Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ World Trade Center Complex _ Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible

Posted by: Munkle May 16 2011, 05:32 PM

Reposted from http://dailypaul.com/node/152794/

by James_Madison_Lives


An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html

Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy


Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton <i>per worker</i> of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

Finally, one challenge which could be raised to this analysis is the assumption that such a scenario requires all the steel in the building to be heated to the same temperature in order to exhibit onset of failure characteristics. But if we discard the known fact that steel is an excellent heat conductor, and would wick the heat to all parts of the steel structure rapidly and evenly, and that the entire 96,000 tons was absorbing energy, and suppose that somehow all the heat was concentrated around the points of impact, which somehow melted or buckled only in these places, then we run across another problem. The problem with this hypothesis is that it leaves the 90% of the steel frames below the points of impact with all their strength intact, which would have made a free-fall collapse through the path of greatest resistance utterly impossible. We cannot hold that a free-fall collapse was possible because the steel in the towers was greatly weakened by the heat, then at the same time hold that the heat was focused in one place. One cannot have it both ways.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the <a href="http://dailypaul.com/node/151054">"momentum"</a> from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.

---------

Weight, length, temperature unit converter
http://www.metric-conversions.org/

Specific heat unit converter
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-conversion/convert-alpha/specific-heat.html

Posted by: SanderO May 17 2011, 03:10 PM

Fine and dandy. But this all ignores that MOST of the building was not subject to heat or fires but it ALL collapsed.

So the discussion this gentlemen engages in is to "falsify" the notion that heat from office fires could cause the initial (kick off) collapse/destruction event.

Everyone can see that the collapse part was not associated with heat or fires.

So a question to ask... and to answer.... is once whatever caused the top section to come apart... and we can agree it likely was not caused by office fires burning less than a hour... Some ELSE made the section BELOW busted up upper section collapse in about 10 seconds and it was ... all at room temperature.

The truth movement wants to believe that the room temperature floors from 1-96 were exploded in sequence... because someone has decided that a collapse defies the laws of physics... ergo it was an series of explosions which resembles a collapse.

But this is clearly no the case, as I have been arguing here and elsewhere that the POST initiation phase... phase II of the destruction WAS a gravity driven progressive collapse of the floors... phase IIa was the falling away and peeling off of the facade columns when they lost the lateral bracing the floors provided... and Phase III was the buckling of the core columns which were not pushed over by collapsing debris. They came down from "Euler buckling".

So James has shown that Phase I - initiation was not from office fires. Phase I is the collapse of the top 14 stories in tower 1 and a slightly more complex collapse sequence of the top 30 stories of tower 2... Both of which show a destruction from the bottom up or crush down... quite similar to a CD. So were there CD's at the tops which provided the mass to destroy the bottom? It's a possibility... much much much better than office fires.

Posted by: talayo May 18 2011, 08:04 PM

sanderso:


Gravity collapse is always true. No matter what the "means" for the destruction were, what ever reached the ground was because of gravity, otherwise it would still be floating around.


I you look at Mt. Hellen's "collapse" the ash also reached the ground becase of gravitation.

If you look at images of the distribution of dust (pyroclastic cloud) there is a great amount of similarity between WT destruction and St. Helens explosion.

It is becoming subreal that the discussions (after 10 years of time to study the evidence) continue to revolve around normal natural events to explain the unexplainable.

We were witness to some extraordinary processes that cannot be explained either by conventional explosives, fuel fires, aircraft impacts, or natural forces.

Please, study carefully what the hundreds of first respondents reported as their earlier experiences. It is all available now. It gets a bit repetitive but for that very reason their extraordinary accounts gain credibility. If you continue to believe in traditional explanations, then you must believe that many of these respondents were smoking biological substances as opposed to dust from de buildings. Their claims are either the product of rather creative imaginations (delusions) or all the conventional descriptions that we continue to use are complete BS.

I do not believe that the responders manufacture BS!






Posted by: Tamborine man May 19 2011, 12:50 AM



Good comments talayo ....

but think it's about time we should stop using the word "collapsed"

to describe the demise of the WTC towers. No such thing took place.

"Disintegrated" would be a much more truthful term to use, imho.

And as talayo said - how this was done, we still have to work out,

as it still belongs to the realm of the unexplainable ....yet, perhaps!












Posted by: SanderO May 19 2011, 07:16 AM

I am not a proponent of the official explanation of the collapse of the twin towers. There IS no official explanation of the collapse phase. I challenge anyone to cite in the NIST, FEMA or 911 Commission Reports where they explain the collapse phase. You will not find this because they are silent on it.

NIST attempted to show that in the case of the twin towers that the CAUSE of the collapse was sagging trusses, from fires which pulled in the facade columns which meant that the floors above no longer hand support and then would come down. That was the extent of their explanation.

Perhaps because the engineering is settled science about what would happen if you had 30,000 tons of mass descend on the top or any level in a high rise building... it would crush and destroy it every time. They didn't bother with the collapse phase explanation of how this takes place.

The silence of the officials on the collapse phase has become fertile ground for speculation. Some, perhaps many simply assume they are covering up some sort of engineered mechanism. These people then go on to propose explosives set off in sequence from top to bottom, or even more exotic mechanisms such as directed energy weapon which turned the towers to dust.

We don't know what caused the 30,000 tons, in the case of tower 1 to be dissociated from the columns which supported it... to break apart and land MOSTLY on the undamaged room temperature structure below it. That is where investigators must look for CAUSE and that is where it is hardly credible that office fires could initiate such dissociation of 14 floors. It is in the initiation that it is likely that engineered intervention took place would essentially be a CD at the top.. perhaps involving the destruction of only 50-60% of the core columns at the plane strike zone. This would cause the top section to drop and deliver its mass onto the undamaged part of the structure which would be crushed by the gravity driven PE energy now kinetic energy.

Why people persist on saying that such a collapse is impossible is hard to understand because these statements reveal a lack of understanding of engineering, statics, physics, material science and so forth... not to mention that objective careful technically informed observations of the visual record supports that the COLLAPSED. Of course if you begin from a position that the were exploded that is what you see.

In fact the ECD advocates attempt to cast all the observations in support of their beliefs when those observations are not inconsistent with a gravity driven collapse.

Of course no buildings have ever come down like they did. No buildings ever had 30,000 tons of load imposed on their upper stories (even if it came from the stories from their very top). And no other towers have the same structural design. So the conclusion to be drawn is not that they were exploded to bits.. but that towers which have 30,000 (or some huge amount of weight) dropped on their floors will see the floors progressively destroyed from top to bottom.

The advocates of ECD, including Gage who SHOULD know what happened refuse to actually study the structure and the basic engineering and are making their "case" of ECD based on the fact that what they see LOOKS LIKE evidence of explosions or multiple explosions from top to bottom. It's a bit of twisted logic and unsupported by evidence and no engineers that I know of have falsified a collapse if 30,000 tons of mass are dropped on the top.

But it's quite possible that there was engineered destruction involved in creating the 30,000 tons of mass to destroy the rest of the tower (North). And it is here that investigators should look for mechanisms... not in the collapse phase. The prize here... the key to understanding the event... is how those 30,000 tons came to be made available to destroy the tower.

This may be splitting hairs to some because if it WAS an engineered "kick off" then it still could be called a CD and that is not a fire caused result of the plane strikes. I maintain this is an important distinction for several reasons.

1. It is a much less complex and hence more reasonable and credible scenario than placing thousands of explosives throughout the tower and timing them in precise sequence.

2. It causes research to focus on the CAUSE since an engineered "progression" (the collapse phase) couldn't possible have a natural cause or initiation... but a engineered cause could result in a natural "progression" or collapse... and as I am rather certain... it WAS a natural progressive failure..not a sequence of explosions down the towers.

3. By making claims of ECD for the entire event, it undermines the credibility of those making such claims, causes them to make false and supportable arguments which are not grounded in engineering and science.

4. It causes speculation and some bizarre explanations such as DEWs to "explain" the evidence which is explainable without such bizarre mechanisms. That too undermines the credibility of the entire movement which is trying to get to the bottom of the CAUSE of the collapse.

Research continues to get at the initiation of those collapses. And so all attention should be on the period before there is any perceived movement to the period when the destruction begins. It is in that period where the prize is to be found.... not the collapse phase.

Posted by: Munkle May 19 2011, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
No buildings ever had 30,000 tons of load imposed on their upper stories (even if it came from the stories from their very top).


Pardon me? It was imposed when the last 30 stories of the towers were built. The upward static resistance of the much heavier, massive lower box columns was equal to or greater than downward force at any horizontal plane in the structure, or it would not have been at static equilibrium, i.e. it wouldn't be standing. If you mean the additional load imposed by the momentum of collapsing floors, you would need to drop those floors from something like twenty miles up to generate the required energy to completely crush the lower 80 or 90 floors. The upward static resistance of 30,000 tons of vertical, cross-braced steel in the core alone is considerable, and then you have the perimeter columns.

Posted by: amazed! May 20 2011, 04:03 PM

Talayo

Thanks for pointing out the obvious--on this planet the force of gravity is always present.

SandersO claim that is was gravity-driven is superfluous in that regard, but he likes to keep making it, as though it were profound information.

Posted by: SanderO May 20 2011, 08:10 PM

QUOTE (Munkle @ May 19 2011, 06:59 PM) *
Pardon me? It was imposed when the last 30 stories of the towers were built. The upward static resistance of the much heavier, massive lower box columns was equal to or greater than downward force at any horizontal plane in the structure, or it would not have been at static equilibrium, i.e. it wouldn't be standing. If you mean the additional load imposed by the momentum of collapsing floors, you would need to drop those floors from something like twenty miles up to generate the required energy to completely crush the lower 80 or 90 floors. The upward static resistance of 30,000 tons of vertical, cross-braced steel in the core alone is considerable, and then you have the perimeter columns.


You are not reading or understanding what I wrote. The overall load did not change, the building mass did not change. It was just rearranged at the top so instead of those 30,000 tons of mass being supported as designed by columns... the 30,000 tons was imposed as a live dynamic load on the upper most floor of the undamaged lower section. And though the 96th floor columns could carry that load and then some, the 96th FLOOR slab could not and so the FLOOR slab collapsed and was fracture to bits.

If you place 30,000 tons on ANY office tower floor it will collapse. That is the imposed load I referred to.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 21 2011, 06:57 PM

SanderO, is it your presumption that the "30000 tons" of the upper floors was a constant in your calculations?

I'm no engineer but if, as you seem to be saying, the disintegration (I like that description too TM) of the lower floors was caused by the upper floors, surely the latter would have been pulverized too particularly at the rate of descent? Where did this constant downward force come from?

The South Tower was actually "leaning" and was not, from what I can see, a "block" of weight by the time the first few floors had collapsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk&feature=related

Surely the rate of descent would have been affected by the uneven displacement of weight on each of the lower floors?

Pulverization had dispersed the debris away from the structure too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0ZBSDBZCY&feature=channel_video_title

Sorry man, doesn't add up.

Posted by: SanderO May 21 2011, 09:32 PM

The destructive mass which came from the 14 floors in tower 1 was not instantly and completely pulverized... nor did it fall or was it toss over the side. The destruction of the upper floors which I call phase I is similar to that one would expect in a typical CD for example in a 14 story building if the column at its base were destroyed the the 14 stories dropped. One wouldn't expect those 14 stories to be pulverized to dust as they descend or the be largely thrust outside the foot print. Most of the 14 floors would be at this stage fairly large chunks of the buildings' floors, various beams and contents.. raining down on the lowest floor. Of course this would as it does in a CD have debris spread from the base... which in the case of tower 1 pushed some of it over the side and outside the footprint.. and the facade was likely forced away from the tower.

The 30,000 tons is a gross calculation of the weight of the top 14 floors including... the concrete and steel of the composite floors, the steel of the hat truss and mechanical floors, the heavy equipment and storage tanks, electrical sub station, motors and so forth on those floors, restaurant equipment, the antenna and transmitter equipment. Whatever destroyed those 14 floors including 2 mech floors, a transmitter equipment floor, 2 restaurant floors and 10 tenant floors did not pulverize the above into dust suspended in air or drifting outside the footprint. The vast majority of that mass became a destructive imposed 30,000 ton load... in about 4 seconds (the interval of tower 1 phase I) which hammered the 95th floor destroying it and this mass continued to grow, crush itself on the way down as it destroyed each floor in about 10-14 seconds. The constant downward force was gravity which was acting on that mass all the time. But before the top was destroyed the gravity force was resisted because the floors were connected to the columns and the columns resisted /supported the floors and their contents. Once the floors were no longer supported by the columns gravity then pulled this mass earthward as it would anything with nothing to counter act it under them. If you placed an ocean liner ON a suspension bridge gravity would pull the ocean liner downward and destroy the bridge span because it was not strong enough to resist the mass of the ocean liner.

Perhaps the most difficult concept to grasp is how this floor collapse was able to crush everything friable to such fine grain debris. One needs to consider that the grinding took place over 14 seconds or so overall... the total interval of collapse. It also involved as much as 450,000 tons of material - the contents and materials of the building itself. The forces of this mass as a falling load (dynamic) from heights as much as 1350 feet reached as much as 100,00 psi at the end and 50,000 psi at floor 50. And that will crush most anything friable to small grained size material. The mass did not turn to air which was carried aloft and floated away. That would be a neat trick to turn a 500,000 ton structure into s cloud of dust carried by the air... which no one actually was able to see. Have you observed the last moment of the collapse? Was there a tower of dust left suspended in the air above the foot print? Or was there a billowing cloud of dust propagating from the base where the collapsed debris fell? it FELL so it had energy - gravitational energy and in total it was sufficient to destroy each and every floor in about .1 seconds per floor.

Yes some crushing and pulverization did cause the growing falling debris mass to push laterally. This forced the facade panels away and some of the debris DID fall outside the footprint. But MOST of it and obviously a sufficient mass remained within the facade and footprint and was able to destroy each and every floor. The facade acted like a chute containing the avalanche of falling debris... but it was not strong enough to hold it in.. like pouring sand into a cardboard carton... the walls bulge and will break depending on their thickness and the mass of the sand poured in... and SOME of the sand will migrate outside the footprint of the carton... leaving a cone shaped debris pile.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 21 2011, 10:50 PM

And the South Tower?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Look how quickly the floors below collapsed.

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

2)The floors immediately below started blowing out before the block of upper floors had gained momentum.

3) If the collapse were gravity induced, the majority of weight was to one side of the building.

4) If the collapse were gravity induced surely it would have been uneven and chaotic.

5) The block of upper floors including the inner core seem to have completely disintegrated well before the halfway point.

At 05:15mins particularly you can see the outer steel structure being pushed through the cloud of dust.
There is an obvious tilt.

How could the inner concrete within that block of floors have a downward force enough to collapse the building as you describe?

How could the opposite face of that block have almost the same destructive force and rate of descent?

Do you see what I'm trying to understand?

Posted by: SanderO May 22 2011, 08:01 AM

1SS

Good questions/points raised. Let's try to examine them:

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

I am not sure what this statement is try to say. The observations of tower 2 show that at when phase II began the top 30 floors began to drop down and appear to tilt to the south and a bit east. This movement seems to align with the apparent desctruction of column support on the south and east side... the plane apparently crashed into the building. The apparent rotation was about a virtual hinge location which was in the NW corner of the core. But this virtual location was also DROPPING since it wasn't an ACTUAL structural hinge... but one described/derived by/from the motion of the top's movement.

Even with the tilt/rotation the center of mass never moved even outside the core of the footprint. Further the bottom part of the rotating top was move IN toward the core and this caused the lower floors and columns of rotating top to collide with the fixed floors at the top of the 80 story section below. The dropping and rotation caused a mutual destruction where they collided.

The collisions provided the initial driving mass which would destroy the remaining floors below those upper floors of the collision. The collisions also jilted the steel frame of the upper section and in short order the 30 stories went from a rigid structure to a dissociated one which then dropped mostly straight down inside / onto the top (footprint). Some of the material was already outside the foot print - the south and east corner of the upper floors of the rotating top - They continued over the side. But the vast amount of the remaining mass of those upper stories fractured apart and came pretty much straight down and delivered perhaps 50,000 tons of material onto the top floor (80) or what remained of it.

If you look closely you can see that the top section had a kink in it at the level of the more rigid hat truss which began at floor 107 indicating that the top's steel frame was breaking apart even at the earliest moments as it began to tilt. The shock/impact of the collisions broke it apart completely... though there are people who say that it was then exploded to dust before it could fall completely over the side. If you look at the geometry and the structure you can see it is impossible for these 30 stories to continue to fall over the side

2)The floors immediately below started blowing out before the block of upper floors had gained momentum.

The floors immediately below the tilting top were experiencing the debris from the floor collision. Consider each floor like a bellows and the material which came down on one floor HAD to force the air between that floor and the one it fell upon... (and not as a monolithic pancake, but as a dense (enough) mass of fracture building to displace the air. Each floor collapse took about .1 seconds and so all the air on each floor was moved out of the way in .1 seconds. The air was forced outward mostly, but it would seek the path of least resistance.. compressed air is like that. Some went down elevator shafts and risers in the core... but most blasted out the windows... much weaker than the steel columns and spandrels of the facade. Traveling distances of up to 60 feet from core to facade in .1 seconds means that the escaping compressed air driven by the collapse reached speeds of over 400 mph in that .1 seconds. That "wind" packs enormous destructive force and pressure.

"Air moving at 400 miles an hour exerts over 600 pounds per square inch of pressure (600psi). And that's enough to shatter the glass and carry and expel the contents. Anyone who has seen a tornado or a hurricane should know how powerful wind is at such speeds. Winds of 100 mph exert 27.5 psi. Basic physics explains the expulsions seen coming from the collapse front. Here is the destructive force of explosive overpressure from http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm:

GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE : 1-2 PSI
CINDER BLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE : 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE : 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99% FATALITIES: 99 PSI

One can see how destructive over pressure is and how this easily explains the observations.

Calculate the pressure of an explosion:

That initial pressure will decrement as the volume expands adiabatically from V0 to V; where V = 1/2 4/3 pi r^3 (The 1/2 accounts for a hemisphere.) So, the pressure upon expanding becomes P = nRT0/V; where T0 remains the same as this is an adiabatic expansion. (In a non-ideal case, aka reality, this would not be the case, but the P derived would serve as an upper bound with the expectation the real P would be somewhat less.)

Therefore P/P0 = nRT0/V//nRT0/V0 = V0/V and P = P0 (V0/V) = P0 (V0/[2/3 pi r^3]); where r = 10 meters. If you measure P0 at ground zero, say, r0 = 1 meter, you can write P = P0 (r0/r)^3 = P0 (1/r^3) when r0 = 1 meter where P0 was measured."


Bottom line, ideally, pressure decrements inversely with the cube of the distance from ground zero.

Explosive advocates can calculate the explosive force and location of the explosives based on the measured cloud and ejection speed. Be my guest.


3) If the collapse were gravity induced, the majority of weight was to one side of the building.


The majority of the weight of the Center of Mass hardly moved more than a few feet to the south when the top began to rotate. Do the math. What actually moved outside the foot print was the top corner which displaced was 27% of the volume of the top and 16% of the core. Remember that the volume was 96+% air by volume so that volume which was moved outside the foot print was mostly air! But YES there was steel, glass, concrete which did make it over the side. But 73% of the tilting top remained within the footprint and did not displace laterally significantly. As such when it fractured from the impact it deliver 73% of its mass on top of the lower section and this was sufficient to caused the runaway floor destruction of the lower 80 floors.

4) If the collapse were gravity induced surely it would have been uneven and chaotic.

It was chaotic and extremely energetic and the force was mostly straight down supplied by gravity. it was uneven as well as parts moved down faster than others by small fractions of a second... the same way stones fall over a time interval when a hopper is open at the bottom of a chute containing them.. bottom stone lead the way down... all come down with a similar path... not identical. When you have a phenomena which is made up of millions of smaller interactions you can see an average.. or some emerging trend on the macro level which is driven by events at the micro level. There is addition and subtraction or cancellation and we get to see a gross phenomena which is a collapse because the dominant force by far was gravity exerting a downward pull. See the discussion of lighter material forced laterally by escaping air ahead of the druch front.

5) The block of upper floors including the inner core seem to have completely disintegrated well before the halfway point.

