers would collapse into their own footprints?They all fell at basically freefall speed. This isn't a diehard "truther" approach. I do take points on board, but the more I watch those collapses, I don't personally believe that gravity alone would explain the progression of @ 7 floors per second.The pulverized concrete we saw, the facade sprayed out the way. Where did this excessive accumulation of weight come from if the mass of the building was apparently sprayed up and away from the centre of gravity?I'm not being pigheaded or confrontational just for the sake of it. These are legitimate questions SanderO. Even from a layman perspective.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 25 2010, 11:54 AM

I understand what you're trying to say SanderO, and you might be right.

OSS makes several points that are valid.

The towers collapsed at a value within about 10% of the precise free fall value. With the biggest hammer we could swing, if there is nothing offering solid resistance to that hammer it will simply knock chunks off. Drywall has paper material clinging to it and holding it together.

I don't know, but I just don't find your explanation to be compelling.

Posted by: SanderO Nov 25 2010, 12:08 PM

No problem. Let me try to explain what I think happened, but it would take many posts to do this hypothesis justice.

Let me establish at the outset that I can't explain with any level of certainty how the collapse was initiated. Let's just discuss tower 1 for now. We can say that the plane strike or explosion which began the event did not collapse the tower. The loads carried by the destroyed columns on floors 93-99 were redistributed. This is possible because the columns are interconnected with lateral beams which normally support floors (in the core) and provide stiffness to the columns so they won't buckle. Any column is constrained according to Euler's formula regarding the slenderness ratio of unsupported axially loaded columns. When a column is "taken out" its load is "transferred" to adjacent columns via horizontal members such as the spandrel in the facade and the lateral steel in the core. These members are not designed or intended to support axial loads however.

The floor dead and live loads where attached to the SIDE of the colunns. These floor loads were carried by the floor trusses at 80" OC which then rested on angles which were welded to stand off plates at the facade. The plates were welded to the spandrels which formed the inside web of the facade box column. There were cross trusses which also transferred the loads from one truss to the other making the floor act like a stiffer membrane/plate. The floor itself was remarkably thin being only 4" or so at its thickest point and 2" or so at its thinnest. It was poured into B type of similar corrugated metal decking. Conduits for electrical wires were placed inside the pour as well.

The floor system was designed to carry 100# per square foot with a acceptable deflection at mid span which is typically 1/360 or 1/720th of the span under the design load. When loads exceed the design load the deflection increases until the yield strength is reached and then the material will fail catastrophically. Stretch a rubber band too much and it snaps. All materials will deform elastically under load and fail catastrophically when the ultimate yield strength is reached.

The floors were a composite system which means that it had many different components each with separate structural characteristics. The engineers design it so that the weakest element "drives" the design. So when the floors were overloaded it is still hard to determine what failed because the overloads are not uniformly applied, and each element will have different structural properties. If you don't use enough bolts a connection will fail and the bolts could shear or rip out. If you add more you weaken the material they are bolting together by removing too much material. You can use stronger bolts and so forth. This is a complex "balancing act" to design complex structures.

The floors all had the same trusses though the trusses supported different loads. This is hard to explain without drawings, but again the design would be driven by the truss which had to carry the most load. This makes other trusses somewhat over designed - or the truss seats and so forth. It also means that the over designed elements will fail AFTER not at the same time... they will "hold" more load and last a bit longer. This is only one reason why a pancake collapse is not possible.

When a floor or section of a floor is overloaded past the ultimate yield strength it must fail. It's hard to say what will fail first, but it could be the slab which shatters, or the metal pan which rips like foil, or the truss which has its steel bar webs part or break free of the bottom angles which make up the tension chord, or the tension angles (bottom chord) could part. The failures can propagate as one element fails and is "unloaded" the other elements have to do more "work" a 4" slab cannot span the distances in the towers without the trusses. If a truss fails, the floor are it supports will crack and shatter.

The planners understood that once the safety factor of the elements of the composite floor were exceeded it would fail and that means the floor would collapse and break apart and drop onto the floor below and this would cause the floor below to fail and so on. But remember that to fail the floor or a portion of it the load had to increase PAST the safety factor which in the case of the floors was reputed to be 5 or so. This means that that they would carry not 100# per square foor, but 500# per square foot. More than that, they would fail.