I am not sure what -halfway point- refers to... halfway in time from some start point to some end point? Or halfway ijn the height of the top section... or the bottom section. Please clarify and I will attempt an explanation.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 22 2011, 09:22 AM

Maybe an image can explain it better than I can SanderO.



Those shots were within a less than 4 second period.
The tilt was considerably more than a "few feet" and I can't see how the centre of gravity was "straight down" through the structure.

According to the images, the centre of gravity was completely over to one side. The entire block - steel, concrete, etc.

So how did this alleged massive downward force come down in equal measure?

I'm honestly trying to take in what you're saying btw. A lot of the jargon goes over my head but I've tried to envisage your thesis with the above observations and they don't "fit" IMHO.

Peace

OSS

ETA:



What is causing the massive expulsion on the opposite face of the tilt??

Posted by: SanderO May 22 2011, 02:46 PM

It's not an explosion... it the pressurized air forced out from the collapsing floors carrying the lighter debris with it.

The tower tilting at 20% without the hinge moving laterally would have the top section's corner 113' outside the foot print. But the bottom of that tilting section is completely within the footprint and so at a point 15 stories up about 65 feet of the top is outside the footprint... and at that height 143 feet is within or over the foot print.

If you don't understand the geometry I can't explain it to you. The center of mass did NOT move outside the foot print. SOME of the mass did bit MOST of it didn't.

Unfortunately this forum makes it difficult to impossible to post my PDF graphics about the collapse... my research. If you would like to see it, PM me with an email address and I can send it to you.

Posted by: amazed! May 22 2011, 04:29 PM

Yeah, it's not an explosion, and Hani Hanjour was a helluva pilot! laughing1.gif

Posted by: SanderO May 22 2011, 04:36 PM

Here is a video of explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4WuFU6XV_o

does this resemble one of them?

Here's a small building collapse: observe the dust plume... observe the dust on surrounding area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUodIOAmBk&feature=fvst

Posted by: onesliceshort May 22 2011, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 22 2011, 07:46 PM) *
It's not an explosion... it the pressurized air forced out from the collapsing floors carrying the lighter debris with it.


You've misread my post. I said "expulsion".

At the same time you made the definitive statement about it being "pressurized air forced out".

Maybe I jumped the gun in a conversation I should never have entered in the first place regarding the physics of the collapses/disintegrations.

I found these images:







Although I stand by what I said about the disintegration of the upper floors.

We're in agreement about the initiation of collapse defying physics and was that it had to have been "aided".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg&feature=player_embedded

But the lower floors too:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/squibWtc2_1.jpg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/south_ejectiong.jpeg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/squibs.jpg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/MERnorth2.jpeg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-CYVnYbcjA

Pressurized air may explain some of the squibs but not those on the lower floors way below the collapse zones.

I found ths link very useful:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=219&MMN_position=463:463

An alleged intact floor slab can be seen in this image:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/flooring.jpeg

Hi-res:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/WTCdemolitions/hi_res/WTC2_NIST_FOIArel32_42A0368-G33D2_Drew_004SQ_RAW.jpg

Do you really believe that the perps carried out this operation relying on gravity alone? Does it not make more sense to make sure that the evidence - the structures themselves - and any possible survivors were obliterated?

My personal opinion is that the upper floors were weakened at the impact points (whether thermitic or hi explosive) as seen through the molten metal spilling out, the mechanical floors were rigged and that gravity did play a part but explosives were necessary.



QUOTE
Unfortunately this forum makes it difficult to impossible to post my PDF graphics about the collapse... my research. If you would like to see it, PM me with an email address and I can send it to you.


Why not upload it to the internet and link to it?

Peace

OSS

Posted by: SanderO May 22 2011, 07:54 PM

Those who were tasked to destroy the towers were engineers who knew exactly what they were doing and exactly how to release the stored gravity PE and have the towers collapse... which of course would be blamed on fires from the planes... the faulty story NIST tried to peddle with the help of popular mechanics.

Once an engineer studies the structure and determines the threshold driving mass for a gravity driven collapse... which I believe to be as few as 4 or 5 floor masses... all one had to do is "destroy" 4 floors, or the axial support of the floors above the plane strikes. In fact it is conceivable that the engineered destructive material was delivered by the planes... and it wasn't the fires but the cargo they contained. Or perhaps there were charges pre placed which would simply "go off" from the fires the plane strikes would ignite. This made precision of the strike not critical. But the key here is that once the threshold mass was allowed to drop on an intact floor.. the game was over. They know this and HAD to know it. And it was so simple (and these towers so vulnerable) that perhaps NIST is covering this up. They avoid discussion of the collapse phase because it would reveal it was failure of the FLOORS and not the columns which brought them down. Recall how they had the saggin trusses pulling in the facade COLUMNS so that the top was unsupported... but they don't even explain the actual collapse... It WASN'T columns be crushed...and it wasn't columns being exploded out of the way as Gage claims... but the collapsing floors which unzipped the entire structure as I have described in numerous posts.

More complexity would not be used because it could expose the plot. I believe it's possible to load the required explosives in THIS building in a few evenings of work by a small crew of 5 or six loaders. That's a guess, but I sense it was not that extensive.

Posted by: SanderO May 22 2011, 08:19 PM

OSS,

I've seen all those vids and images and the last images are archived on a fellow member at the 911 Free Forums personal web site.

Many people are perplexed by the material ejected well below of the crush front. These ejections are hard to explain for sure and more so for the explosive controlled demolition scenario. Why THOSE floors? Why THOSE locations? Why so FEW squibs to take down such a massive structure?

My guess explanation is as follows:

When the top section broke apart and began to drop and pushed the air from each floor which "exploded" out through the windows at each floor some of the air also was forced DOWN into the elevator shafts and HVAC risers. The shafts offered a low pressure release path for the pressurized air. The collapse front was like a piston pushing the air out of its way.

The pressurized air went down the elevator shafts and likely could not penetrate the elevator pits. At that point it blew out the elevator doors.... through the elevator lobbies on outward directed by the core corridors which were on the long core axis dead center... and the short axis between row 600 and 700.. slightly off center. Note the location of these ejections... centered on the long axis of the core and slightly off center on the short axis.

The counter argument is that the STRONGEST columns to destroy were the ones at the corners of the core... 501, 508. 1001, and 1008 and these ejections do not correspond to their plan positions. If the ejections were the signs of explosions undermining the structure... their location needs to correlate TO the structure... and those locations do not as far as I can determine. And no one has offered to explain what they were actually exploding... or why.

All of those vids look like collapses to me, not explosions. But I haven't seen any buildings being exploded sequentially... have you? Of course I can CONCEIVE of exploding them sequentially... but that is not what I observe.

I upload some of my work to the 911 Free Forums occassionally. I am not interested in publishing on 911. I am engaged in a personal quest to understand what happened and to share my findings informally with others... such as in this forum. Further I have only discovered the structure which is nothing worthy of publication. That and the engineering is public record and "settled science".

Posted by: onesliceshort May 22 2011, 11:00 PM

Don't forget the multiple witnessed and audible explosions precollapse.
We can go round in circles all day with this (as everybody has for 10 years) but what it boils down to for me is the risk involved in solely relying on geometry and physics to carry out with 100% success, the demolition of these two structures.

How was WTC7 brought down given that there was no downward force? We didn't see any squibs (AFAIK) but we know it had to be a controlled demolition, no?

I'm not trying to bust your balls SanderO. Just trying to think this through logically.

Posted by: Tamborine man May 23 2011, 02:48 AM

SanderO,
hope that you're not getting your ideas from this bloke Ryan Mackey!!

We see an enormous amount of dust and debris of all sorts, including very large wall sections,
being ejected out in all directions. In the main around 200 feet away from the perimeter of the
towers, while some wall sections are being ejected even further away than that.
We see the block of floors above the alleged impact holes also disintegrate into dust and debries.

All this dust and debris must by natural necessity consist of a certain amount of 'weight'.

The totality of this calculated weight, even if only approximate, should then be subtracted from
the calculated weight that subsequently and proportionally would continue to exert downward
pressure on the underlying floors.

I find it therefore exceedingly puzzling that you as an 'engineer' (iirc) never in all your writings
have included these calculations as basis for your hypothesis and musings.

Is it therefore not about time you take this into consideration?





PS!
Please skip the first part of this video with Mackey, and go to the second part.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 23 2011, 09:36 AM

QUOTE ™
PS!
Please skip the first part of this video with Mackey, and go to the second part.


Lol, thank God you wrote that in TM!

The second "engineer"...wow.

I found this video (probably old news, I'm so out of touch with the Towers now, I'm embarrassed..)


http://youtu.be/1iT7mmmc-YY

Look how quick the face of the structure is being ripped. It's keeping up with the falling debris.
What could cut through this face like a hot knife through butter?

Posted by: SanderO May 23 2011, 03:21 PM

Tamborine,

Yes material did go outside the footprint... but this was the result of the gravity driven collapse. The facade panels were not exploded off the towers, but fell away... pushed by the rubble from the collapsed floor debris.

Think of the motion of water from a spout or a hose aimed at the earth. The water is disbersed away... outward from were it strikes the ground. It is directed outward as a result of the collision dynamics when it strikes the ground and the water raining down. Something similar happened with the rain of debris coming down on each floor.

And think of the lateral force that gravel would exert on a thin walled cardboard container. At the container fills the sides bulge outward. If the sides are breached material .. some of it will pour out of the container... but the work it does pushing DOWN is not lost.

And further, the threshold mass to crush a single floor is probably only about 4 floor masses worth of falling debris. The destructive amount kept growing as it worked its way down EVEN as material spilled over the side.

This collapse was very energetic and involved tens of thousands of tons of rubble plunging through the towers colliding with one floor after the next. It was very violent and energetic. Imagine tens of thousands of tons of falling debris on ANY office floor. it pretty much will turn it to pretty fine dust and after a few seconds.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder May 23 2011, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 22 2011, 08:22 AM) *
Maybe an image can explain it better than I can SanderO.



ETA:



What is causing the massive expulsion on the opposite face of the tilt??



Image of WTC 2 at the start of the collapse from the SE side of the building.



It is clear that the entire east perimeter wall peeled away from the building in one piece.

You can also see the top floor of the mechanical section getting blown out all, the was across the east face, at the same time. This had nothing to do with fire and everything to do with timed explosives. However, since most of the explosives were concentrated in the cores and elevator shafts, all the debris getting blown out in the process would have muffled the sound and covered up the fire balls.

You wouldn't need a lot of explosives for any of the floors above if you destroyed the mechanical floors for each section. Kill the hat trusses at the top. Fill the elevator shafts with a fuel/air combo and these buildings had no where else to go but down. If you pushed from inside out with enough force, the buildings would peel like bananas.

Posted by: Tamborine man May 24 2011, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 21 2011, 06:21 PM) *
Tamborine,

Yes material did go outside the footprint... but this was the result of the gravity driven collapse. The facade panels were not exploded off the towers, but fell away... pushed by the rubble from the collapsed floor debris.

Think of the motion of water from a spout or a hose aimed at the earth. The water is disbersed away... outward from were it strikes the ground. It is directed outward as a result of the collision dynamics when it strikes the ground and the water raining down. Something similar happened with the rain of debris coming down on each floor.

And think of the lateral force that gravel would exert on a thin walled cardboard container. At the container fills the sides bulge outward. If the sides are breached material .. some of it will pour out of the container... but the work it does pushing DOWN is not lost.

And further, the threshold mass to crush a single floor is probably only about 4 floor masses worth of falling debris. The destructive amount kept growing as it worked its way down EVEN as material spilled over the side.

This collapse was very energetic and involved tens of thousands of tons of rubble plunging through the towers colliding with one floor after the next. It was very violent and energetic. Imagine tens of thousands of tons of falling debris on ANY office floor. it pretty much will turn it to pretty fine dust and after a few seconds.



SanderO,

you mightn't know this, but if you buy a 20kg bag of cement, this bag would put

a 20kg downward pressure on something. You would sort of know this when you

carry the 20kg bag of cement on your shoulder from the hardware shop to your

car.

If you then slit the bag open and let the cement disperse in all directions, to the

whim of the four winds, the cement would still weigh nearly 20kg's, but if you

should now place yourself in the middle of all this dispersed cement, you'll find

that the cement landing on you would weigh next to nothing.


The same would apply if you now travel to Island and place yourself in the middle

of the big ash cloud up there. Again you'll find that the ash would weigh virtually

nothing on your shoulders, but after all the ash has descended to the ground and

you gather it all together and put it into bags, you'll discover that the total sum

of all the weight of the bags would again amount to a considerable weight of

downward pressure; that is, if you could be bothered to carry them all on your

shoulders.

Hope this will help you to understand what it is i'm really trying to tell you.

Otherwise, you could take a look at the photo's DYEW shows us!

Cheers





Posted by: onesliceshort May 24 2011, 04:36 PM

Delete double post. (Sorry guys)

Posted by: onesliceshort May 24 2011, 04:36 PM

I don't think air pressure is responsible for the downward "rip" we see in this video.



It's travelling almost as fast as the debris and is centralized.

ETA: That was an excellent description TM (and DYEW). Cheers.

Posted by: paranoia May 24 2011, 05:52 PM

MOD NOTE: i was trying to erase oss's double post and accidentally erased SanderO's post instead - im unsure of how to move it back to this thread (fellow mods plz help if u can), but for now here is the body of sanderO's (erased) post:

QUOTE
Tamborine,

You are correct in the downward force of a disbursed mass of fine grained material would not exert the same loads as were it concentrated.

But we need to understand when and how the dust was created and where and how it was disbursed.

The dust was created by the destruction of friable materials... concrete, gypsum board, glass, ceiling tiles, carpet and so forth. If this huge mass of material were turned to dust by explosion... it would have to represent hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of explosives placed throughout the entire building which went off... without noticeable or identifiable explosive sounds. The explosions would also have to leave behind material which collapsed down creating a thunderous roar as it collided with the bits and pieces which made up the remaining unexploded mass. How do you explain the roar during the collapse.... explosions or that of a collapse building weighing several hundred thousand tons?

When the towers came down the collapse did produce a dust cloud... before it hit the ground the dust cloud propagated and billowed up and outward was about 200 feet at most from the towers. And this cloud not only contained fine dust, but heavier than air material forced out by the enormous air pressure created at the collapse front. Each floor destruction by the crush front of falling debris produced a blast of air moving at 300-400mph. The volume of air on each floor was about 18,000 cubic yards and it was forced out of the 236 windows which were 20" wide x about 7'- 8" high. That's an awful lot of air to move through those broken window openings in .1 seconds. It wasn't a steady wind of course. It was very similar to an explosion... or a single squeeze of a huge bellows... one blast of high speed air... a blast which destroyed and carried with it virtually everything on the floor.

I am not an engineer who can provide the analysis and equations for the behavior of interacting gases... the pressurized air shooting out of the window openings and the relatively still air surrounding them. But I suspect that the pressurized air pulse would have its energy absorbed by the still air... and lots of it was absorbed by breaking the glass to begin with... such that it would "lose steam" and not travel more than the few hundred feet of the debris and dust cloud.

What we DO see is the heavier than air ejected material which HAD reached up to the distance limit the pressurized air could carry it descending down at free fall acceleration less wind resistance. The lighter material remained suspended a bit longer... the 60+ mph collapse had long passed it... and a negative pressure created behind the falling debris of the crush front pulled most of the lighter material inward.... sorting "cleaning" the air above the collapse.

And then the final bit was the dispersal of the dust when the collapse material had hit terra firma and billowed up and out from the base. Take your bag of cement and pour it out from the 3rd story and see how the dust cloud created disperses.

So the driving energy was not the dispersed dust... but the compacted fractured floors and contents... this CREATED the dust by the millions of energetic collisions. There could be particles of all size in that compacted grinding descending pile of rubble... and it likely made the avalanche have the properties of a fluid.... like the energy of a massive water fall for example.

The collapse dynamic is not something we've seen before. But it can be explained by physics, fluid dynamics, and of course understanding the materials and the structure which collapsed. That it happened twice and appears to be the first two times of such collapse occurred does not mean that it wasn't a collapse and that it HAD to have had explosive assistance. Everything has a first time!

When one looks closely at the event and the science it can be explained.

But we don't know how it all started and we do know that NIST's explanation is incorrect.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now May 26 2011, 10:58 AM

Sander O maybe you can help answer this question wtc 7 had 28 sheers studs on the critical floor beam attached to
column no 79 so how is the floor beam seated on column no 79 supposed to expand laterally and walk of it's seating
breaking the bolts that attach the floor beam to column 79? Wouldnt the sheer studs restrain the floor beam from being able
to move laterally in any direction like NIST said it did? I guess this is why they had to lie about the sheers studs could i
be right?

Posted by: SanderO May 27 2011, 08:23 AM

The shear stud "explanation" attempts to use the composite action of the concrete membrane as it were linked by the shear studs to move the girder under it off the beam seat. I think this is a bogus argument, though I have not studied it carefully.

We have to falsify rubbish science and then stand up sound science. it's more likely that the girders were "dropped" because the seats failed... mmmmmmmmmmm and how did that happen? The pushing argument is really pushing it.

I'll drill into that when I am done with the twin towers.

However the key, I believe is that we DID see progressive failures with some engineered initiations. To me this makes the destruction of the towers not as complex and relies on the idea that failures progress slowly as columns are uploaded with redistribution or loads as some columns are "failed". When the load redistribution exceeds the yield strength there is an extremely rapid phase of over stressing and progressive column failure and the collapse is on!

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now May 27 2011, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 27 2011, 10:23 PM) *
The shear stud "explanation" attempts to use the composite action of the concrete membrane as it were linked by the shear studs to move the girder under it off the beam seat. I think this is a bogus argument, though I have not studied it carefully.

We have to falsify rubbish science and then stand up sound science. it's more likely that the girders were "dropped" because the seats failed... mmmmmmmmmmm and how did that happen? The pushing argument is really pushing it.

I'll drill into that when I am done with the twin towers.

However the key, I believe is that we DID see progressive failures with some engineered initiations. To me this makes the destruction of the towers not as complex and relies on the idea that failures progress slowly as columns are uploaded with redistribution or loads as some columns are "failed". When the load redistribution exceeds the yield strength there is an extremely rapid phase of over stressing and progressive column failure and the collapse is on!


And i think with wtc 7 they imploded the penthouse first for a very good and simple reason which makes a lot of sense when you watch the
video's of the collapse of wtc 7 the east penthouse implodes like 10 seconds before the building itself begins to fall. This was done for a very
simple reason it was to prevent the building from suddenly tipping over and falling sideways once the columns where weakened and they
where ready to implode the building, so the penthouse was imploded first since it was a mechanical penthouse as i have heard i can only
guess it may have housed some large and heavy generators maybe they had back up generators for the building ontop of it inside the mechanical
penthouse i dont know exactly what was housed in their but i assume the penthouse was home to some very heavy mechanical equipment
theirfore the perps had to implode the mechanical penthouse and bring it down safely into the centre of the building before the rest of the building
was imploded to prevent the weight of the mechanical penthouse on the top causing the building to tip over to one side on it's way down
rather than having the building fall straight down virtually into it's own footprint, in any building when you deliberatly implode it the last thing
you want it to have the building tipping over falling over onto it's side so you would move any structure part of the building that may cause the
building to tip over first so that's exactly what the perps did they imploded the east side of the penthouse first by removing blowing column no 79
first causing the east side of the penthouse to implode.

Idiots who defend the OCT can argue that column no 79 just simply buckled and this casued the east penthouse to implode but no this
is simply not the case as this video proves.

NIST Lies EXPOSED: WTC-7 FOIA Footage Captures Blast Sound Seconds BEFORE "Collapse"

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

What you hear in this video is two distinct explosion, two cutting charge i believe placed on column no 79
one placed higher on the column and one placed lower somewhere on the column at what floor where the
charges placed along column no 79 i dont know i have no idea that it what is not important it's the evidence the
video shows us what's really going on.

People can argue that the blast sound isnt loud enough, that it isnt as loud as sounds when compared to video's
of know controlled demolitions, people can say oh look you dont see a bright flash at the time of the explosion
as with video's of normal controlled demolitions.

People can use bulls**t strawman arguments but i am not interested in bs conversations, i am not interested
in using simple tactics to side step the truth and advoid looking at the bigger picture, i am not interested in making
up excuses for the governments absurd theory that fire bought this building down, i am not interested in defending
guilty people such as NIST who did no actual physical real testing to confirm their column walk of theory who ignored
the physical evidence, who instead used computer models video's and pictures to conduct their investigation this
is not what you do in a real investiagtion you do not ignore the most important evidence the physical evidence
and you do not take side step measures in a real investiagtion by not doing actual physical testing to confirm your
findings.

Even police when they conduct a real investigation they use actual real world physical tests to confirm their findings,
the investigators detectives in charge of an investigation in any criminal matter collect and carefully document the evidence.

Let me ask you and anybody else who may be reading this, do the police simply ignore and throw away half of the physical
evidence when they conduct a murder investigation? No they do not, if they did this in a real police investigation there would be
outrage the police any the investigators would probably be fired and charged with incopitence staright away.

We'll folks this is exactly what NIST has done and got away with it, what an absolutle outrage it is, i dont understand
why their are not more people coming forward and demanding that we have real and proper investigation of all people
structural engineers fire fighters should be coming forward and saying their is something very wrong here NIST did not
conduct a real and proper investigation they did not do the things they should have done.

The real truth is they needed to use computer models they needed to manipulate the results and only by using computer
models could they get the results and acomplish what they needed to do, they needed to ignore the physical evidence
because it would show what really happened to the building, it would prove what really happened to the building and what
was done to it this is why they needed to destroy the physical evidence to get ride of it and hide the real truth about what really
happened to wtc building 7.

Now concerning the video above you cant find a resonable explantion to explain away the explosion sounds you cant deny
the video proves a controlled demolition because that is what it proves, what is observed in the video actually fits the CD model
because first you heard the explosions followed by the buildings collapse which is what happens in a real building implosion
first the charges are detonated then the building begins to fall once the supporting columns are cut and removed and the video
shows us part of that happening.

But what most poeple dont realise is that first responder Kevin Pv Padden heard those two explosions, he heard the charges
that went off that destroyed column no 79 and caused the east penthouse to implode followed by the buildings complete
and utter total demolition to the ground, he heard the count down which i dont think he was supposed to hear, what Kevin Pc
Padden says he heard very closely matches the explosion sound in this video and that is the most important part it is called
corroborating evidence.

here is a link to the video listen tohis testimony where he described the explosion and how it closely matches the explosion heard
in the video i posted above.

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho

Posted by: SanderO May 27 2011, 10:59 PM

There's very little chance that a building of that size would tip over. That could only happen if the columns on one side ONLY were destroyed at the bottom... like chopping a large tree.

Regardless of how the collapse was started... and some explosions and or incendiaries are good possibilities... the sequence seemed to be that the core was destroyed from wast to west... and the east penthouse then dropped straight through the building. This might have been the cause of the destruction of the west side of the core. Seems to me that the "attach was on or about the eighth floor (elevation +104') The building then has a hollowed core with the floors "drooping" or left hanging on (to) the perimeter columns just inside the curtain wall. The floors likely then yanked the perimeter columns inward where the hollow core was. This pulled in the middle of the curtain wall un the upper floors as the curtain wall came down. What we saw collapsing was a pretty much hollowed out building of just the curtain wall and some of the roof. I think the curtain wall slipped past "itself" on the 8th floor... and there was little to no resistance and hence the free fall until the facade dropped the 8 floors and hit the street, met resistance... slowed down and crushed itself. That's my guess... Building 7 attacked on floor 8.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now May 28 2011, 08:04 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 28 2011, 12:59 PM) *
There's very little chance that a building of that size would tip over. That could only happen if the columns on one side ONLY were destroyed at the bottom... like chopping a large tree.

Regardless of how the collapse was started... and some explosions and or incendiaries are good possibilities... the sequence seemed to be that the core was destroyed from wast to west... and the east penthouse then dropped straight through the building. This might have been the cause of the destruction of the west side of the core. Seems to me that the "attach was on or about the eighth floor (elevation +104') The building then has a hollowed core with the floors "drooping" or left hanging on (to) the perimeter columns just inside the curtain wall. The floors likely then yanked the perimeter columns inward where the hollow core was. This pulled in the middle of the curtain wall un the upper floors as the curtain wall came down. What we saw collapsing was a pretty much hollowed out building of just the curtain wall and some of the roof. I think the curtain wall slipped past "itself" on the 8th floor... and there was little to no resistance and hence the free fall until the facade dropped the 8 floors and hit the street, met resistance... slowed down and crushed itself. That's my guess... Building 7 attacked on floor 8.


Dear sander O i got this idea that they imploded the mechanical penthouse ontop of wtc 7 to prevent the building from tipping over
from mechanical engineer Tony Tzamboti he made a breif mention of this somewhere between 1/2 or 1/3 of the way through i cant exactly
rememeber where he mentions it.

Structural Aspects of Building 7's Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A

See his new talk here he absolutely tears NIST and the OCT a new asshole i have got most of my idea's from him including the idea
that i have mentioned above, i got the idea that NIST column walk off theory regarding column no 79 came from a certified mechanical
engineer with 20 years experience Tony Tzamboti who we all know who he is anyways thats funny that he mentions that NIST could only
get three inches of thermal expansion in their models when they where testing their column walk off theory they only had room temperatures
of 400 to 600c but Tony says they needed 6 inches of thermal expansion in order for that column to walk off it's seat and do what NIST said
it did he also mentions that there is no way NIST could realistically get their 6 inches of thermal expansion needed to fail the floor beam
attached to column no 79 and get it to walk off it's seat leaving column no 79 unsupported for a hight of 8 floors through a localised
collapse.

Ask yourself why did NIST never conduct any real world physical tests to try and confirm their theory that column no 79 simply walked of it's seat
NIST never conducted any of these test which you would do in a real investigation, NIST never did any of these tests to confirm their findings,
NIST did not look at the physical evidence which is what they should have done if they where really trying to conduct an honest investigation
into the collapse of wtc building 7, but they didnt follow any standard investiagtion protocols and for the two reasons i have stated above i can
only conclude that the NIST investigation into wtc 7 was unscientific and false and did not follow stand very basic and simple investigation procedures
and i can only say that NIST ignored the physical evidence and did not do any real world physical testing and relied upon using computer models
to manipulate and produce unsupported results and conclusions.

Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 2 2011, 09:54 PM

SanderO -

I'm not sure if you'll read this post, or even notice it, but I have a few questions I would like to ask you.

The gravity driven collapse phase hypothesis raises a number of issues and implications for me which I find difficult to reconcile. I wonder if I can summarise a few of the relevant "facts" about the twin towers and their destruction as I understand them, and you can respond if you have time and/or are inclined. I put quotation marks around the word "facts" because I stand correctable on any and all of them.

I gather that you have divided the tower collapses into discrete temporal phases to reflect your belief that these events occured sequentially and not simultaneously. In other words, phase I precedes phase II, which is followed by phase IIa and so forth. A simple point, perhaps, but I think it's worth clarifying.

You seem satisfied, for the time being, to accept that only the perpetrators themselves are able to offer any proper explanation for what initiated the collapse of either of the twin towers. I respect your right not to speculate on this so let's leave that question to one side.

What confuses me most is the curious state in which (part of) the structural steel was left, during and post-collapse. I realise that it's difficult to comment on this very precisely, simply because most of that evidence was removed and never made available for investigation. However, it seems clear to me that at least a proportion of the steel was sliced and diced into rather short, even chunks. I base this conclusion on the zoomed and close-up footage of the collapse as it happened and also the photographs I've seen of the debris pile.

I understand that I have over-simplified the situation, but is this a fair assessment to make, as far as it goes? Do you have any comment on the extent to which the impacts from falling debris from above could have caused the the LOWER floors to "buckle" in this fashion, or do you believe they were left in chunks which were appreciably larger? I've seen the remains of the core columns left standing in the wake of the collapse, some of which appear to snap at the bottom as the dust settles. But again, how does this happen without some other localised, focussed destructive mechanism?

It seems to me that vertical columns (with a relatively small top-surface area) which are dissected into neat, largely uniform segments is not consistent with the idea that they were weakened and buckled by virtue of a kinetic force being applied from above. I'm in no position to quantify the energy supplied by 30,000 tonnes of falling steel and concrete, but I appreciate that it must have been very large. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem intuitive that this alone could result in such a rapid destruction of the lower floors, and specifically the structural steel. To me the only way I can imagine the facade columns, let alone the core columns, being broken up into so many thousands of little pieces so quickly is for them to have been attacked from the SIDE, and not just from above.

For example, if I were to conduct an experiment on a much smaller scale, even (for example) deliberately arranging a collection of very weak components such as vertical toothpicks, then smashed down on them (again, as an extreme example) using a very big, heavy rock, I wouldn't expect them all to snap in multiple places. Two or three different failure points for each standing toothpick (and then crushed, certainly) - but no more than that. Surely?

As a layman in physics, architecture, engineering, and every other discipline, I hope you'll forgive the technical shortcomings in my post. But I wonder if you'd be able to shed some light on the situation for me because I think your analysis is interesting.

Thanks!

mr m.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 2 2011, 10:48 PM

mrmitosis

The WTC Towers were bolted together, not welded. That's why most of the steel broke apart so nice and neatly, once the collapses were initiated. Image what would happen to the curtain walls after years of swaying in the wind and being exposed to salt air if they were only bolted together instead of welded?

The Citicorp Building was constructed the same way and over time the building became so dangerous, they almost had to shut it down. In this case, they decided to mitigate the problem, instead of trying to take the building down.

http://doyoueverwonderblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/the-fifty-nine-story-crisis-the-citicorp-building-and-the-twin-towers/

Posted by: SanderO Jun 3 2011, 08:38 AM

Mr M,

I have produced many "slides" explaining my findings and research. I can send them to you if you provide an email address in a PM. But I will try to answer your questions with a narrative.

DYEW makes one valid point about the columns connections one to another. Certainly the very thick walled box columns of the core had rather weak connections which were only holding them "in place" until the bracing - wide flange beams were attached and turned the core into a 3D lattice. The bracing for the 36 foot tall core columns was at 9' from the bottom, 21' feet and 33'. Perhaps you have seen some construction photo from up top where the top of the core columns seems to project about 3' above the floor level... that the upper location of the bracing.

The collapse of the core involved 2 forces. The floor collapse destroyed the bracing... it was ripped off as it was attacked by the enormous dynamic loads of falling debris... steel columns and beams and to a lesser extent chunks of concrete. Unbraced columns are very unstable. And very tall ones actually can buckle from their own weight. In the case of the twins' core the unbraced length grew and so the stacked columns... 36' segments was left with only those "'weak" splices used to "temporarily" keep them aligned until the WF bracing was installed. So when they buckled those joint broke very easily. CC501 survived to flr 78 and weighed 1,037 tons and had 26 - 36' segments. The lowest 36' segment weighed 54 tons! You don't think some 1/2" splice plates welded to the side could resist that tipping over? So when CC501 did buckled its segments popped out below mid height from what's called "Euler Buckling" and the top half dropped like an icicle weighing 400 tons! When it hit the ground its segments also failed and you find core column pick up sticks! Of course some of the welds holding the thick plates together failed as they were not full penetration welds. It's impossible to do 3" wide pull penetration welds so the connections were rather weak... but there was little to no lateral forces on the columns expected.

Virtually NONE of the columns failed from AXIAL loads...except at the initiation Phase I. All columns failed from either Euler buckling or from lateral forces created by the growing rapidly falling rubble from the floor destruction. That mass was pushing out on the wall of a square donut shaped container like one would expect if on poured gravel into a carton which had a smaller carton inside of it. The center carton would see its wall collapse press/deform inward and the out carton would see it walls collapse/press or deform outward.

It was the collapsing rubble with pushed the facade off the tower (they too lost their lateral bracing from the floors)... and contributed to the core bracing destuction and provided the lateral force to jostle and topple the unbraced core columns.

The floor collapse likely involved the mass of 3 to 6 floors as the "driver". Since all the tenant floors were identical, it wouldn't matter where this mass was "introduced"... all floors below would collapse. In the case of the twins it was above floor 96 and floor 80. But this collapse (let's forget about phase I for now) would leave the facade unbraced and the core (partially) below the collapse. Unbraced columns ARE weaker than the same one braced and so if the collapse destroyed enough bracing to sufficiently "weaken" the columns... they would buckle and the top would come down.

In the twins the "idea" was to have it "appear" that the collapse was caused by the planes and then the fires so the engineered intervention in Phase I was above the plane damage zone... with the plane and the fires providing cover for the real cause (speculation).

Your toothpick thought experiment raises some interesting points. First in the twins there was NOTHING analogous to the heavy rock smashing down on them. What caused them to fail was internal instability because unbraced they are too tall and thin to stand.

Steel columns can only be 150x the height of their shortest dimension. If longer they buckle from their own weight.. sort of how a leg buckles at the knee... the joint between the thigh and the shin bones. If there is some lateral force applied the relatively weak joints between column segments will lever them "open" and their integrity will be lost and they will drop like pick up sticks.

However this breaking into segments is related to the lateral forces. Note that some of the spire core columns tipped over as one tall assembly but broke apart on impact with the ground. Several bucked from self bucking under their own weight once the bracing was stripped off.

Posted by: talayo Jun 3 2011, 03:06 PM

It is becoming rather frustrating to read some of the explanations about what happened in the WTC.

Sanderso seems to have taken upon himself to continuously argued that besides the initial collapse of the buildings, the rest is totally normal and can be explained by the "forces of gravity". He will concede that the initial collapse was likely caused by some type of explosives but that there is nothing unusual about the rest.

He provides lengthy technical explanations for his point. These explanations consistently ignore many of the unusual circumstances that even a superficial observation of videos indicate that the patterns are difficult to comprehend being caused by natural forces, or known demolition explosives.

sanderso is probably very knowledgeable about the architecture and engineering of buildings, but unless he can provide additional sources of expertise, I doubt he knows or has any practical expertise on explosives, behavior of buildings when they collapse or turn into micron size dust in front of our eyes. Normally it is not taught in schools and general work on those fields does not provide much of an opportunity to gain experience

It appears he has taken upon himself to convince people that nothing unusual happened that day. A few explosive charges at a high level of the buildings and the rest is normal gravitational forces. So let's stop any speculation about what happened and be satisfied with a sophomoric explanation that does not address many of the testimony of first responders or our own eyes.

This should be my last incursion into this territory because we all seem to have become frozen in our positions. Of course, I think that I have good reasons (as every body else does) to keep my position. What are the reasons? Well, with all the prolific writing that sanderso has done, it has not addressed any of my observations of unusual events. The explanations are all based on the poor nature of the architectural choices that the architects did that with only a modicum of explosives led to the total collapse, and that is that.

1) Many experts do no agree with the no strength argument. Videos of the construction do not seem to support that idea. However, let us grant that point to sanderso.

2) If the perpetrators intended to destroy the buildings, is it logic to assume that their knowledge of the structure of the buildings was so deep? You have to be very sure of your knowledge to determine that a few charges at the top will cause a complete disintegration of the buildings. This is not knowledge; this is arrogance if your objective was to cause what actually happened. I do not believe that experts, who indulge in such criminal acts, where you have only one chance, will act that way. More over, if the buildings would not have been totally destroyed, but only partially there may have been evidence left behind pointing to a crime (besides the planes hitting the buildings).

3) Any calculation, with very conservative assumptions, gives you a minimum rubble pile of a height of 10 floors or more. The pile did not exceed 4 to 5 floors in height. Attempts have been made to explain that away by claiming that most of the rubble was below level at the underground levels. Videos and photographic evidence show that claim to be totally wrong. I hope that the nonsense of below the ground claims is not resurrected by any one again. THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DEBRIS AT THE UNDERGROUND LEVELS, PERIOD. Where did the buildings go?

4) As the buildings started to collapse, large clouds of dust were evident. During the early part of the collapse, where did de kinetic energy come from to “dustify” concrete to the micron level? If it came from explosives, then there must have been a massive amount of explosives to cause such a pulverization. This is contrary to sanderso explanation of a limited number of explosive changes. Moreover, traditional explosives will turn concrete into powder nearby to the location of the explosives; further areas will break into distinguishable (even if small) blocks of concrete. That did not happen; otherwise there would have been many of these blocks in the ground. I have not seen any video or photograph supporting that view. DUST, DUST, AND MORE DUST!

5) We seem to attribute to "gravity" an incredible level of force. It brought the buildings down, at a very high rate of descend and provided sufficient kinetic force to pulverize all the concrete from the impact of the collapsing floors from above. There are two problems, in my view. First, we are attributing to gravity enough pull to pulverize and to continue the collapse at almost free fall speed. That is remarkable. But that is not all. As the concrete and some of the contents were pulverize, clearly, that will reduce significantly the weight of the collapsing floors. That did not seem to influence any thing.This is another of "I do not understand, please explain" that I have not read a satisfactory explanation.

6) There was the equivalent of about an 8-line highway of at least 3 kilometers length of glass in each building. There should have been glass everywhere. Where was it? If some large steel pieces ended up away from the buildings so should have happened with glass. Please find me some videos or photographs because I have not been able to find any.

7) Now, let us turn to the filing cabinets, personal computers, metal ducts, the enormous cooling and transformers present in the mechanical floors (3 sections were dedicated to that function.) Also the corporate computer centers located in these buildings. As a remainder, both planes hit the floors were computer facilities were located. This type of computing centers have uninterrupted power supply facilities. That requires large, very heavy batteries that are not easily destroyed.

What happened to all of that?

Well, they seem to be missing in action! How can that be? Only if they were vaporized they would truly not be found. A filing cabinet can be compressed into a 3 square feet of metal about 1 1/2 inches thick. The number of filing cabinets that were indicated to exist in each building was at least 30,000. That is a lot of metal! I do not believe that anyone will claim that they were vaporized. So they could possible have melted, but that will result in at least 30,000 amorphous solidified metal to be present in the pile of rubble. All indications are that that was not the case.

The same reasoning applies to all the other items listed above. Where did they go?

8) The current line of thinking is that they (?) got rid of the evidence as soon as possible so it could not be investigated and tested for explosives. In my opinion that is a distraction from the main reason. At least 60% of the building materials were missing. Have the rubble be left so it could be investigated, this (if I am right) would have been a shock of enormous proportions, because no currently known forces can produce such a result.

Point 8 is what convinces me that there are a number of operatives working hard to make sure that we (the conspiracy theorists with tin foil hats) do not wander afield into forbidden territory.

With this, I conclude my direct participation in any discussion about what happened that tragic day in American history. These discussions are starting to feel like a NASCAR race, around and around in circles!


Posted by: SanderO Jun 3 2011, 07:18 PM

Talayo,

Thank you for your comment. Let me address the points raised... at least some of them.

First, my initial impression having been in the building scores of times and being an architect in NYC was that the collapse was very unusual and made no sense to me. Then the official narrative came and I was completely in disbelief waiting for a proper investigation to explain it all. I joined AE911T and accepted their evidence which on the face made sense to me. I even served on their board of directors for a brief people. However, I left AE911T and decided to do my own fact checking on "the evidence" because I found that the evidence was of questionable provenance and was not independently confirmed. My first "fact check" was about the "ejected debris"... distance, weight and speed. What I found, was that the AE911T claims often repeated ad nauseam by the truth movement was INCORRECT.

I then decided to learn about the structure of the twin towers and study all the available images and videos I could fine about the towers.

After 2 years of study... and it is ongoing. I have come to the conclusion... one supported by many members who are physicists and scientists at the 911 Free Forums that what we saw was a gravity driven collapse of the floors. The driving force of the floor collapse I believe was as little as 3 floors, though probably more. The collapsing rubble became an avalanche of building contents, which ground itself up through thousands of collisions as each floor was impacted. The concrete was very weak... only 4.5" thick and with no stone aggregate. There was enormous amount of dust created in the grinding of the avalanche. Some of the contents easily turned to dust - ceiling tiles, gypsum wall board,l particle board, vinyl tile, carpet.... even stone and glass. I don't know the mechanics /science of how such an avalanche of tens of thousands... as much as a few hundred thousand tons of rubble pulverizes almost everything friable to dust, but if the pressures were as much as 50-100,00 psi, I suspect this IS plausible... though hard to comprehend how such pressures can build.