So let's do some basic math here. The floors had concrete which weighed 94#/ cu foot, they had the weight of the trusses and the metal pans, the ceiling materials, ducts and so forth. Let's say the floors weighed about 50# per square foot and the live load - furniture and people and office contents, was 50% of the 100# or 50# per square foot and then there was the dead load of any walls etc at say 10# per square foot. For this exercise the exact weights are not crucial. SO we have the floor and contents weighing about 110# per square foot. If one floor were to be placed on the one below it would add 110# per square foot to its already 50# it was supporting. It's now supporting 160# which is within its safety factor. it might sag but it wouldn't collapse. This is not taking into account the dynamic load which amplifies a static load considerably. When a second floor comes down on the overloaded floor it adds another 110# and the floor now is carrying not 50# but 270#. This is assuming a uniform load distribution which likely was not occurring. Some areas would carry more and some less. The floor would deflect/sag more but hold. Add a third floor to this and now it is carrying 380# and still within the safety factor. Remember that this is NOT considering the dynamic load when the weight is dropped onto the floor from 12, 24 and 36' high. The 4th floor pushes the load right to the safety factor. Considering the dynamic loading it's likely that the floor failed before it had to carry 4 additional floors. It's likely that the failures were local ie parts of the floor failed before others.

This descending process took about 4 seconds for 17 floors and there was some acceleration. That is a separate discussion. But it wasn't at free fall but about 70% of for about a few floor heights of descent. Looking at the video we essentially see the lower floors of the top section "falling into / onto" top floor (92) of the lower section. It took about 1 - 1.5 seconds for 4 floors of descent to deliver 4 floor masses to the 92nd floor. Some of this may have crashed through to floor 91. In the next second or two 4 or 5 more floors came down and this overloaded 92 and the parts of 91 which 92 had collapsed on. This now began the gravitational phase of the collapse in the lower section. The floor mass which had crashed onto 92 and 91 began failing the floors below as more and more floors from above 100-109 dropped over 200 feet onto undamaged floor perhaps somewhere in the 80s. Some of the mass fell over the side of the towers as the facades broke away. We can see them fall over and actually see a few panels lead the heavier than air descending debris plume. By floor 80 the mass represents 30 floors or over 1/4 of the tower's floor mass which was about 200,000 tons. This is about 60,000 tons using the crude and conservative figures above. This chaotic crushing mass was randomly distributed over the 30,000 square feet of each floor. Each square foot or floor was being pounded by 2 tons and it was designed to support a static load of 100#.

But each floor did resist for a brief instant until the yield strength was reached and it failed. Each floor would slow the accelerating avalanche and hold it at about 65 mph or 100 feet per second. The mass would race past the facade which could not contain it and it too yielded and was pushed out. The facade did not have the strength to contain the collapse rubble/debris nor stand alone without lateral support which was provided by the floor system. The facade peeled and was pushed away and toppled over.

The core was assaulted by the collapsing floors. It had only 2 layers of 5/8" gypsum wall board to keep the avalanche out side confined to the floor area. The avalanche also plunged inside the core and ripped many of the lateral beams off the columns leaving them precariously too tall and thin for their immense height. The too tall columns were shaken for the lateral assault and began to oscillate and sway breaking the relatively weak splices which connected each 36' section on to the other.

The core could have stood the full height if all its lateral reinforcing was not stripped off. But it was and so it too came down as Euler's formula predict.

The collapse was not at free fall acceleration. Only the beginning shows acceleration and that is about 70% of free fall. The rest of the collapse was about 65 mph which is about 13 seconds or so. The mass DID accelerate for about 6 stories. A free falling body would reach speeds of 150 feet per second after 3 seconds of fall. The acceleration I believe was clocked at about 70% of free fall and so the mass was moving at ~70% x 150 feet per second and this is about 100 feet per second of 60+ mph.

seconds / ft
0 / 0
0.5 / 5
1 / 16
1.5 / 36
2 / 64
2.5 / 100
3 / 145

The floor debris or what was left of it would of course come straight down much like pouring sand would. Like pouring sand in a weak container it would push against the side as grain does in a silo. In the case of the towers this was enough pressure to break apart the facade and the core gypsum walls.

Seven was a bit different and it was more like an implosion style demolition where the exterior structure is pulled in by the collapse core structure. The floors collapsed straight down and also pulverize themselves. This is what is expected when that sort of mass drops. The pressures are enormous.

No demolition was ever done on a structure taller than 25 stories before or after.