The glass was deigned to shatter into tiny fragments... like auto glass. But the collapse produced winds of over 200 mph pushing at the exterior walls which shattered the glass and took thousands and thousands of tons of light weight material and blasted it out those missing windows.

The size of the piles seem odd, but some calculations show that it is what is to be expected. If you stacked ALL the contents of the towers compactly in/on the foot print it would be less than 3 stories high!. But we know that hundreds of tons of materials were blasted out by the 200+ mph pressure wave to several hundred feet from the tower... and lots of heavy dusts billowed away at the end of the collapse. And the pile was perhaps 2+ stories high and some material DID crush though and land in the 7 basements. There were some voids of course, but there was a lot of rubble down there. And the debris WOULD form a cone shaped pile extended outside the footprint. We do know that the facade virtually ALL fell outside the foot print... and many of the core columns did as well. The facade was only 35 or 60 feet from the core and the core stood 1362 feet tall.

The building was a no brainer, it turns out... for a progressive runaway floor collapse. One needn't be a rocket scientist or first in the glass in engineering school to understand this. All one had to do is figure out how to get that threshold mass collapsing on a typical tenant floor. You could explode 4 or 5 floors and likely enough would be there to drive the collapse. You could fail a set of core columns carrying 3 floors or 2 sets and that would deliver the requisite destructive mass. All engineers know that very tall unbraced columns will topple by themselves... no explosives needed. The floor collapse destroyed the braces - Voila!

The speed of the collapse is not remarkable either considering the driving mass and the strength of each of the tenant floors to resist it. And each tenant floor was of the same strength and the collapsing rubble mass was not decreasing but increasing as it went along. And gravity as potential energy turned into kinetic energy was enormous and COULD do that sort of destruction. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of tons of material dropping from as much as a almost a quarter mile. The destructive energy is incomparable to most events we are familiar with in terms of the SCALE of energy involved.

As far as not being able to recognize "anything" the same answer applies... What would be recognizable after being ground with a few hundred thousand tons of material confined to the relatively small "chute" of the donut shaped foot print for as much as 15 seconds? Do you really expect to see a file cabinet come out of that such that it can be identified?

My sense is that most people simply (and I am no exception) have no frame of reference for such massive grinding forces. We see structures of a few stories collapse or car crashes and those are infinitesimal in comparison to the forces involved here.

There is material to be investigated and some of us are going to survey some of the steel very shortly. But the tell tale material all came from the areas above the plane strikes. The rest of the material failed from the collapse and the enormous gravitational forces and the thousands of collisions.

My thinking continues to evolve about the technical matter related to the building collapses. I still believe that the story we were told was BS and the official coverup was also BS. I don't believe it was 19 hijackers who did that. But I think too many people have swing so far to the other side that they refuse to accept the basic engineering and science... and believe that there HAD to have been HUGE energy inputs when this is simply NOT the case. Energy input YES... but that was to unlock the PE.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 4 2011, 09:22 AM

After all these months SanderO, it still seems you would like to have your cake and eat it too--you want it both ways.

Looking at ALL the events of the day, and the subsequent and relentless media coverup, what is obvious that these were staged events.

That means just what common sense requires--the destruction of the towers was planned and executed by men with access to all sorts of special devices and weapons.

Talayo's questions and observations are relevant and good.

It was an inside job and gravity is always at work.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 4 2011, 09:40 AM

Amazed,

My research has not falsified the notion that the destruction was MIHOP. What it seems to indicate and this IS significant is that the take down was likely not as complex, did not require massive amounts of devices and secrecy / stealth to plant them and therefore could have been a rather limited conspiracy not involving scores of mechanics, planners and so forth.

It's also important to look at why the conspirators felt it necessary to not only scare the sh*t out of people with multiple hijackings of commercial air flights (even if faked)... but collapse those 3 towers to the ground.

Bldg 7 raises an interesting question... why make that tower fall? This, of course, raises more questions about motive. If the destruction of the twins was as I believe a simple as opposed to a complex operation... one that did not require miles of det chord, wiring and remote controlled or complex sequencing... then the idea that the EMC located on the 23rd floor of bldg 7 was the center of operations for the destruction makes less sense... or to me... no sense.

So some other motives were at play if bldg 7 was part of the master plan of 9/11. I think the evidence is very speculative, but it may relate to financial transactions... investigations and so forth. Yet I can't tie all these motives together to a group with a single purpose for the event.

In the most general way it seems that 9/11 was a turning point for the gradual "evolution" of our democracy into what is becoming a fascist corporatocracy (unmasked... unashamed) and justified as being necessary for our "national security" interests. While this process has been underway for a long time, this was a catalyzing event which smoothed the way for some rapid advance on the road to fascism. Do we have a democracy and representative government in name only and we're really living under a proto military coup which control the pawns we call politicians and government "officials"... elected and appointed? We've certainly seen no diminution of the calls for more empire and our imperial lust appears unquenchable.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 5 2011, 10:28 AM

SanderO

I can readily agree with your first point, that the takedown may not have been all that complicated to do. From my personal perspective, it was extremely complicated, but that is because I know precious little about demolition and such.

Actually, several years ago I became persuaded that INDEED, the towers might have been built in such a way that their eventual destruction would be relatively simple. Again, that is a layman's view, but it seems likely.

Why they wanted to scare hell out of ordinary folks? That's easy--because they wanted to, because when the mob is fearful all sorts of shenanigans can be accomplished by government. Such as, 2 new wars and the attendant spending for industry. Such as, from the perverse perspective, an unbridled and successful attack upon the rule of law and the US Constitution and its restraints upon government.

On a very primitive level, fear is a tremendous motivator and tool.

Building 7? In my opinion the reason for that was to get rid of the various SEC records regarding Enron and other politically connected entities. Plus, something as simple perhaps as the insurance claim that Silverstein eventually made.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.




Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 5 2011, 10:59 PM

Thanks to everyone for their continued input on this subject. Testiness aside, the discussion has broadened my own perspective on what may have happened to the twin towers and how.

SanderO, I think I might take you up on your offer to e-mail privately whatever attachments you consider relevant to your hypothesis. I'll send you my details shortly.

In the meantime there is one other question (actually several, but I only have time to type this one) which springs to mind...

If I were appointed to lead either the NIST, FEMA or 9/11 Commission investigations, and part of my responsibility was to deceive the public and convince them that the towers might collapse as they did on 9/11 - without the use of explosives, incendiaries, nukes, DEWs, etc etc - then I imagine the gravity driven collapse scenario as you describe it would be a sensible place to start.

I suspect it would then be only a small stretch to convince the layman that such a natural demolition could be set in motion by virtue of commercial airline impacts and the ensuing fires. (Of course, we all now realise that this is nonsense, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for a minute).

Yet, NIST et al have all released official reports which mention no such thing and in fact almost goad the public into questioning their authenticity and credibility. If - as you say - the perpetrators MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE of how the entire structure could and would fail after the upper floors had become disassociated, then why not capitalise on this convenient fact when writing up the official reports?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Any ideas?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 6 2011, 05:38 AM

mrmitosis

Maybe someone should ask NIST why they never tested for explosives at the WTC? I guess they were afraid of the answer.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 6 2011, 12:38 PM

I am a bit confused by MrM's question.

I think the idea was that the investigation was intended to link the tower's destruction to the plane strikes and fires they caused. After all we were told that the attack was a terrorist hijacking(s). Looking for the kind of evidence that would indicate pre planning and a breach of security starts to sound like a AQ plot no one is going to believe. It seems like whether they were told to not look under every rock or just went along with the program that the planes did it and look for some connection to the planes we can't tell.

Even if the collapse WAS gravity driven as I suspect it was after a few years of studying this, the driving mass was not the plane itself, but the top part of the towers. And to get that mass moving and capable of driving a gravity driven collapse it would take more that office fires burning for less than 2 hrs... even with the fire proofing stripped off. The official explanations tried to come up with some means that fire could lead to the structure up there collapsing. I don't find that credible.

It's interesting that their avoidance of the collapse mechanism has led to all the truth movement speculation of explosives during the collapse phase and claims that the speed was too fast and so forth. Their silence on the collapse mechanism has fueled and focused the discussion on the collapse phase and NOT on the initiation phase... or even making a distinction between the two. The real prize is how they kicked it off... after the planes and the fires... which only provided a small amount of what was necessary to destroy the tops and create the driving mass from the structure itself. I have been trying to more the discussion away from the collapse to the initiation, but I've been "debating" truthers who simply won't accept some of the engineering and physics of the collapse of THOSE particular structures. It feels like we being side tracked and distracted from the initiation of the collapse.

If you accept the gravity driven collapse.... you need to find how the mass WAS created to drive that collapse. It was there in the top of the towers... but it needed to be "freed" from the structure so to speak which supported it. When viewed from this perspective investigators would have looked at all sorts of scenarios to bust up the top.... because once that was done... down they towers came.


Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 7 2011, 12:13 AM

SanderO -

Sorry, I didn't explain my question very clearly. It's actually a very simple question, but difficult to put into words.

Earlier in this thread, you stated that:

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
There IS no official explanation of the collapse phase. I challenge anyone to cite in the NIST, FEMA or 911 Commission Reports where they explain the collapse phase. You will not find this because they are silent on it.

NIST attempted to show that in the case of the twin towers that the CAUSE of the collapse was sagging trusses, from fires which pulled in the facade columns which meant that the floors above no longer hand support and then would come down. That was the extent of their explanation.


However, you also said that:

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
...once the threshold mass was allowed to drop on an intact floor.. the game was over. They know this and HAD to know it.


So, according to you, NIST et al should have been able to ANTICIPATE that the buildings would be destroyed by falling debris once the upper block was released. And yet they failed to use this as a means of explanation for the collapse, in spite of the fact that this would have helped them to produce a more plausible (albeit still flawed) hypothesis. In any case, I imagine it's preferable to being "silent" on the issue.

Of course, I'm brushing aside the INITIATION PHASE and what caused it - clearly, these were critically important events in themselves, and were not adequately addressed or accounted for in the official reports. At least, nobody HERE is convinced by the Planes + Fires = Collapse formula - not even you!

However, it still strikes me that you've arrived at a theory which - if correct - sets the stage for a POST initiation phase that did not require explosives or anything more exotic than the forces of nature.

Which is why I'm still curious as to why NIST, FEMA and the 911C didn't exploit a POST initiation theory similar to yours in their final report, instead of simply ignoring the gargantuan wrinkly grey skinned mammal eating peanuts in the corner.

Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 7 2011, 12:16 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 6 2011, 04:38 AM) *
mrmitosis

Maybe someone should ask NIST why they never tested for explosives at the WTC? I guess they were afraid of the answer.


Well, I'm sure we'd all appreciate an answer to that question.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 7 2011, 12:58 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Jun 7 2011, 12:16 AM) *
Well, I'm sure we'd all appreciate an answer to that question.



I can only guess here. NIST tried to come up with explanation which involved the weaked elements-- the trusses... to fail from fire, pull in the facade (much stronger) which was the azial support and so everything above had no support and to them game over...50-60,00 tons of building collapsing will destroy the floors right down to the ground.

They also might not have wanted to expose the liability of the deign... PANYNJ, LERA and the NYC DOB approved plans. Even if this initiation was some bombs/devices up top, this still exposes the inherent flaws in the design.

The design DID perform very well to the lateral impact of the planes. I'll give them a A+ for that.. but the discussion needed to turn to what got all that mass to collapse and kick of the runaway progressive collapse of all the floors.

Their fire theory would have to cause 3-6 entire floors to collapse to provide the threshold driving mass. That was another stretch of the imagination which wasn't going to play.. so they came up with the hooey about these puny trusses made of 1/4" steel... 2 - 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 angles pulling the entire facade in and voila! hahahaha

So they were providing cover for:

1. The flawed design and those who approved it
2. And whomever might have exploited it with a few devices

My guess is that they were more concerned with #1 because they knew that the hijackers did it would not even be questioned. And of course the progressive failure of the entire structure from a progressive collapse IS a design flaw and IS a liability/negligence regardless of what started it... or is that... except for acts of god?

Posted by: talayo Jun 8 2011, 05:09 PM

sanderso says:

"If you stacked ALL the contents of the towers compactly in/on the foot print it would be less than 3 stories high!."

I did some very "advanced" mathematical computations (about grade 7) that shows the following:

the average hight of WTC 1 and 2 floors was 12 feet. That is about 430 inches for 3 floors.

There were about 100 floors with 4.5 inches of concrete. That is about 450 inches.

With this alone we are already 20 inches higher than 3 floors!

3 floors represents 2.7 % of the total volume of the building. The accepted generic value tends to be between 6 to 8 % which is at least double the value that you attribute to WTC buildings (as I indicated in my "final" comment on the subjet)

You seem to be intelligent and particularly well informed, but your estimates seem, now and then, to be twisted to show that everything is normal. I cannot understand your lapses into questionable claims.

Posted by: KP50 Jun 8 2011, 09:05 PM

Stepping briefly back into this - SanderO said

QUOTE
As far as not being able to recognize "anything" the same answer applies... What would be recognizable after being ground with a few hundred thousand tons of material confined to the relatively small "chute" of the donut shaped foot print for as much as 15 seconds? Do you really expect to see a file cabinet come out of that such that it can be identified?

My sense is that most people simply (and I am no exception) have no frame of reference for such massive grinding forces. We see structures of a few stories collapse or car crashes and those are infinitesimal in comparison to the forces involved here.

You do know there were 25 stories above the plane impact in WTC2. What massive grinding force is acting on the furniture on, say, floor 103?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 8 2011, 11:56 PM

talayo:

The floors were 4.5" thick

4.5 x 100 = 450"

450"/12' = 37.5'

One story height is 12'

37.5" = 3.125 story heights.

ALL the facade steel fell outside the foot print.

The total volume of the core steel

Assumed weight - 40,000 tons
wt of steel - 495# / cu ft = 6.68 tons / cu yard

40,000 / 6.68 = 5,988 cu yards

footprint 208 x 208 = 43,264 sf = 4807 sq yards

Assuming ALL core steel fell inside (it didn't) the foot print (and was compact) it would add 4' to the pile height.

Add the core steel to the 3.125 story height and you get to 3.5 Story heights

However, the debris scattered (some carried aloft as dust) and the ground up material formed a "cone shaped pile... which was larger than the foot print.

So I am sticking with the size of the expected debris to be max ht under 4 stories tapering down as you move outward. So a pile which was topped off at 3 or even slightly less stories is not unrealistic.

I think MOST buildings are about 96-97% air by volume

Posted by: SanderO Jun 9 2011, 12:06 AM

KP,

You seem to implying that the material at the top would "ride down" on top of the material below and not be crushed. I suspect what happened is that the entire part broke apart (from collision with the structure below) and the material descended hundreds of feet and became mixed in with the avalanche rubble and was crush on the way down.

I am certainly not sure about the mechanism at play... but I find it hard to imagine that much of anything could ride the back (top) of the collapse rubble mass and not get mixed in and crushed. That sort of expectation is akin to expecting a stack of intact floors sitting on the ground after the collapse. That's ridiculous.

This is "new stuff". No building of that size has collapsed... or been exploded. We don't have much to refer to historically. So it was a "first" and figuring it our is beyond "common sense" though this is the standard many approach this as. I think it was a very complex interaction and there was enormous energy released and millions of collisions in 10-15 seconds.

The experts like Bazant were wrong, NIST made up stuff and sadly AE911T seems to make up some stuff too. Let's confine the study to the actual observations and what we know about the towers and their structure.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 9 2011, 06:21 AM

We know the antenna did not tip over and fall away from the building, since in all of the videos it clearly drops down into the center of the building during the initiation of the collapse.

If a gravitational collapse had enough energy to pulverize the entire contents of a building, then how come the antenna held up so well?



Posted by: KP50 Jun 9 2011, 07:07 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 9 2011, 10:21 PM) *
We know the antenna did not tip over and fall away from the building, since in all of the videos it clearly drops down into the center of the building during the initiation of the collapse.

If a gravitational collapse had enough energy to pulverize the entire contents of a building, then how come the antenna held up so well?


DYEW, why do you keep on insisting on producing evidence? Opinions are all we want here, fixed opinions mind you, not opinions that might be swayed by anything as trivial as evidence.

I'm about done with you SanderO - you're yet another Truth Liter, pushing the OCT every chance you get.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 9 2011, 08:43 AM

KP,

With all due respect... rubbish.

The antenna DID NOT drop right through the core. It begins to descend , but it can be seen (the upper section) tipped 90° and extending over the side of the tower as the top section is destroyed and descends.

Please look carefully at the videos which show this. I, too, had thought the antenna plunged down through the core until femr2 presented some videos showing the top tipping over the side.

Observations rule.

Why do others when confronted with "facts", science and actual observations accuse me (and I suppose others) of being proponents of the "OCT"?

YES, I do diverge from the "truther heavy" position of extensive explosive controlled demolition throughout the twin towers. I DO NOT rule out and engineered "kink off" of a progressive rapid destruction of the floors by a gravity driven collapse which has been given the acronym - ROOSD - runaway open office space destruction.

My understanding is informed by the actual observations of the videos, plus my understanding of the structure of the twin towers and the basic engineering principles and physics which govern. The antenna is a perfect example of having to look carefully and report accurately as opposed to look casually and describing the observations to conform to a pre-conceived "belief" about what happened.

I am engaged in a pursuit of truth and accuracy and let these findings go where they will. I do not find many of NIST's conclusions and methods credible. Nor do I, for that matter, find some/many of the truth movement's most vocal proponent's conclusions and methods credible.

Research continues to this day. An inspection of some WTC steel is planned for this summer.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 9 2011, 02:59 PM

Back to an earlier conversation that SanderO and I had, using the hammer and anvil as an example, in order for something to be crushed, something must support it while something else does the crushing.

Considering that we have a collapse time very close to free fall value, what provided the role of anvil for all that to be crushed? Nothing, is what this layman says.

The picture of the antenna provided by DYEW, new to me, shows that.

Truth Lite--now I like that term. whistle.gif

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 9 2011, 04:30 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x131216

Same shit, different day and a different forum.

Five years later and we're still arguing the same bullshit.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 9 2011, 06:40 PM

Crushing results when the forces applied to a material are stronger than those holding it together. I think the avalanche collapse crushing was quite a complex interaction such as occurs in flows of solid materials.

I also suspect that that each floor slab representing a plane of resistance... rather small compared to the force descending upon it, but enough resistance to cause compaction and crushing, bouncing and other complex motions in the rubble. And this occurred every .1 seconds. Imagine a carton of glasses on one of those upper floors as it drawn into the avalanche. My hunch is that if the carton was not ripped apart, and we could examine the glasses... they would have crushed themselves up into very small pieces from all the jostling. The glasses didn't have to be crushed on an anvil... the many collisions ground them up... the way tumblers grind and polish very hard materials.

The Antenna?

I think it began to descend and broke at some joint into two sections, one of which went over. The base likely drove down through the center of the core and did a lot of damage to those weakest columns 704, 705, 804. This would not kiely destroy the floors outside the core but would destroy the bracing inside the core.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 9 2011, 09:17 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 9 2011, 04:30 PM) *
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x131216

Same shit, different day and a different forum.

Five years later and we're still arguing the same bullshit.



Pretty much DYEW, pretty much. I want to have my cake, and eat it too. cleanup.gif

Coming up on 10 years later, does it really matter exactly how it happened? No. It happened is all that matters, and we're still talking about the same old bullshit, as though it changes anything.

Cool picture of the antenna. salute.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 9 2011, 10:30 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
This is "new stuff". No building of that size has collapsed... or been exploded. We don't have much to refer to historically. So it was a "first" and figuring it our is beyond "common sense" though this is the standard many approach this as. I think it was a very complex interaction and there was enormous energy released and millions of collisions in 10-15 seconds.


"Complex" is an understatement.
If the collapse was solely gravity driven, involving "millions of collisions", these events would be chaotic, not a complete, uniform pulverization of both the structure and all within it. No?

There are clear videos of molten metal dripping down the facade precollapse which was in all probability some form of chemical to weaken and aid the collapse. Why wouldn't this same chemical reaction be present at critical points to aid complete collapse instead of relying on Mother Nature?

There are most definitely squib like explosions occurring far below the collapse coupled with flashes. Now you can theorize that "air pressure" may have caused these (though I don't see how) but you can't rule this out offhand because those too are "observations".

The high concentration of molten metal/extreme heat captured after the collapse certainly wasn't caused by aircraft fuel or office fires which would have been smothered and starved of oxygen with tons of dust.
"Gravity driven collapse" doesn't explain the above away.

The aove are "facts" too.

Don't forget the muliple witnessed explosions precollapse and during. Some of which occurred in the basement.

The video below shows a rate of destruction that is actually keeping up with the falling debris.



Amazed! made a very good point about the "hammer and anvil". Are you suggesting that all of this debris was crushed almost in mid-air? If the upper floors were being crushed too, the downward force would have dissipated too, no?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 10 2011, 06:40 AM

One,

As noted the mechanics of the collapse destruction of the building materials is beyond my expertise. My guess is that each floor represented enough resistance to jolt the collapse front rubble causing it to collide, interact and further crush... sort of like dropping a sack of glass dishes on the floor... only the floor was not strong enough to resist all the descending material.

There IS some metal pouring from ONE corner which happens to be the location where the engine of the plane exited the building... or very close it it and the location where lots of lead, copper and acid were in the for of a huge battery back up power supply. Considering those two "facts" it seems likely to me at least, that the pouring metal was related to these facts... but this doesn't rule out some other chemical/heat process which produces melted steel. I am just not as convinced of the later explanation as many others seem to be.

Chaotic, highly energetic does not mean that some sort of uniformity emerges from the process. There was one force vector which can't be ignored and that was gravity. And this was huge considering the mass of the towers. Within them, somewhat confined by the strong facade... much much stronger than a curtain wall for example... the millions of interactions were taking place. The containment (facade) provides a plausible explanation for the ejections of material through the windows - the path of least resistance for the escaping air pushed away by the tens of thousands of tons of compacting colliding rubble. That air was forced outward at over 200 mph and was massively destructive in itself... likely weakening the facade joints, and of course blasting the glass to smitherines... and taking all the light weight floor contents with it. I don't find it unusual that this collapse would produce the uniformity we observed as the mass distribution of the towers was quite uniform or "symmetrical" about the two axes of the building... symmetrical building collapses in a symmetrical process producing a "symmetrical" debris field... within reason.

A gas or or liquid...is also a collection of billions of random chaotic movements of the molecules which make it up. On the macro level we experience the gas or liquid as some "uniform" as Bernouilli explains. Think of the collisions and chaos of the collapse rubble as similar (conceptually) to the behavior of the molecules in a gas or liquid.

I appreciate that this is a very unusual phenomena and something we have no frame of reference for in our own real word experience. Huge "anythings" don't collapse and certainly nothing the size of the twin towers made from think concrete slabs with GWB and other friable materials "suspended" or held in the "air" by a strong steel frame. And we must not forget that the towers... all high rise buildings are about 97-97% air by volume. Dense friable materials held in the air with lots of air separating them.

Since we have no real world experience with such phenomena it is perfectly understandable for us to produce explanations which DO match our real world experience. Unfortunately, I believe, this is leading us to some wrong conclusions. But as I have said many times... I can't disprove an engineered initiation to the collapse. And I think that is where all our investigative research needs to focus.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 10 2011, 06:55 AM

The ejections occurring well below the "crush front" demands explanation.

My hunch is that these ejections are also material forced down and then outward. However this material did not encounter any resistance from the concrete slabs because it followed a path of least resistance and went straight down elevator shafts... which have no slabs to stop it. But there are pits at the bottom of the shafts.

Again I envision a dense collapsing rubble mass plunging down the elevator shafts compressing the air in shafts. Some of those shafts are enclosed up to the zone where the elevators services. So for example, you have a shaft which extends from floor 44 to floor 66 which only has doors on 44, and then 60-66. So material entering this shaft compresses the air in shaft from floor 44 - 60... and then explodes out at say floor 44... down the corridor and then it is directed at the facade where it bursts through.

I am not certain that this explains the below the crush front ejections. But it is interesting to note that these ejections were:

aligned with the corridor which penetrates the short axis of the core between the express elevators rows 504 & 505
aligned with the corridor which penetrates the long axis of the core between rows 600 and 700

On the other hand I can't explain what would be the purpose of so few "explosions" to destroy such a huge structure. Why not attack the four corners of the core which were doing the most in holding it up of any column?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 10 2011, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 10 2011, 05:55 AM) *
The ejections occurring well below the "crush front" demands explanation.

My hunch is that these ejections are also material forced down and then outward. However this material did not encounter any resistance from the concrete slabs because it followed a path of least resistance and went straight down elevator shafts... which have no slabs to stop it. But there are pits at the bottom of the shafts.

Again I envision a dense collapsing rubble mass plunging down the elevator shafts compressing the air in shafts. Some of those shafts are enclosed up to the zone where the elevators services. So for example, you have a shaft which extends from floor 44 to floor 66 which only has doors on 44, and then 60-66. So material entering this shaft compresses the air in shaft from floor 44 - 60... and then explodes out at say floor 44... down the corridor and then it is directed at the facade where it bursts through.

I am not certain that this explains the below the crush front ejections. But it is interesting to note that these ejections were:

aligned with the corridor which penetrates the short axis of the core between the express elevators rows 504 & 505
aligned with the corridor which penetrates the long axis of the core between rows 600 and 700

On the other hand I can't explain what would be the purpose of so few "explosions" to destroy such a huge structure. Why not attack the four corners of the core which were doing the most in holding it up of any column?

They did attack the corners. Some of them were destroyed prior to the collapsed, during the 'crashes'. Amazing how they just happened to be on key floors too.






Posted by: amazed! Jun 10 2011, 09:20 AM

STill not persuasive, SanderO

In some nuanced fashion, you still come across sometimes as an apologist for the OCT. A lot of "possibly" and "perhaps" involved.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 10 2011, 01:20 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 10 2011, 09:17 AM) *
They did attack the corners. Some of them were destroyed prior to the collapsed, during the 'crashes'. Amazing how they just happened to be on key floors too.



What in your opinion were the "key floors'? And why were they "key"?

Why did they have to attack the corners? I believe this was something Gordon Ross noted and others seem to repeat. I presume this is because the corners connected the two facade planes? This is tenchincally true, but the structure significance of the corners is to resist wind shear. The corners carried the least of the floor loads of any of the perimeter or the core columns.

Also, since the facades were composed of 10'x36' 3 column assembles their membrane action was dependent upon the strength of the spandrel connections... what is the significance of "attacking the corners... as opposed to any other facade columns? In fact the KEY facade columns were the 4 columns in line with rows 500 and 100 where the transfer girder was connected.

The key here is to understand the structure.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 10 2011, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 10 2011, 09:20 AM) *
STill not persuasive, SanderO

In some nuanced fashion, you still come across sometimes as an apologist for the OCT. A lot of "possibly" and "perhaps" involved.



I am not an apologist for anyone's position. All I have done since leaving AE911T is conduct independent research into the ACTUAL structure of the twin towers and look for the weaknesses and study the collapse videos.

I call it like I see it and NIST got plenty wrong and AE911T got it wrong with MOST of their "pillars of truth"... So I won't apologize nor support either of these groups.

The prize is understand why actually kicked off the collapse. NIST gets it wrong... AE911T and others have proposed anything credible either.

Still looking... research continues.

Posted by: talayo Jun 10 2011, 05:40 PM

sanderso:

I did not present my argument in a clear manner so you interpreted as a reference to the debris after the disintegration of the buildings. This is not what I am referring to. I am addressing your claim that buildings are 96 to 97 % air by volume. This maybe a description of generic buildings. My understanding is that 92 to 94 % is a more typical number. But generic descriptions are irrelevant in this case. We are dealing with a specific pair of buildings for which a number of significant things are known.

What is known:

• The concrete alone occupied 3% of the volume.

• The steel occupied 1 1/2% of the volume.

• We have not even started and we are at 95 ½ % of “air”. So, let’s continuo.

• 22,000 aluminum curtain wall panels. They are U-shaped, 12 inches deep, 18 inches wide, and for the most part 12 ft long. They are made of .09-inch thick anodized aluminum sheets and weigh about 100 lb each. Each consists of four parts: the main sheet, two jamb pieces (which take the glass and the horizontal spandrel covers) and a stainless steel track that will be used for an automatic window washing machine. The reported weight was 4,000 tons.

• There were 25,000 windows with glass and frames.

• 310,000 sq ft of glass and vermiculite plaster fireproofing on the interior face.

• There were 50,000 outlets for the ventilation and cooling systems.

• 100 + elevators.

• Equipment and air ducts for 40,000 tons of refrigeration.

• 3,500 plumbing fixtures.

• 20,000 doors.

• 20,000 door nobs.

• 3,000 miles of electrical wiring.

• All the panels to cover the walls: Inside perimeter area (greatly reduced because of the windows) and the inside walls. That is around the central support columns, washrooms, and other facilities.

• All the water piping required. It was supposed to withstand 500 psi, so one can assume that whatever material they used (likely copper) had to have thick walls.

• A grid for the ceiling panels that covers 3.5 million sq feet.

• Ceiling panels to cover 3.5 million sq feet.

• 3.5 million sq. feet for whatever material was used to cover the floors (likely carpet).

• Light fixtures to provide illumination for 3.5 million sq feet. At least 1 fixture per 300 sq feet, so about 40,000.


All the items listed above are inherent to the building, so you can guess how much “air they displaced, but in total is more than 4%!

We know that the buildings were, at least, partially occupied. That implies that some “air” had been displaced for office furniture and equipment.. For our case study THIS IS RELEVANT.

Items that are known:

• 30,000 desks.

• 50,000 chairs.

• 30,000 computers and display units.

• 30,000 file cabinets. Of course, a significant amount of office papers were inside the cabinets. The paper seems to be flying all over the area. This is considered to be natural. I believe that no systematic analysis of the reason for the masses of paper flying around has been made. From my point of view that is not easy to explain. When a filing cabinet is crunched, the contents inside will be crunched too. As a result they should stay with the cabinet blob. The ones that may have escaped should show the results of the forces applied to the filing cabinets. I saw very little evidence of that.

• A number of UPS facilities for large computing centers.

• All the computer equipment in the datacenters.

• A variety of other items, such safety boxes, some objects of decoration, etc.

By the way, there were 2 million ounces of gold bullion (in one of the buildings), value at 400 per ounce it totals approximately 800,000,000 dollars. In today’s value of gold, that is 2.8 billion dollars. Here again, something very unusual occurred, but that is the subject for another discussion.

Are you to continue describing the buildings as 96 % air?

If this litany of items does not make you to reassess your claim, then we are not having a rational discussion.

To anyone that is kind enough to read this boring description I ask for two things: Some tolerance for boring descriptions because I thought that that is probably the minimum necessary for sanderso to reconsider. The second thing is pointing out to any claim that you consider not to be justified.

Next time I will try to include some humor!

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 10 2011, 06:34 PM

QUOTE
Next time I will try to include some humor!


You forgot the toilet bowls. wink.gif

There should have been at least 1000 of them? Plus the sinks.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 10 2011, 06:53 PM

SanderO, take a closer look at that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT7mmmc-YY&feature=player_embedded

That's not glass or windows being blasted out, it's the facade itself being ripped apart at freefall speed.

As regards the dripping molten metal, lead requires a heat of 2400ºF to glow even close to the colour we see:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/34881-howstuffworks-show-lead-purification-video.htm

Copper at 2200ºF

http://www.copperconnection.com/page.html?id=8


Posted by: paranoia Jun 10 2011, 07:25 PM

mr.O, ive never quite understood what you mean when you point out that the buildings were 95+ percent air by volume. can you in simple terms explain the significance of that particular assertion?




the way i see it, any bridge that connects two masses of land is over 95+ percent air by volume, right? golden gate, brooklyn, 14th street, all are bridges and all are surrounded by air - but so what? they still have the ability to hold massive amounts of weight. so minus claims of the witnessed "squibs" being caused by it, what bearing does air inside the buildings (wtc towers 1&2) have on their eventual destruction?

Posted by: amazed! Jun 10 2011, 09:38 PM

The gold bullion was in the basement, and some of it had been driven away from its proper location.

So it would not affect the volume of the towers and their ample air.

Somebody here at PFT put up some pictures taken from inside the towers many years before 2001, and the rooms appear to be very spacey, with windows from floor to ceiling it seemed.

But the fact that the cubes were mostly air by volume does not mean they were not attacked and rigged for destruction.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 10 2011, 10:30 PM

The volume of a twin tower is

208 x 208 x 1262 = 58,925,568 cu ft four corner 10x10/2 x 4 x 1362 = 58,653,168 cu ft

volume of the concrete (we'll include the shafts as if they had flooring)

8 mech flrs @8" x 43,084' =

96 tenant flrs @4.5" x 43,084'

1 roof @ 8" x 43,084'

1 radio eq @8"x 43,084'

2 rest @ 4.5"x 43,084'

volume of concrete = 1,977,566 cu ft = 3.36% of building volume

volume of steel

100,000 tons x 2,000 = 2,000,000,000 pounds / 495 = 404,040 cu ft = .69% of the building volume

steel + concrete = 2,381,596 cu ft = 4.04% of the volume of the tower

Now let's make the floors computed in ALL the shafts on all 110 floors = walls, doors, etc.

Total volume of air in a twin tower = 96% air

Posted by: talayo Jun 11 2011, 01:36 AM

sanderso

It is becoming clear that it is impossible to have a discussion with you. As always you ignore what does not suit you.

What part of my list beyond concrete and steel you do no think it should be included?

The initial discussion have to do with your comments about the debris "being about three floors is what we should expected" since buildings are 94 to 96 % air.

That long list of other items that I presented in my previous posting should be part of the debris. That has to include the office contents as well.

Typical sanderso, you respond and make "your point" by ignoring whatever does not support your view.


amazing! And paranoia:

The percentage of air is not being use to discuss the strength of the buildings. It is an indication of what should be found as a pile of debris.

In one of my posting I indicated the debris pile was too small and many items could not be found.

The percentage of "air" in a building has a direct effect of the amount of debris to be found after a collapse.

The observations from photographs and the descriptions by workers indicate that the pile was the equivalent of 3 floors (36 feet). That fits very well with the 96% air claim. sanderso does not make "numbers" without a reason. Right or wrong they have to support his theory; otherwise, they do not exist.

The explanation given by sanderso for the lack of recognition of practically all office items was that the "tremendous forces" that took place inside the buildings during the collapse obliterate even steel cabinets to the point that they could not be recognized.


These "tremendous, chaotic forces" are used to dismiss any discussion of "where did the offices go?" They explain the unexplainable. This has the same ring as the "burning inferno" that was created by the fuel in the airplanes that could explain "every thing" about the collapse of the buildings.

Any simple calculation indicates that the forces were not that tremendous during the initial collapse. We are talking about two tons per square foot at a maximum of 200 kilometers an hour. That refers to the 20-floors of the initial block that is used to indicate that what generated the force that was irresistible (it dropped up to six floors without any resistence). Clearly, the only force that was added was the motion, since the buildings have that weight upon their shoulders for several decades without complaining.

Amazed!

You are correct about the gold. Why was it moved? It clearly was a “rush” job since one of the trucks was found abandoned with its load of gold ingots.

Was insurance collected? The Bank of Nova Scotia (Canadian bank) had about 200 million dollars in gold bullion. It has never made any comments whatsoever about the existence of that gold, as a result "it never happened".


Posted by: SanderO Jun 11 2011, 06:18 AM

Talayo,

I did a quickie calculation to show you that at least SOME of your numbers were incorrect. I also include EXTRA floor slabs as the lobby was 6 stories tall and had only a single mezzanine. I did leave off the antenna, the walls, and the contents because I suspect they would be small and consume the extra volume of concrete I included. I added 5% extra number of slab volumes so the concrete baseline number should be under 3.2%.

I was curious about your numbers so I ran a calculation to see if you were correct. on steel and concrete you were wrong.

Where did you get those numbers from?

Trust but verify.


Posted by: amazed! Jun 11 2011, 09:48 AM

Talayo

Rumor had it that the gold was supposed to have been Rudy's booty, but I certainly don't know. Sounds likely, considering his criminal character. Just more evidence for the inside job nature of the events of the day.

As for air within the buildings, I completely agree with your points.

Speaking only for myself, I've moved past the point of spending too much time on the details, though I always enjoy discovering new details that I had not been aware of. 10 years after, to borrow a phrase, all I know is that the events of the day were staged by powerful men within government, and that the coverup is worse than the crime.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 11 2011, 10:51 AM

While I certainly don't care for Giuliani one bit... and he may have been involved in the coverup and was given some prior knowledge that somerthing was "coming down"... rumor is not evidence.

Amazed, you can agree with someone's statements, but I urge you to verify Repeating what you read or heard when you don't know if this information has been vetted is not a wise thing to do and make strong affirmative statements based on what amounts to "hearsay". Unfortunately, we all do this way too much and we do it because we can't easily verify and we trust.

I have verified or examined many statements made by NIST and "truthers" and a fair amount of them are simply incorrect.

You can write and think that the details don't matter. But evidence IS details and ultimately an evidence MUST be made with those details.

I've been pilloried as carrying water for the OCT / NIST narrative. This is not true. I simply am describing what I have found from my investigation using my professional background as an architect. This does give me a bit of advantage over some in understanding, but certainly not all. But most of what I have found require fairly basic knowledge of engineering and some basic math.

I am watch Richard Gage via Blogger and YouTube make appearances and repeat the same factual errors over and over again and this, after I have written to him about it several times, told him personally on 2 occasions. My conclusions is he is more interested in a "shock and awe case" then with the facts. And of course others simply parrot what he says and publishes on his site. I am not disputing ALL of AE911T's evidence... but some it.

My column Factor of Safety study reveals strategies/approaches for how to destroy the towers... and especially how to imitate their collapse... These strategies and approaches are the "take away" from basic study of the structure... something I have been advocating the truth movement and espcially (AE911T) focus on.


Posted by: amazed! Jun 11 2011, 05:12 PM

This is the court of public opinion, SanderO, not a court of law, sorry. Your objection of hearsay is noted, but over ruled for purposes of discussion, if you don't mind.

I qualified that what I said about Rudy was rumor, so chill out.

Those vehicles were carrying stolen gold bullion, and Saudi pilots did not load them and drive them. Whoever did it was majorly 'inside the power structure'

Rudy fought the City Council for years over the location of the command post for the EOC. They wanted it one place, Rudy insisted upon WTC7.

Though you and I can only speculate, there are reasons for those facts.

Imitate their collapse? They cannot be imitated, except on computers, and those simulations only go so far, as we have seen demonstrated numerous times in this subject area.

You have repeated ad nauseam your claim that you are not an apologist for the government story. I believe you, but the more you post the more it seems you want to have things both ways somehow.

I really don't care how high the debris pile was when the smoke cleared, but I know that there were many mysterious events that day that do not seem to comport with the laws of physics. It's likely that the height of the pile is just one more, IMO.



Posted by: talayo Jun 11 2011, 05:27 PM

Sanderso

100 floors at 4.5 inches of concrete, when piled up, add up (surprise) to 450 inches.

One floor is about 12 feet, that is 144 inches.

450 divided by 144 gives 3.125 floor equivalent.

What is wrong with that simple calculation?

The weight of steel is, according to a number of tables and books, about 7,800 kilos per cubic meter.

100,000 tons is about 12,000 cubic meters.

200 x 200 x 12 = 480,000 square feet of volume (a floor).

12,000 x 35 = 420,000 that is the volume of the steel.

420,0000 divided by 480,000 gives .87 of a floor.

What is wrong with these numbers?


3.125 floors from concrete plus .87 from steel gives 3.995 floors equivalent, so we are already past theclaim “the debris pile should be about 3-story high”.

So that was wrong with my argument about floors. Please, show me what is wrong?

The other litany of items was obtained from several documents (cross checking). These documents predate the 9/11 event so there is no reason for “convenient numbers” that you can find all over the place after 9/11. So I consider them accurate.

If my numbers are wrong (in a material way) please indicate which ones, then I can double check my source.

Posted by: talayo Jun 11 2011, 05:51 PM

sanderso

The posting where you conclude that the towers were 96% air puts you in an interesting but absurd position.

Considering what you have included, then the implication is that the air in the building must weight 100,000 tons, because when you add the concrete and the steel the weight is short by about 100,000 tons. So where does that weight come from?