Both designs were able to be taken down using the floor collapse approach because of the long span column free light weight floors outside the core. This was not hard to understand. The trick was to get the tops off column and then gravity would do the rest and quite close to what appears as free fall. Remember by volume the floor part was 97% air - slabs of 4" separated by 11'-8" of air. The fall was 96% through air. No columns were crushed and the stronger columns at the bottom had no part to play in arresting the floor collapse.

Posted by: BADBURD Dec 1 2010, 12:18 PM

Is this the answer about what pulverized the concrete?

The Komatsu-Dresser mining division operated from 1988 to 1997. In July 1996, it patented a thermite demolition device that could "demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like."

Here is the link to the full article

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249

Posted by: SanderO Dec 1 2010, 02:42 PM

If you describe what you see... you see a tower collapsing down. It is destroyed at first by the top section appearing to collapse into / onto an intact lower section. When the top disappears into / onto the bottom - the bottom begins to collapse, but it seems to be being destroyed from the top down. You see dust and debris shoot out a few hundred feet at the end of the top section disappearing into / onto the bottom. You also see huge sections of the facade peel off and fall away. They mostly land right next to the tower up to as far as 450 feet away. You see the light weight aluminum skin panels which were dislodged from the facade columns flying about in turbulent air turning every which way. You notice the first of the facade panels leads the debris plume to the ground and the destruction of the bottom section is well behind this. You see material come shooting out from the glass areas just ahead of the front of "destruction". There are jets of ejecta which appear a few times (in pairs) on adjacent faces) 10 or more floors below the front of destruction.

The destruction seems to progress whether it is done by some sort of sequenced explosives (I don't think so) or it is a progressive failure and collapse of the floor systems.

There is a continuous thunderous roar as the lower section collapses indicating enormous amounts of collisions of parts of the building coming apart like the rumble of a avalanche of stone, sand etc.

Whatever destroyed everything did it over the period of time that that thunderous roar was heard. That was the sound of it all being destroyed and ground up. That part took about 11 seconds for WTC 1.

Posted by: Paul Dec 4 2010, 08:59 PM

Hey look check this out guys at wall st there was a bombing which occured at 12:01 pm on SEPTEMBER
16th THE EXACT SAME MONTH THAT 911 TOOK PLACE JUST FIVE DAYS AFTER THE 911 ATTACKS and
1920 - 2001 = 81 the 81st floor of wtc 2 the south tower where the huge back up batties where installed.
IS THIS ALL JUST ANOTHER COINCIDENCE BY CHANCE?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing

Now i am really starting to wonder what was on the 81st floors, maybe they placed charges on the 81st floors on some of the core columns or placed bombs there that somehow went of and cause the building to slowly sink down making the outer columns bend buckle
and start to bend and bow outwards until the building couldnt hold it weight up anymore because of the missing
columns the collapsed floor. maybe when they took out some of the core columns along the 81st floors slowly cut
throught them with thermate creating angled cuts causing like a 10ft long section of the columns to hang there on just slide
and drop out and the remaining core columns just buckled because of the missing section of core columsn that had been cut
out on the 81st floor and maybe a few floors above it could have been done also and the cutting action of the thermite produced
so much heat it caused other metals around it too melt and flow out the side corner of the building like as seen on the corner of
the south tower and then if anyone found the cut up core columns which i think NIST and the government tried very hard to hide
maybe thats why we dont see hardly any footage of the massive 47 steel core columns because they know they have massive cuts
in them and will not show them to us not now not ever.

Think about it why have we not been shown hardly and footage at all of the massive 47 steel columns that where recovered from
the debris of both towers collapse, the fact that we have NOT been shown many pictures or seen a lot of footage of the massive
47 steel core columns has always left me with a massive amount of doubt about how the towers really came down that day.

whistle.gif whistle.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: SanderO Dec 4 2010, 09:16 PM

All the columns were not massive on the 80-83 floor. The columns were 36' long and spanned 3 floor heights. The largest on on 80-82 was 501 and it was 22x28 box column made from 2 1/2" plate. Column 804 was a 12WF161 - not a massive box column but a rolled steel I beam type. 704 was 14WF84... again only 84 pounds per foot and not a "massive box column".

The massive core columns were way down in the building and were 22x52 made from 5" thick plate.

So an "attack" on the core columns was not as much of a "problem" as would be to destroy the columns at the bottom. But as I have suggested, once the mass of the top was "released" and no longer supported by the columns below, it was free to crash and destroy all the floors. And it likely did.

John Cole shows that the columns can be destroyed with thermitic material in a short time. And if this WAS done then the mass would COLLAPSE down by gravity.