I am perplexed by your insistence on your theory no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

There are two possibilities:

-You are never wrong (in my corporate years I had to deal with many like that).

-Or worse, you have a mission.

You are way too intelligent not to understand the barrage of objections that you have received about your theory, that if I understand you correctly goes something like this:

-The collapse initiation could have been set up by a few well placed charges by people that knew the buildings well.

-After that, everything is normal because the building was very weak. Gravity brought the buildings down.

-There is nothing unusual about the pulverization of the concrete. (100 microns dust)

-There was enough kinetic force to both pulverize the concrete and cause the floors to collapse.

-Pulverization did not cause a significant delay from free-fall.

-The speed of the collapse was not unusual.

-The fact that objects could no be recognized is the result of the enourmous forces that took place inside the buildings during the collapse.

You diverge from the official story only with regard to the "few explosive charges", the rest is by the book.




Posted by: SanderO Jun 11 2011, 06:13 PM


The posting where you conclude that the towers were 96% air puts you in an interesting but absurd position.

Considering what you have included, then the implication is that the air in the building must weight 100,000 tons, because when you add the concrete and the steel the weight is short by about 100,000 tons. So where does that weight come from?



I am perplexed by your insistence on your theory no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

There are two possibilities:

-You are never wrong (in my corporate years I had to deal with many like that).

-Or worse, you have a mission.

You are way too intelligent not to understand the barrage of objections that you have received about your theory, that if I understand you correctly goes something like this:

-The collapse initiation could have been set up by a few well placed charges by people that knew the buildings well.

-After that, everything is normal because the building was very weak. Gravity brought the buildings down.

-There is nothing unusual about the pulverization of the concrete. (100 microns dust)

-There was enough kinetic force to both pulverize the concrete and cause the floors to collapse.

-Pulverization did not cause a significant delay from free-fall.

-The speed of the collapse was not unusual.

-The fact that objects could no be recognized is the result of the enourmous forces that took place inside the buildings during the collapse.

You diverge from the official story only with regard to the "few explosive charges", the rest is by the book.


Posted by: SanderO Jun 11 2011, 06:52 PM

The posting where you conclude that the towers were 96% air puts you in an interesting but absurd position.

Considering what you have included, then the implication is that the air in the building must weight 100,000 tons, because when you add the concrete and the steel the weight is short by about 100,000 tons. So where does that weight come from?

How much did the towers weigh? That is a good question. We've heard the popular 500,000 tons and Szamboti claims it is under 400,000 tons. I haven't calculated each materials weight contribution PLUS the superimposed dead and live loads. That a big job, but I may take it on. femr2 has done it as has Gregory Urich (I think Greg is off on some things).


I am perplexed by your insistence on your theory no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

I don't care what anyone tries to tell me. I am interested in facts and in the case of CD the mechanism for this. I've yet to read a credible explanation of how this was done, type and size and placement of devices and how they were triggered. You might explain why you parrot what others tell you and present inaccurate information in some cases... and apparently don't care.

There are two possibilities:

-You are never wrong (in my corporate years I had to deal with many like that).

I am frequently wrong and have revised my findings frequently


-Or worse, you have a mission.

That is rather accusatory and stupid. I am doing research and have worked in the truth movement for several years and many can vouch for my efforts... but I don't need this. What sort of research have you done?


You are way too intelligent not to understand the barrage of objections that you have received about your theory, that if I understand you correctly goes something like this:

I don't have a "theory"... I am presenting engineering information and reporting observations. You may not agree with them but we can discuss any individual observation and see if we can find some common ground


-The collapse initiation could have been set up by a few well placed charges by people that knew the buildings well.

-After that, everything is normal because the building was very weak. Gravity brought the buildings down.

The building is NOT very weak. The floor system, like any is vulnerable to failure from over loading. The floors were quite light and there were no columns in the open office space or girders to segregate a collapse to confine it to a local area. Once the floors tend to fracture large sections are involved. Gravity did not crush any columns during the collapse. They resisted this force very well. They succumbed from losing their bracing and toppled from instability being too tall and thin.


-There is nothing unusual about the pulverization of the concrete. (100 microns dust)

There is a lot of unusual aspects to the dust which ranged in size. Crushing of materials with pressures as much as 100,000 psi produces some pretty fine dust I would imagine. Note that all three towers produced the same dust signature... yet 2 collapsed "top down" and 7 crushed down at around the 7-13th floors. WHy the same dust signature from different "collapses"? And don't forget that people refer to 7 as dropping at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds... That's GRAVITY pulling it down ain't it? Apparently... when massive floors collapse onto one another from 700- 1300 feet high they crush themselves to pretty fine grained dust. But I don't pretend to be able to do the math that explains this. I am a dumb architect.


-There was enough kinetic force to both pulverize the concrete and cause the floors to collapse.

Obviously. The KE to collapse/fracture a single floor comes from the mass of as few a 3 - 6 floors above it. But ina fractured state up at say the 77th floor... it still has enormous PE/KE when it descends 1000 feet. Do you think that if floor 77 was crushed/fractured by rubble falling from above all the PE/KE is then gone... and it remains suspended 1000 feet above the ground?


-Pulverization did not cause a significant delay from free-fall.

The towers did not ACCELERATE as the collapsed. They obviously DID accelerate in the begining from rest to what was about 60+ mph... a velocity which was the basic/average "speed of collapse". So YES crushing the floors PREVENTED the mass from accelerating... each one took about .1 seconds to fail. A free falling body reaches about 60 mph after 3.5 seconds if I recall correctly... but since it is accelerating the speed continues to increase. The acceleration could be any positive number. G happens to be the way bodies accelerate under its influence here on earth.


-The speed of the collapse was not unusual.

I think the speed appears to be what it is and it was actually pretty much the same for all three buildings. As far as floors in office towers are concerned I suspect that once they begin to experience a gravity driven collapse the mass of the floors - resistance becomes the limiting factor and most will likely proceed at 60 or so mph. It probably can be solved by doing some math which is over my head.


-The fact that objects could no be recognized is the result of the enourmous forces that took place inside the buildings during the collapse.

I would suspect any friable objects subject to pressures as much as 100,00 psi and grinding in a confined "chute" would pretty much obliterate anything. What survives being in a "tumbler" with a few hundred thousand tons of rubble? I don't think most of us can comprehend the magnitude of the forces involved. It's outside of our experience.



You diverge from the official story only with regard to the "few explosive charges", the rest is by the book.

Hardly the rest is by the book. What have I written which supports the official story? They don't discuss the mechanism of the collapse. They don't present a plausible explanation for how it began. Please identify how I am "by the book?
[indent][/indent]

Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 11 2011, 06:53 PM

blink.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 11 2011, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 10 2011, 11:53 PM) *
SanderO, take a closer look at that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT7mmmc-YY&feature=player_embedded

That's not glass or windows being blasted out, it's the facade itself being ripped apart at freefall speed.

As regards the dripping molten metal, lead requires a heat of 2400ºF to glow even close to the colour we see:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/34881-howstuffworks-show-lead-purification-video.htm

Copper at 2200ºF

http://www.copperconnection.com/page.html?id=8


I've flitted in and out of the thread to see if this was replied to.

S?

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 12 2011, 01:34 AM



blink.gif

Posted by: SanderO Jun 12 2011, 05:11 AM

One,

There is no such "thing" as free fall speed. Free fall is a rate of acceleration not a speed.

The facade was not ripped apart... virtually all of the facade was found in intact sections.. some bent from dropping and hitting the ground.. many distorted as they broke apart from one another.... though many did not.

What you are seeing is crushed building materials being forced out by the crush front.... ceiling tiles, concrete, carpet, GWB, glass... etc.

What we are observing is key to understanding. Explosions powerful enough to rip apart the facade columns but leave the core columns standing... I am assuming your theory is that the floors were completely exploded to this fine grained material an expelled only outward... no force up or in or down or to the side? The explosions neatly sent the floors flying through the windows and pretty much did no damage to the facade steel? Please explain what sort of explosives can do this? Just because you see air moving in jets carrying debris/dust does not mean it was created by explosions.

How were the bldg 7 floors destroyed? Why don't we see them shoot out?

I don't know what the metal dripping from the corner of the south tower. I suggested it could be from melted lead and copper caused by short and arcing and fires. Read this:

"Arc blast pressure

Electric arcs produce some of the highest temperatures known to occur on earth - up to 35000 degrees Fahrenheit, 19500 degree Celsius. This temperature is four times higher than the temperature on the surface of the Sun. The intense heat from an arc causes sudden expansion of air resulting in a blast. Copper expands during an arc flash event at a factor of 67000 times within a few milliseconds.

Because the chest and face area for most workers consists of nearly half square meter of surface area, the worker could easily be blown off his feets or somersaulted during intense arc flash explosion. As an example, 50 kA arc would provide enough pressure to propel a person standing 2 feet away from the arc source and weighting 75kg (170 lbs) with acceleration of approx 100 meters (330 feet) per second.

The arc flash blast energy or pressure is not currently addressed in IEEE 1584 or NFPA 70E. Ralph Lee's IEEE paper Pressures Developed by Arcs addresses arc blast phenomenon and provides the formula for calculating initial impulse force:
P = 11.58 x Iarc / D0.9"

This article refers to pressure but it also mentions extreme high temps from arcs cause by shorts. I don't know that this is what happened. But if there was a UPS in that corner this needs to be considered. There is no denying that metal is pouring out. We don't know what metal, what temperature, even how much... Wouldn't melted columns pour down inside themselves... hollow box columns? This is a mystery... But one corner with particular special structural implication with liquid metal and the conclusion is a "thermite attack"? Why THAT corner and not any others? What is your thinking about this oddity?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 12 2011, 09:39 AM

S, are watching the same video I've been linking to??

The "rip" through the centre of the facade is keeping up with the heavier falling debris. That is freefall speed, acceleration or whatever you want to call it, but it's freefall.
The rip is seconds ahead of the exterior visible collapse, so are you saying that the interior collapse is travelling at freefall speed?

That's a lot of "ifs" about the "UPS" SanderO. Until this is stated as fact, as far as I'm concerned it's still dripping molten metal with no obvious source of energy to create it. What do the floor plans say for that area?

As for the "one corner" of tower 2 being the only physically visible anomaly, there were also strange random flashes seen over a wide area down one face way below the top floors (most notably those random flashes that aren't so readily visible until pointed out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f52-g6Bu4Mc&feature=related

and here (though not as definitive):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4s&feature=related

The above are just a sample of the external visible anomalies. What was going on internally God only knows, but there were audio witnesses to explosions both inside and outside the building (particularly in the basement/lobby).

Don't forget the yet to be explained molten metal witnesses and extremely high temperatures recorded under Ground Zero for weeks (months?) afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI&feature=related

What caused this? It certainly wasn't office fires which would have been extinguished both by the collapse and the tons of dust on top starving it of oxygen. It had to be chemical related, no?

I think the problem here is that you write off (most of) these anomalies with possible explanations for what may explain them but by even my limited layman knowledge of the physics of the collapses, I smell a rat (demolition).

Demolition through weakened critical points in the building to mask it. Then, maybe the forces of gravity could do the rest.

What do you think was the "kickstart"?

Peace
OSS





Posted by: SanderO Jun 12 2011, 12:02 PM

One,

I believe that the collapse is not moving uniformly down inside the facade. We can't observe all four sides at the same time... Perhaps we could if we could if we had coordinated videos.

Even if you look at the video you embedded.. you can see that the collapsing debris CLEARLY overtakes the descending blasts of ejections coming from the facade. So the collapse progression is SLOWER than the collapsing debris. If it were at the same speed as the falling debris we see these "ejections" right at the leading edge of the falling debris outside the tower. We don't. Falling debris is moving faster.

Look again. And tell me if you don't agree.

I do not rule out the use of high temp "devices" in the initiation phase and these certainly could have descended to the bottom of the basement. It's even possible that these high temp devices included thermite or nanothermite placed on some key locations in the core where they could conceivably drip down through some of the shafts. The dispersed micro spheres seems to be the result of atomized melted steel... Could this be caused by the collapse of the top sections which were possibly attacked by NT or similar?... Dispersed from the violent collapse of the top section? I would think that if the liquid DID atomize up at 1200 feet it could be carried aloft and form micro spheres from surface tension and then cool. Metal micro spheres means HIGH temps melting the metal and some means to "atomize" it. But my suspicion is that both the high temps and melted metal in the sub basements and the iron mircro-spheres came from some process high up in the towers.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 12 2011, 09:26 PM

...a whole lotta energy spent splitting hairs and stating the obvious.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 12 2011, 10:31 PM

Look at these stills from the video:

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5323/wtc2freefall.jpg

We're talking a fraction of a second difference. It's actually keeping ahead of the falling debris on the adjacent face. The rip is a second+ below the outwardly visible collapse.
It's even ahead of what you claim is the "air" being pushed downwards at 200kph(?).

Isn't it a force that is separate from any gravitational force? "Air pressure"?



Why does the molten metal and high heat signatures recorded at the base of Ground Zero have to come from
"a process high up in the towers"? Why not throughout? The inner core? Elevator shafts? Mechanical rooms? The basement? Some of which explosive events were witnessed and felt.

Peace

OSS

Posted by: SanderO Jun 13 2011, 12:16 AM

Airspeed is not 200mph downward... it's about 200mph at the wind assuming it traveled 30 feet in .1 seconds. My hunch is that the air is seeking the path of least resistance which is laterally out the glass... not through the slab... that gets destroyed by the rubble after the air is displaced.

I am not 100% certain about this. I am describing what I see and what makes sense to me. Explosions don't make sense in the collapse phase.

High Temps

Assuming that the "attack" was up top to initiate a gravity collapse.. the high heat material would also descend to the basement along with all the other debris. What wasn't atomized I assumed found its way down... liquids flow down... so this melted high temp metal flowed down to the lowest point it could "find" and pooled there. If it was some sort of anaerobic reaction and it had whatever it required to continue... it likely would continue as long as it was surrounded by the "right" chemicals... iron and sulphur etc. Again I don't know. But I do know that the bottom of the structure showed no signed of being cut, burned or exploded. In fact many core columns were still standing 3 stories high with their tops sticking out of the rubble. I think that a high temp attack was possible and likely up top... at perhaps 12 columns of the core perimeter. If the FOS was 1.65 or so it would take destroying only the right 12 columns and the other core columns and facade columns at that level would rapidly overload and fail and the mass above it would drop!

Explosions

There were things in the building exploding as all the systems were un intense stress and there was fire making its was through the building... and if the jet fuel descended the shafts it would ignite them lower down as well. If there were NO explosions of things inside the building.... I would thing that very odd. there were 4 huge power stations on the mech floors and I am sure they had transformers exploding. What would you expect if a wide bodied jet slammed into a tower and there were no explosive or incendiaries pre placed?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 13 2011, 08:58 AM

SanderO

You don't need to post the same convoluted drivel over and over. You're not changing anyone's minds. We all know you can barely type the word explosives, no less admit that strategically placed explosives brought the Towers down. We can all go round and round and waste a lot of time. Why don't you try finding a new vocation? Instead of wasting your talents maintaining the status quo, you might consider finding something actually useful to do with yourself.



Posted by: Stangit Jun 13 2011, 02:05 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 9 2011, 08:30 PM) *
The high concentration of molten metal/extreme heat captured after the collapse certainly wasn't caused by aircraft fuel or office fires which would have been smothered and starved of oxygen with tons of dust.
"Gravity driven collapse" doesn't explain the above away.


The rubble pile burning at very high temps, and smoldering for 3 months, has always been very strange to me. I have heard explanations for this. The subway tunnels provided the oxygen flow, and the fuel were the
many combustibles including car gas tanks under the rubble pile. I have also read that thermate, would survive in an oxygen starved environment. Since it was discovered in the dust, and considering the longevity of the fires/smoldering or otherwise, this seems possible to me. What say you folks about this?


Posted by: SanderO Jun 13 2011, 02:16 PM

DYEW,

That sort of post is really not called for. I don't insult anyone and I expect that others conduct themselves the same. I don't know if I have changed many minds... but I have explained a fair amount about the structure of the twin towers and its inherent weaknesses.

I don't rule out that the collapses could have and been initiated with explosives or incendiary devices.. more likely. The implication of what I have found, is that the conspiracy to take the towers down may not have been as complex, daring and large... requiring lots of stealth and lots of time and precision... very high tech devices and so forth. If this concept is on the right track, then it would make the notion of an intended destruction of the towers more palatable to some who find the idea of planting explosives throughout the towers and blowing them up in a "sequence" to mimic a collapse hard to swallow.

There has been discussions about how would such a demo be carried out, explosives placed...wired... throughout the towers with no one noticing and no one talking. And where is the actual EVIDENCE of explosives? Haritt claims there were 4 tons of nano thermite based on the concentration in the 4 samples he studied. This a a small sample space with a large margin of error. But it does make it seem possible to "load" several tons of "devices" in the three towers with a few men and a few days / hrs. I think the twins could be collapsed with only 8 columns attacked... up top where the steel was about 2.5" thick on the webs of the heaviest core columns... and the facade columns were .5" wall thickness.

I would welcome a discussion on how the take the top down as we saw... I am not am a person with knowledge of explosives or incendiaries... so I can't compute how many or how big or where to place them etc. But I can predict that if you cut the beam stub outlookers attached to those 8 columns this will drop the core side of the floors. But this would have to be done I believe on 3-6 floors to drive the floor collapse we saw. But it would leave the core standing. So I believe the 12 columns were also "attacked" or weakened... as at least one set of 12 columns which supported 3 floors. Perhaps the heat from the melting attack on the beam stub outlookers provided enough heat to weaken the core columns so that buckling took place. The "horseshoe" column looks like they were buckled under high heat

And then there's the "eutectic" steel which was "eaten away" by some unknown process. That could be evidence of a thermite like attack. But this is seen on only fairly thin (comparatively) steel which if it was a column would come from the higher floors where the steel was thinner to begin with.

Whose time am I wasting that you are concerned about? Anyone who wants to spend time on understanding 9/11 allocates their own time. Perhaps trying to communicate with people who have closed minds is considered a waste of time. I'd like to think that the people who are in the truth movement have open minds. But many apparently don't.




Posted by: paranoia Jun 13 2011, 02:37 PM

dyew (and others) i have a suggestion: ignore mr.O and do not respond to him. he's made his position abundantly clear around here, as have those who disagree with his theories (which btw expose his bias), so consider him a polite techno-babbling troll, and as such - do NOT respond to him. even without our opposition, his faithful devotion to his flawed pet-theory is transparent and i doubt anyone reading here will (or has) fallen for it, so imo there really is no need to indulge him. unless you enjoy wasting time going in circles to get nowhere, dont feed him and instead help squelch him and his agenda into oblivion.

my 2cents...

Posted by: SanderO Jun 13 2011, 02:38 PM

Stangit,

I think you make excellent points and agree with them all except the subway tunnel providing oxygen. I suspect that the reactions did not require oxygen to produce the extreme heat and there was enough oxygen in voids to fuel "normal" combustion of materials which could burn.

Perhaps not only were the continuing to "react" and produce heat, but there was a lot of insulation provided by all the rubble around this.

I don't think these were anything like "normal" fires...

Posted by: SanderO Jun 13 2011, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jun 13 2011, 02:37 PM) *
dyew (and others) i have a suggestion: ignore mr.O and do not respond to him. he's made his position abundantly clear around here, as have those who disagree with his theories (which btw expose his bias), so consider him a polite techno-babbling troll, and as such - do NOT respond to him. even without our opposition, his faithful devotion to his flawed pet-theory is transparent and i doubt anyone reading here will (or has) fallen for it, so imo there really is no need to indulge him. unless you enjoy wasting time going in circles to get nowhere, dont feed him and instead help squelch him and his agenda into oblivion.

my 2cents...



So much for open discussion. Thanks for the characterization of a troll with a flawed pet theory. What I find strange about this comment and several others is that these posters seem so entrenched in their own beliefs that they cannot consider, discuss or debate... if you want to use that term... some of these points.

Why are so many "truthers" wedded to the idea that the twin towers were taken down with demolition devices and gravity played almost no part in their collapse? I have not diverged from the 911 truth position that the collapse likely was caused by demolition devices of some unknown type. Yet because I don't seem to "tow the truther line" that the entire event was a massive complex... high tech and rather huge operation... others are told by Paranoia, and others not to consider what I have revealed.

The fact is that whomever planned the destruction of the twin towers, understood their structure and exploited the weakness to release the stored PE of gravity... which is how every CD is actually done. It appears that in the case of the twins that because of their structural design, this result could be achieved by releasing a destructive mass (part of the towers themselves) which would drive down crush all the floors, have the facade peel away without bracing and any core columns which also survived topple as well from inadequate bracing. This is really not a theory by derived from the analysis of the structure.

Why is this called supporting the OCT or NIST when it has nothing to with this? Who is being "protected" by this analysis of collapse? Or perhaps who is being protected by NOT considering this analysis?

Any finally where are the manners of people who sling insults without a thought? What's the point of that? ...to intimidate or humiliate? At my age this is laughable. But it really doesn't reflect well on those who sink to this level.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 13 2011, 10:45 PM

QUOTE
Why are so many "truthers" wedded to the idea that the twin towers were taken down with demolition devices and gravity played almost no part in their collapse?


Why do you keep insisting that so many 'truthers' think that gravity played almost no part? No one here as ever claimed any such thing and you know it. Yet you keep making false claims about what other people say and think. Then you wonder why we're tired of your bs and don't want to play with you anymore.

Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 14 2011, 12:31 AM

“After all these months SanderO, it still seems you would like to have your cake and eat it too--you want it both ways.”

“I'm about done with you SanderO - you're yet another Truth Liter, pushing the OCT every chance you get.”

“dyew (and others) i have a suggestion: ignore mr.O and do not respond to him. he's made his position abundantly clear around here, as have those who disagree with his theories (which btw expose his bias), so consider him a polite techno-babbling troll, and as such - do NOT respond to him. even without our opposition, his faithful devotion to his flawed pet-theory is transparent and i doubt anyone reading here will (or has) fallen for it, so imo there really is no need to indulge him. unless you enjoy wasting time going in circles to get nowhere, dont feed him and instead help squelch him and his agenda into oblivion.”


Unjustifiedly and excessively harsh. Just because somebody puts forward a diluted version of 9/11 Truth orthdoxy does not necessarily make them guilty of diluting the truth itself.

It seems to me that SanderO has arrived at a (more nuanced, admittedly) working hypothesis of the tower collapses in the interest and pursuit of the truth - not at the expense of it. Apparently, not everyone agrees with his assessment of the tower collapses...which tends to be one of the natural outcomes of participating in an open discussion forum. But nobody can bring into question his intellectual honesty or integrity.

If you ask me (and even if you don't), many of the vanilla flavoured objections to the OCT need revision or even a complete overhaul. The credibility of the movement itself is being compromised, partly because so many 9/11 Truth purists refuse to accept any overlap whatsoever with the Offishy Story.

I see this happen all the time. For example, some Truthers have taken it upon themselves to attack P4T's analysis of the impossible flight speeds reached by the “hijacked” airliners, simply because they are paranoid that this line of logic might validate certain other zany conclusions such as the No Plane Theory. This type of attitude is not only pointless but also counter-productive and destructive for the Truth Movement as a whole. Instead we need to focus in sobriety on what the evidence is telling us and where it leads.

Yet, here we are, accusing SanderO of bias simply because his conclusions are NOT unduly influenced by the more conventional wisdom on the subject.

What I find intersting about SanderO's take on the tower collapses is that it seems to suggest that a plan far less elaborate and intricate may have been required to initiate a collapse than most people are aware. Any theory which demonstrates that the towers may have destroyed themselves naturally in the post-initiation phases will clearly have the Occam’s Razor advantage over more exotic explanations. That doesn’t mean SanderO must be right, but I think it should be a consideration.

Again, the discussion which flows from ideas that deviate so brazenly from the mainstream perspective can prove highly beneficial and instructive for someone like me, because I don’t possess the technical knowledge or expertise to criticise them myself. I can learn a lot by just watching a debate from the sidelines. So it amazes me that we are being encouraged not only by P4T members, but also moderators and administrators, to ignore someone who is (I dare say) equally or more qualified to comment than just about anyone else participating in the conversation.

Disappointing to see.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 14 2011, 02:28 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Jun 12 2011, 03:31 AM) *
Yet, here we are, accusing SanderO of bias simply because his conclusions are NOT unduly influenced by the more conventional wisdom on the subject.

What I find intersting about SanderO's take on the tower collapses is that it seems to suggest that a plan far less elaborate and intricate may have been required to initiate a collapse than most people are aware. Any theory which demonstrates that the towers may have destroyed themselves naturally in the post-initiation phases will clearly have the Occam’s Razor advantage over more exotic explanations. That doesn’t mean SanderO must be right, but I think it should be a consideration.

Again, the discussion which flows from ideas that deviate so brazenly from the mainstream perspective can prove highly beneficial and instructive for someone like me, because I don’t possess the technical knowledge or expertise to criticise them myself. I can learn a lot by just watching a debate from the sidelines. So it amazes me that we are being encouraged not only by P4T members, but also moderators and administrators, to ignore someone who is (I dare say) equally or more qualified to comment than just about anyone else participating in the conversation.

Disappointing to see.



SandersO maintains over and over again that various materials that undergo rapid disintegration, and then in the form of debris and
dust subsequently become dispersed and scattered in all directions, will contain and exert not only more KE than it had and did before
disintegration took place, but also will contain "same weight" as a means of downward pressure.

This of course flies against all reason, logic, rationality and common sense, but SandersO have chosen to ignore all objections to this
blatant nonsense he continuously try to promulgate, so hence the understandable desire to give up on him.

SandersO has never wasted an opportunity to tell all and sundry that he's an architect.

If i were an architect, i would shut-up about it, as no profession is more guilty of the visual pollution and 'uglification' we see everywhere
popping up in and around big and small cities, especially in the western world, and where any form for true aesthetics or ethics are sadly
missing.
"Glorified draftsmen" i would call them!
Only speaking 'in general' - obviously. wink.gif







Posted by: mrmitosis Jun 14 2011, 03:42 AM

Hey Mr Tamborine Man,

If you're referring specifically to the Federation Square monstrosity on the corner of Flinders and Swanston, I think you may have a point.

thumbdown.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 14 2011, 05:05 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Jun 12 2011, 06:42 AM) *
Hey Mr Tamborine Man,

If you're referring specifically to the Federation Square monstrosity on the corner of Flinders and Swanston, I think you may have a point.

thumbdown.gif


Hey Mr mitosis, (First now did i look up the meaning of that word. Not bad - or - pretty good!)

i once heard somebody describing 'it' as "visual wanking".
Been trying to come up with something to better describe 'it',
but must admit to being unable to do so - no matter how hard i tried!


SandersO wrote:

"Explosions

There were things in the building exploding as all the systems were un intense stress and there was fire making its was through the building...
and if the jet fuel descended the shafts it would ignite them lower down as well. If there were NO explosions of things inside the building....
I would thing that very odd. there were 4 huge power stations on the mech floors and I am sure they had transformers exploding. What would
you expect if a wide bodied jet slammed into a tower and there were no explosive or incendiaries pre placed?"

I'm placing special attention to his sentence: 'and if the jet fuel descended the shafts it would ignite them lower down as well.'

Can someone please explain to me how 'some' jet fuel can escape an explosion it would be an integral part of, as to what in fact caused and
created said explosion!
Would it be possible that the velocity of the explosion out in all directions, be slower than the velocity of the alleged escaping not yet ignited
jet fuel that somehow found its way to the elevator shafts??

Have any aviation person ever discovered a smaller or bigger pool of jet fuel on the ground after a devastating plane crash anywhere in the
world?

Please help me with this one!

Cheers





Posted by: KP50 Jun 14 2011, 06:50 AM

Here's my problem with SanderO :-

He has a theory about the towers came down - I have no problem with that.

He claims to have detailed knowledge about the construction of the towers - I have no problem with that.

He claims architectural knowledge greater than my own - I have no problem with that.

My problem is that he thinks that his theory (minimum explosives, gravity does the rest to simplify it) over-rides all the evidence that contradicts it. There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers. SanderO needs to educate himself if he believes it was all that jet fuel that did it - I cannot believe any long-term 9/11 researcher can believe that, he should do some real research. If I can be bothered I will find some old threads from the old Loose Change forums that analyses the eye-witness evidence of the explosions and proves absolutely that jet fuel cannot have done it - and also locates the explosions in key areas of the WTC to prevent easy evacuation of the towers by knocking out the communications and access systems. Having posted evidence to him in the past, I probably won't be bothered to do it again.

SanderO also seems to believe that the plotters would want to use the minumum of explosives when all the evidence points to the complete opposite - total and utter destruction of the towers and damage to the ground limited by no huge chunks of building landing intact. There is evidence of the ground shaking prior to the collapse commencing, indicating some extreme event in the basement levels. The incredible underground temperatures post-collapse support such an event.

I could detail many other places where SanderO glosses over the evidence that contradicts his theory, if you read this thread carefully you can find them yourselves.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 14 2011, 08:25 AM

KP50,

Of course I never wrote that "jet fuel did it"... it being cause the towers to collapse.

What IS the evidence that "the ground shock" before the towers collapsed? Can you cite this evidence please...

We don't exactly what the story is with the jet fuel either. For example, there is debate about if the actual planes which hit the towers were the commercial liners claimed. This raises the possibility that they planes delivered a more destructive payload... perhaps they were tankers and there was much more fuel onboard... or other devices. We don't know.

But even so is it reasonable to assert that ALL the fuel was igniting on impact? I don't know much about plane crashes but I'm not familiar with seeing massive fire balls when a plane does crash. There seems to be fire... but does all the fuel burn INSTANTLY?

Again, I am not saying that the collapses were caused by jet fuel or the ensuing office fires. In fact, I am saying that this likely could not cause the steel weakening to initiate the collapse which followed. I have written that the it is completely consistent with the evidence I have seen that the collapses or kick off of them was caused by some sort of pre placed devices... put there by whomever wanted them to collapse and knew how to do it.

By the way, KP... I don't "claim" to have knowledge of the construction of the towers. I DO have knowledge of their construction and have studied this and know as much about them as anyone. Of course you couldn't know what I know... you haven't seen my research... only my narratives here in this forum.

The charge that there is not enough energy to collapse and destroy the integrity of the material is an assertion. I've seen no proof to the contrary. Any engineer know that floors collapse when they are over loaded. So the question is how much would it take to collapse / fracture a typical WTC floor? They were designed to support 58# per square foot imposed on top of them... aside from their own weight. The floors themselves weighed north of 110# per SF. But there is a safety factor for the floors so that it is likely that the composite floors could actually support perhaps 5 times their working load of 58# SF... and that would be in the order of 300# per SF. And then there's the superimposed live loads... which even if 25% would add another 15# per SF per collapsing floor. So a single collapsing floor is a load which is double the safe working load.

If the factor of safety were 5 for the composite floors it would take as few as 3 floors weighing 125# per SF (375#/SF) to overcome a floor with a FOS of 5 x 38 = 290#. And this does not consider that this superimposed load was DYNAMIC and this multiplies the forces.

This simple calculation does not account for the apparent total destruction of the floors and their contents. It does show that it takes LESS than 3 collapsing floors to fail one it falls on... even it it is falling as broken rubble. This is indisputable math... basic arithmetic.

This means, and every engineer know this and... and everyone other intelligent person should be able to grasp this. So even if some of those floors break apart into dust or bits and spill over the side... there will still be an adequate mass to destroy the floor... and this process repeats itself as a progression to the ground.

We DO have to account from crushing and pulverization of the floors and their contents... of as Judy Wood asks..."where did the towers go?" And this is a more sophisticated and complex calculation and obviously not intuitive to even most intelligent people... including the posters at PFT.

I have tried to see what happened as a crushing and grinding of 10's of thousands of tons of material colliding with itself and the floors is destroys confined within a "chute" (the facade walls). I certainly don't expect the materials to be "taken apart" into recognizable components ONLY. Some materials take less force to destroy their integrity than others. Gypsum wall board crushes to dust and powder with very little force... much less that wood.... and certain less than light weight no stone aggregate concrete. But those slabs would not take all that much force to crush the "concrete" to fine powder and sand size particles... and there was lots of that on the ground. Friction can be very destructive... collisions between objects breaks them. Collisions with more force destroys them more... and there were 10-15 seconds of very energetic collisions taking place. Again, I have not done the math to explain this level of destruction and dissociation of materials in such an energetic environment. But it does not seem unreasonable. Yet others actually expect to see telephones and computers in the rubble pile. That seems rather an odd expectation to me.

What IS the evidence cited which falsifies that a 30,000 ton mass dropped on a twin tower floor ... spread out over the entire floor would not fail it? Where is the evidence that 90 of these floors collapsing and colliding as rubble would not crush themselves and their contents to fine grained dust? We DID see many mangled steel truss parts in the debris... perhaps not all of them. But heck... the trusses were made from 1/4" thk 2x2 angles and it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would be ripped to shreds. And a marble wall panel tumbling down 1000 feet would see itself turned into marble dust.

If the floor collapses only required 3 floors dropping on a single floor (and likely LESS considering the dynamic energy at play)... it seems that there was lots of PE left to crush the contents. I say SEEMS because I have not done the math. But others here, have no done it to show this WOULDN'T happen.

And so let me understand what the "explosive controlled demolition" is actually "attacking. Is it breaking the columns so that the floors they support collapse? If so what would happen to those floors? Would drop in a neat stack of slabs? Or was the attack to blast the floor slabs into pulverized dust? .... And also to fracture the steel frame so it fell apart? How do you fracture 10,000 all those joints and leave no evidence that they were exploded apart?

My so called "theory" makes more sense and is based on engineering AND the observations and allows for and posits as likely that "devices" were used to kick this collapse off. This is hardly the NIST or the official line. And of course who would expect the collapse of 110 story building to fall neatly inside its foot print. WTC 3,4,5,6 and even 7 to a lesser extent were with 100 feet and less of these towers. Their collapse HAD to destroy adjacent buildings... especially with the facade weighing 15,000 tons each falling away up to a few hundred feet. What building can survive an assault of this magnitude? Do people realize how weak the structures of typical building are compared to these forces?

I have shown with simple math that the 18,000 cubic yards of air between each floor has to be displaced in what was about .1 seconds which is the average speed of collapse. Air at the center of the 60' wide floor would have to travel 30' to reach the facade and would do so in .1 seconds which is 300 feet per second which is over 200 mph. This is a wind more powerful than most tornadoes... and if the air in center move 60' in .1 seconds it was traveling over 400 mph! This alone is an enormous destructive force... and would account for lots of pulverization and destruction of the integrity of the building contents.

So shouldn't we ask...Where did the air inside the towers go?... 18,000 cu yrds x 110 - 1,980,000 cu yards of it in 10 or so seconds. It was pushed out and down and drove the enormous billowing clouds of dust and debris which propagated from the base of the collapse.

Before we assert that everything or most of it is explained by explosions ... we need to account for the actual mechanics, physics, engineering and material performance under the forces we KNOW were present. And those forces seem to be sufficient... for the most part... without having to resort to massive amounts of explosions. This is not the NIST hooey... this is basic science. The NIST hooey is about sagging trusses. That didn't cause the collapse.

Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 14 2011, 08:58 AM

QUOTE
Of course you couldn't know what I know... you haven't seen my research... only my narratives here in this forum.


Has anyone seen your research? The only way to see it is to give up our email addresses to you. Sure makes it hard to discuss your 'research' in open forum. Why don't you post it here or start your own site or blog where you can post your work? Instead it seems, you'd rather post lengthy narratives on assorted forums and blogs that suck up lot's of time and energy and do little to bring light to the subject.


Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 14 2011, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 12 2011, 11:25 AM) *
Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?



It is your silly so-called "pancake theory" that was ridiculed many years ago. It's nothing personal.

Try to blink your eyelids as fast as you can 100 times and just for fun check out how many seconds it will take you!



Posted by: KP50 Jun 14 2011, 04:38 PM

SanderO, for someone who writes inordinately long posts, you are remarkably poor at reading short posts.

I wrote

QUOTE
There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers. SanderO needs to educate himself if he believes it was all that jet fuel that did it

He wrote

QUOTE
Of course I never wrote that "jet fuel did it"... it being cause the towers to collapse.

Pretty clear "it" is the explosions (OK, not great English I'll admit) but his misunderstanding gives him the chance to waffle some more.

QUOTE
Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?

Sensitive soul aren't you? It isn't ridicule, it is just correctly identifying you as a Truth-Lite time-waster.

Posted by: talayo Jun 14 2011, 06:20 PM

If the floors offer so little resistence, what force cause enormous steel cullumns at the central core to fracture?

To "breake" very large steel columns requires very significant amount of the floors attached to the columns.

This is one of the many examples of incongruent thinking!

Sanderso: I gess you are saying "mine is bigger than yours" with your comment about research. I have argue with your reasoning and respected your research.

I have no idea of who you are, so I have concentrated on what I consider lapses of logic withing your postings.

In my case, you have even less idea of who I am. A least I know you are an architect.

Why your absolute insistence that there were no explosives after the initial ones that caused the initiation of the collapse?

You have no real explanation for that claim. It may have been possible that the collapse would happened with the initial charges.

How does it preclude some further explosives?

There are lots of evidence of possible further explossions. In your case you have to prove a negative which in logical arguments is an impossibility.




Posted by: SanderO Jun 14 2011, 08:50 PM

I am not waffling and I have no interest in "publishing" my findings in a formal way... nor put it up on a web site and spend even more hours with people who don't want to look at the engineering issues.

I've posted some of my charts, drawings and diagrams which is what I term research findings on other sites which allow uploads from my computer. I am not hosting them on a website. And make them available to those who email a request. But I would appreciate comments when I do send them. Further, the more I get into the structure and "fact checking"... the more I refine my understanding... so my work is not ready for publication... Whatever....

The after the initiation phase, the collapse phase saw no columns crushed or fractured from axial load or damaged from explosives as far as I can see in the debris photos. The massive columns broke at their rather fragile splices when they experienced internal instability or were jostled and levered the joints opened. For example the 36' section of cc501 weighed as much as 55 tons .. floor 1-3 decrementing in wall thickness / cross sectional area by .125" per 3 floors.

from floor 1 to 110 in tons in 36' lengths (3 floors)

55.29
49.14
49.14
44.05
40.84
39.60
45.26
43.68
42.88
40.61
39.60
37.91
37.06
34.79
30.62
38.83
29.23
32.67
29.25
28.51
25.25
23.92
22.82
21.35
21.35
19.85
16.52
19.16 - top of Spire (total weight 977.6 tons)
14.34
13.92
13.27
12.10
10.12
9.06
7.73
6.18
4.54
0.39
1.11
1.98
1.28
0.44

The columns were "held in place" by the bracing and of course in erection before the bracing was in place by splices - plates welded to the webs and flanges of the columns. But the cross sectional area and strength of those welds.. could not prevent them from breaking apart if there was a moment created from some applied lateral load. And some of them which toppled over broke into 36' lengths when they hit the ground.

What I describe may seem to some like a pancake theory of collapse. The resemblance is that they both progress from top to bottom, driven by gravity. What I am proposing is not the COLLAPSE of each floor, but the destruction of each floor by superimposed live loads. It's conceivable I suppose that the initial superimposed loads might be large sections of floor slabs. But the idea of an entire floor slab dropping intact onto the one below is nonsense and could not possibly happen as this would involve the simultaneous destruction of several hundred truss seats. The floor destruction was caused by an "avalanche" of descending rubble. raining down on each floor consecutively.... not collapsing pancakes.

Finally I don't insist there were no explosives post initiation... I argue that they were not needed and what was collapsing were the floors (fracturing). The columns were not involved in this part of the destruction.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 15 2011, 01:22 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 12 2011, 11:50 PM) *
I am not waffling and I have no interest in "publishing" my findings in a formal way... nor put it up on a web site and spend even more hours with people who don't want to look at the engineering issues.


What I describe may seem to some like a pancake theory of collapse. The resemblance is that they both progress from top to bottom, driven by gravity. What I am proposed in not the COLLAPSE of each floor, but the destruction of each floor by superimposed live loads. It's conceivable I suppose that the initial superimposed loads might be large sections of floor slabs. But the idea of an entire floor slab dropping intact onto the one below is nonsense and could possibly happen as this would involve the simultaneous destruction of several hundred truss seats. The floor destruction was caused by an "avalanche" of descending rubble. raining down on each floor consecutively.... not collapsing pancakes.