There is no reason to cut the core columns if you are not planning to have gravity finish the job. And gravity DID finish the job.

What started it?

Posted by: Paul Dec 5 2010, 01:47 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 5 2010, 10:46 AM) *
All the columns were not massive on the 80-83 floor. The columns were 36' long and spanned 3 floor heights. The largest on on 80-82 was 501 and it was 22x28 box column made from 2 1/2" plate. Column 804 was a 12WF161 - not a massive box column but a rolled steel I beam type. 704 was 14WF84... again only 84 pounds per foot and not a "massive box column".

The massive core columns were way down in the building and were 22x52 made from 5" thick plate.

So an "attack" on the core columns was not as much of a "problem" as would be to destroy the columns at the bottom. But as I have suggested, once the mass of the top was "released" and no longer supported by the columns below, it was free to crash and destroy all the floors. And it likely did.

John Cole shows that the columns can be destroyed with thermitic material in a short time. And if this WAS done then the mass would COLLAPSE down by gravity.

There is no reason to cut the core columns if you are not planning to have gravity finish the job. And gravity DID finish the job.

What started it?


look here look at the welded channels that secure the floor connections to perimiter core columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

what if they had of blown most of the inner channel floor connections to the core there would still be
some resistance to the collapse so i assumeand if they blew these floor connection with nanothermite charges or
burnt through some of them using as similar method to what john cole used to weaken them the building would collapse loose
it strength and the cores would still be standing if they didnt cut the core and just cut the floor truss connections
to them we would see standing core columns just like we do in the videos by the way i have no seen footage
of the floor truss connections to the core, the only ones we see are the floors connections to the outer wall perimiter
columns and you can see where the bolt have been torn ripped out from overloading is the reason we dont see the core
and the channel connections, um uh oh i just realised something i have seen pictures of the some of the core columns
but not many of them and where are all the channel connections what happened to them did they cut them blow them completely
off?

Dont worry boys we will just blow through the weak channel connections and let her fall an not cut the core then we can show
everyone footage and pictures of the outer perimiter wall floor truss connections and seats and then they can see where they have
been torn out at the bolts they wont see any demolition cuts there because we will hide the cores we will not show it to them we
not one picture not a single video tape that way they can never know what a dastardly evil thing we did, they can suspect it but no be
able to prove it so then we can be sure that we are safe with hiding and scrapping all the evidnece shipping it over seas.

Ok really so where are the floor channel connection why cant i see them atached to the core can someone show me pictures
of them because if not then that is really big problem, Sander O dont you think the real reason that NIST never showed us the
core columns or only like three percent of them is because thats where they made the cuts maybe not throught the core but
the connections that hold the floors to them?

Posted by: BADBURD Dec 5 2010, 03:06 AM

Paul, You really need to watch to video from A&E for 911 truth. Many of the the things you talk about are answered in the video. Like how they were brought down. If anybody watched the video they would see how the top did NOT drive it's way down to the botttom. PERIOD! The top section was brought down like a normal CD while the rest was destroyed from the top down. The proof is in the video. It explains Newtons law. SanderO you definitely need to watch also. The top can not pyle drive it's way down. The top is destroyed. There is nothing left to drive it's way down. Just watch their videos!!!

Posted by: Paul Dec 5 2010, 04:54 AM

QUOTE (BADBURD @ Dec 5 2010, 04:36 PM) *
Paul, You really need to watch to video from A&E for 911 truth. Many of the the things you talk about are answered in the video. Like how they were brought down. If anybody watched the video they would see how the top did NOT drive it's way down to the botttom. PERIOD! The top section was brought down like a normal CD while the rest was destroyed from the top down. The proof is in the video. It explains Newtons law. SanderO you definitely need to watch also. The top can not pyle drive it's way down. The top is destroyed. There is nothing left to drive it's way down. Just watch their videos!!!


Does anybody know how to contact richard the good old chap i want to send him a few things does have an e mail address
i need to tell him to upgrade his power point presentation it is getting too old there is heaos more stuff he could add new testomies like
the firefighters from the FOIA request why does he add them hmmmmmmmmmm he needs to use more convincing account thats the towers
where blown to pieces like the firefighters with the bloody nose "You people just dont understand any one of these building could just blow up"
im sure that would get his audience thinking more and asking some more questions.

Posted by: Paul Dec 5 2010, 04:55 AM

What does the OOST model stand for i dont get it what does it mean?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)