Finally I don't insist there were no explosives post initiation... I argue that they were not needed and what was collapsing were the floors (fracturing). The columns were not involved in this part of the destruction.



So according to you, it's actually 'descending rubble raining down on each floor', which again simply forces the air between the floors
to be displaced laterally as powerful winds traveling more than 200 mph or 400 mph; and it is these powerful winds that 'account for
lots of the pulverization and destruction of the building contents'!! And furthermore, this would all take place faster than the blinking
of an eyelid, consecutively downwards from floor to floor, or as you say, in about .1 second intervals!!
Do you seriously believe that 'descending rubble' can course 'winds more powerful than most tornadoes', or are you trying to make
fun of us? Are you having us on?

Or if not, would you rather suggest that we all, including your good self, better completely ignore and forget about these paragraphs
of yours from the previous post, as we all would know well that neither descending rubble nor debris nor dust clouds can course winds
of any relevance?:


"I have shown with simple math that the 18,000 cubic yards of air between each floor has to be displaced in what was about .1 seconds which is the average speed of collapse.
Air at the center of the 60' wide floor would have to travel 30' to reach the facade and would do so in .1 seconds which is 300 feet per second which is over 200 mph. This is a
wind more powerful than most tornadoes... and if the air in center move 60' in .1 seconds it was traveling over 400 mph! This alone is an enormous destructive force...
and would account for lots of pulverization and destruction of the integrity of the building contents.

So shouldn't we ask...Where did the air inside the towers go?... 18,000 cu yrds x 110 - 1,980,000 cu yards of it in 10 or so seconds. It was pushed out and down and drove the
enormous billowing clouds of dust and debris which propagated from the base of the collapse."

Posted by: talayo Jun 15 2011, 02:07 AM

Any architect that designs a massive building where the collapse of three floors would cause the whole 110 floors to collapse should have his license revoked and put him in jail or a mental institution.

Over the life of a building like the WTC towers the possibility of the collapse of three floors must be taken into account.


A factor of 3 to cover eventualities for floor strength would not be approved in any sane world.

If I were to believe that I will probably avoid any very large building.

By the way with winds of the magnitude considered in the previous comments you would not see squibs, you will see an explosion of all the windows in all directions.

I believe that before an “apocalyptic” hurricane is created air will be compressed.

The building was design to withstand winds of 100 + miles per hour, in addition to that there had to be a safety margin, so it probably could withstand winds of 200 miles per hour.

So a significant amount of compression would occur. How will this affects the rate of descend?

Not considering air resistance is one thing, completely ignoring air compression is another.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 15 2011, 08:33 AM

OK Gents...

No engineer expects to have superimposed live loads of for example 350# /ft for a typical office occupancy. The loads dynamically applied to any high rise floor anywhere collapse those floors. That is a fact and an economic reality which drives these design decisions.

The collapse front and the "body of the avalanche" are different animals. Envision that a huge sack of rubble... of all different sized pieces weighing 30,000 tons dropping on an intact floor. When it does it fractures that floor and as it continues down it forces the air below it on the floor below outward... and this is pushed out of the way at speeds of up to 400 mph... and we see it as ejections coming from an entire row of windows. This is just ahead of the "crush front".

"Squibs" way down are another phenomena.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 15 2011, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 13 2011, 11:33 AM) *
OK Gents...

No engineer expects to have superimposed live loads of for example 350# /ft for a typical office occupancy. The loads dynamically applied to any high rise floor anywhere collapse those floors. That is a fact and an economic reality which drives these design decisions.

The collapse front and the "body of the avalanche" are different animals. Envision that a huge sack of rubble... of all different sized pieces weight 30,000 tons drops on an intact floor. When it does it fractures that floor and as it continues down it forces the are below it on the floor below outward... and this is pushed out of the way at speeds of up to 400 mph... and we see it as ejections coming from an entire row of windows. This is just ahead of the "crush front".

"Squibs" way down are another phenomena.



You're making absolutely no sense, SandersO.

The initial rubble or debris were not contained in a sack, but were spread out, and therefore would have hit the floor

as individual pieces weighing very little in comparison to your rather silly and idiotic 30,000 tons.

You're still refusing to address the objections that have been put forward to you, so it's now good-bye from me.

Wish you well with your future 'endeavours'.

Cheers





Posted by: talayo Jun 15 2011, 01:15 PM

Amen!

Posted by: SanderO Jun 15 2011, 03:58 PM

Gents,

You are showing no imagination. I am using an analogy. Why is this concept so difficult to get across?

Do you agree that any floor... a WTC twin tower floor... is designed to support a specific load. We call that the Safe Working Load

Do you agree that the Safe Working load is based on an allowable deflection. If you apply MORE than the safe working load the floor... or the beam will deflect MORE than the design deflection limit. Deflection is defined as a fraction - 1/360 or 1/720 meaning the deflection is 1/360th of the span. So for a 60 foot span with a 1/360 deflection requirement it will deflect 1/360 x 60' at mid span. And that's 60'/360 = 2" If it was 1/720 it would deflect 1". If you add more load it will deflect MORE, but not fail. There is a limit to how much you can load the floor or the beam... and that is called the YIELD STRENGTH.

"The yield strength or yield point of a material is defined in engineering and materials science as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically and will return to its original shape when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed some fraction of the deformation will be permanent and non-reversible.
In the three-dimensional space of the principal stresses (σ1,σ2,σ3), an infinite number of yield points form together a yield surface.

Knowledge of the yield point is vital when designing a component since it generally represents an upper limit to the load that can be applied. It is also important for the control of many materials production techniques such as forging, rolling, or pressing. In structural engineering, this is a soft failure mode which does not normally cause catastrophic failure or ultimate failure unless it accelerates buckling."

Then there ULTIMATE STRENGTH

"Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often shortened to tensile strength (TS) or ultimate strength,[1][2] is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before necking, which is when the specimen's cross-section starts to significantly contract. Tensile strength is the opposite of compressive strength and the values can be quite different.

The UTS is usually found by performing a tensile test and recording the stress versus strain; the highest point of the stress-strain curve is the UTS. It is an intensive property; therefore its value does not depend on the size of the test specimen. However, it is dependent on other factors, such as the preparation of the specimen, the presence or otherwise of surface defects, and the temperature of the test environment and material.

Tensile strengths are rarely used in the design of ductile members, but they are important in brittle members. They are tabulated for common materials such as alloys, composite materials, ceramics, plastics, and wood.

Tensile strength is defined as a stress, which is measured as force per unit area. For some non-homogeneous materials (or for assembled components) it can be reported just as a force or as a force per unit width. In the SI system, the unit is pascal (Pa) or, equivalently, newtons per square metre (N/m²). The customary unit is pounds-force per square inch (lbf/in² or psi), or kilo-pounds per square inch (ksi), which is equal to 1000 psi; kilo-pounds per square inch are commonly used for convenience when measuring tensile strengths....

Brittle materials

Brittle materials, such as concrete and carbon fiber, are characterized by failure at small strains. They often fail while still behaving in a linear elastic manner, and thus do not have a defined yield point. Because strains are low, there is negligible difference between the engineering stress and the true stress. Testing of several identical specimens will result in different failure stresses, this is due to the Weibull Modulus of the brittle material.

The UTS is a common engineering parameter when design brittle members, because there is no yield point.[3"

THERE ARE LIMITS to what a structural element can support. And this applies to composite floors (slabs) and all their components.

My point is that if dynamic loads exceeding the limits of the floor slabs are applied .. the floors MUST shatter. This is not MY theory... this is settled engineering. I believe that for the twins floors... the mass of 3-6 floors descending on a single floor will exceed that limit... and it doesn't matter if it is applied as thick "pancake" or a collection of marbles... or sand for that matter. It can be a collection of building parts and building contents... even liquid! A cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. And there were huge water storage tanks up at the Mech floors.

Why would anyone dispute this?

You can dispute that the mass to overload the floors was present... that it was more than 3 - 6 floor masses but you can't dispute the basic engineering. That is voodoo science.

This is NOT an attack of the truss seats enabling the slab to drop as a single "pancake"... It is the shattering and crushing of the floors into a destructive rubble which becomes the over load. Yes some of this mass is pushed out the windows.. and some of it is pushed into the core shafts... But MOST of it go DOWN... straight DOWN and destroys the next floor.

You can ask how the materials end up so crushed and into such small sized rubble. Good question. But that, I believe is explained by the energetic collisions of the avalanche and can be somewhat calculated (I can't do those calcs.)

Nuff said for today... study up on some structural engineering and materials performance.

Posted by: Tamborine man Jun 16 2011, 02:39 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 13 2011, 06:58 PM) *
Gents,

You are showing no imagination. I am using an analogy. Why is this concept so difficult to get across?

You can ask how the materials end up so crushed and into such small sized rubble. Good question. But that, I believe is explained by the energetic collisions of the avalanche and can be somewhat calculated (I can't do those calcs.)

Nuff said for today... study up on some structural engineering and materials performance.




Ok. Please allow me to do a kind of 'Colombo' gig - who, just before leaving, stopped at the door and with a finger to the
forehead turned around and said: "Oh, just one more thing"!

There's nothing more sad than watching somebody dressing themselves up with borrowed feathers. It is as sad as watching
a stuffed up self-important person prancing and strutting around with a badly fitted and badly matched hairpiece, or 'wig', on
his head!

Most of us, both in this forum and on similar forums, have over the years probably studied with great attention to detail all
the various video clips available showing from all angles the destruction and disintegration of the two towers and building 7.

It is the contention by some of us that the destruction of the towers has absolutely nothing to do with load bearings of floors,
nor tensile strengths, nor truss seats, nor heated or melting steel, nor jet fuel, etc. etc.. - That talking about this, would be a
completely waste of time and energy.

We think that the forces at play on the towers far far exceed what one would observe normally acting on a collapsing building.
We think that those responsible for the demise of the towers are laughing with mild amusement at any structural engineering-
or materials performance reports!

We would like to find out what they had up their 'sleeves' ....what they had as 'catalyst' to finally decide to go ahead with this
rather 'dangerous' project, that apparently was able to deceive more than half the world.
We would like to know whether rumsfelds "known unknowns" was "inspired slip-of-the-tongue" stuff, or just plain dumb drivel!!
Etc. etc.!

Cheers

Posted by: SanderO Jun 16 2011, 07:16 AM

Colombo,

I suppose that is the fundamental stumbling block... is there is enough energy locked up in the structure to destroy it? I believe there is. I believe that to get it going it DOES need some energy inputs to fracture the upper part to get that stored PE in those floors to turn to KE and do the job.

But this becomes some sort of "theoretical" reductionist physics problem on a macro level. The problem however is that the destruction of the frame and the "pulverization" or rubblie-ization are taking place at the micro level and this becomes a huge computational problem.

An analogy to what this sort of problem / analysis might be is consider the way the Amazon rain forest works... the weather or the oceans. These are vast complex structures which produce macro observable outputs... but those outputs are the result of millions of micro processes. And there are layers of the processes /interactions feeding back and forward to produce the observed macro result.

Scientists who study the huge complex system know for example, that small changes on the micro level can work there way up into larger changes in the performance of a complex system.

Please read this to get an understanding of what a complex system is and how modeling them is so difficult:

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

What I have done essentially is to look a bit under the surface of the even at the structure and discovered where some of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities are (part of the complex system). Not only is what I found "true" and simple settled engineering, but it PRECISELY the kind of information that ANYONE would use and need to destroy the towers.

The truther approach essentially is some like this... WOW look at how energetic these destruction was. Look they came down top to bottom... never seen that ever ever. Look the planes did no knock them over so they "blew them up"... Look fire cannot melt steel (we didn't see all that much "melted steel" by the way)... most was cold and hauled away a bit mangled from the collapse)... WOW look at massive steel which was flying out at 70mph and landing in a radius of 1400 feet from each tower (Gage) This is false (draw the circle and look for yourself) , however. WOW Look it came down too fast and too symmetrically... All this and other WOWs which leads to the SIMPLE explanation.... explosives destroyed the towers.

There are researchers who are continuing to carefully study and analyze the ACCURATE observation on those hundreds of videos and thousands of still images. You can study and view some of this work at:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
http://femr2.ucoz.com

But then again the truth movement has already concluded... we were lied to and therefore the towers were taken down with explosive controlled demolition and according to Gage speaking for AE911T and presumably all signers of his petition there is no need to drill into and study the structure of the twin towers.... or these signers think AE911 did has already done that - they haven't. In fact, Gage has a "litmus" test of "beliefs" one must have to work in and be on their board. Literally.

The truth movement has devolved into a "you are with us, or against us" approach. Lovely.

I don't give a damn and continue to study the mechanisms for structural failure and disintegration of the materials. This has NOTHING to do with NIST's positions or the OCT... it is basic research providing understanding and let the chips fall where they may... something AE911T claims it wants but clearly doesn't in some cases (because it would make him/them look like they don't know what they were talking about in some cases... and they don't).

At first I when I discovered some of the errors in the factual "evidence" statements I naively believed that these were simple errors, oversights and would be corrected and explained as to how the error was made. But NO!... their approach is to IGNORE and in some cases to RIDICULE those who point out that your "research findings", positions and "science" are shaky. This reaction has now led me to believe that there may be INTENT in this peddling of the "shock and awe" case they make That's another level of discussion). But perhaps there is ego and self delusion in play and they would face embarrassment. Who likes to be wrong? And since these are the most published and most prolific and most referenced and most "respected" "scientists" in the truth movement... facing the fact that you are wrong is pretty humbling at least (remember Jones and his "smoking gun evidence of the "diagonal cut" column?). Not so easy to stand on the shoulders of 1,500 architects who TRUST your underlying work (but most have never studied it) and misrepresent... or IGNORE basic engineering.

We've seen now how some "truthers" have been discredited by trashing the sound work of CIT. Do we now need to revisit their "other work" findings, evidence, conclusions and statements in light of this? I think so!

Where is a single study from AE911T about failure of the composite floors? Where is a single study from AE911T about the factor of safety? Where is a single study from AE911T comparing the buildings destroyed by (CDs) they show on video as bench marks for comparison? There are no such studies.

As I began my personal quest to understand what happened, I used the little bit of understanding I have as an architect about structure and discovered that the destruction was a very complex event. But I was able to drill deeper into this than most are capable, willing to or care to. And my findings fly in the face of the main stream 911 Truth movement AND the OCT.

Ironically not being a supporter of the OCT I would have hoped that the truth movement would reconsider some of its claims... (the collapse phase) and focus on the phase where there was most likely "energetic" engineered assistance which initiated the Phase II gravity driven collapse. This "energetic" engineered assistance in Phase I flies in the face of the OCT/NIST findings narrative and aligns with the Truth movement's conceptual position. It's impossible to have a natural event lead to an "energetic" engineered assistance in Phase II. Yet instead, I see endless debate and ad hominem attacks all related to the science of Phase II that I have presented. And this is a further distraction from solving Phase I.

PFT is actually not the place to discuss these matters as one presumes the members are mostly pilots and discussions of structure is a bit out of their comfort zone. This is understood. But importantly anyone with any (or no) qualifications or experience is welcome to engage in discussion in this forum... And thanks for that. I appreciate that PFT allows these discussions which are not aviation issues. We learn from reading and exchange of ideas!

But of course 9/11 itself was a very complex event and all four 9/11 sites involve aviation issues and so the planes or no planes.. fuel or no fuel are all part of the discussion... which then DOES involve engineering, physics, materials science. Perhaps this is analogous to designing an aircraft which requires the cooperation and coordination of multiple disciplines... (complexity).

I certainly DON'T have all the answers about how those towers were destroyed as they were. There are many questions which the observations raise which MUST be answered. But I have shown that the FOS is about 1.65 for the steel for example much less than the number presented constantly by 9/11 Truth advocates., I have explained the collapse of the "Spire" with settled engineering and likely not "explosives". I have demonstrated a plausible explanation for the ejections streaming from the windows ahead of the collapse front from pressurized air. I have shown that the furthest heavy steel material landed less than 450 feet from the North Tower.. (not 600)... and likely peeled off and toppled over and was not exploded at 70 mph. These have now become "inconvenient" truths for the "9/11 Truth Movement's" leaders, main researchers and most vocal proponents.

It's understandable that these "revelations" are being treated much the way the ones any "whistle blower" presents. Going against the grain is never easy. But in this case it feels like the right and ethical thing to do. When I am proven wrong, as I have been on many points... I accept, revise and carry on.

Understanding is achieved from careful informed accurate technical observations and thorough knowledge of the applicable science and engineering to explain them.


This paradigm makes it difficult for most of us... but it doesn't remove our outrage and belittle our understanding and belief in our own observations. But as (the jerk) Rumsfeld said:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."


And the (creepy) St. Ronny said:

"Trust but verify."

Posted by: SanderO Jun 16 2011, 04:32 PM

Would anyone like to take a stab at the following which I sent to Richard Gage this morning:

1. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that massive steel was observed at 70 MPH landing 600 feet from the towers and that the steel and debris was spread in a 1400' diameter.. or does he say radius of the each tower? I will have to transcribe his words from the recent interview on Irish TV... but this statement or variation of it has been made repeatedly.

2. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that a gravitation collapse (whether or not one believes this took place) of the towers... post it being initiated by ANY mechanism/cause would be other than "symmetrical" as we observed.

3. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the dust around the WTC site was 4-12 inches thick for up to a mile.

4. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the dust cloud which propagated away from the collapse/destruction of the three towers was a "pyroclastic (like) flow and any different from what is seen in any collapse/destruction of any massive structure.

5. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that a structural failure would not progress though a period of stress redistribution showing relatively small deformation to the naked eye progressing to the point exceeding the residual strength (factor of safety) of the remaining structural members and then display a rapid "onset" of collapse or "global failure".

6. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the "Spire" collapsed from explosions and would not collapse on its own from "Euler Buckling". (Why explode a column 936' tall which would fall on its own?)

7. Provide the provenance and the support for the implied position that we should NOT expect to hear explosions in a building which had been struck by a jet liner and had fuel enter and start multiple fires, and destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

8. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the Factor of Safety of the steel was 3 - 5 and not approximately 1.65 (I have a detailed FOS study which demonstrates that the FOS was 1.65)

Posted by: amazed! Jun 17 2011, 12:55 PM

Would you provide provenance and support for your innuendo that raw jet fuel did whatever it is that you think it did, or that it existed at all?

There are others too, but I'm in a hurry.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 17 2011, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
7. Provide the provenance and the support for the implied position that we should NOT expect to hear explosions in a building which had been struck by a jet liner and had fuel enter and start multiple fires, and destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.


Wasn't this discussed before (well, the jet fuel loads/spread)?
That's a nice strawman S!

QUOTE
NCSTAR1-5 E.8.2
Most of the jet fuel in the fire zones was consumed in the first few minutes after impact, although there may have been unburned pockets of jet fuel that led to flare-ups late in the morning


A reminder on the explosions witnessed and felt in the basement of WTC1 among other posts on the initial damage/experiences..

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&st=0

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=10790091

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=10790108

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=10790123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYhLLUXc-9I

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=10790123

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
This image was also posted showing the lay-out of the elevators:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/319414002.png

It does show how over simplistic my image was but the problem remains that there are only 3 shafts leading to the basement. The main one being the central freight elevator 50. And that one had a survivor in it.

Another poster repeats my question in that how could the fuel, travelling laterally, suddenly come to fall straight down the shafts, especially in "droplet" form? Within seconds?

A very good post is also made on the ignition properties of jet fuel.

Sorry, doesn't add up.


Your reply was a bit wishy-washy:

QUOTE (SanderO)
My expertise is not fire, explosives, chemistry and so forth, so I am venturing into territory that I have only a layman's understanding. The plane strike deliver a massive blow, the building swayed back and forth, thousands of pounds of jet fuel which has enormous energy crashed into and got inside the building and likely much of the interior where the plane struck was destroyed including the elevator and HVAC shaft enclosures. I think it is reasonable to "believe" that some of this fuel made it down the shafts and did explode and cause fires.

Yet there may have been other secondary explosions of unknown cause. And certainly one occurring before the plane hit could not be caused by the plane and if this is true it had enormous implication for a different story that the official one


I'm very much a layman like yourself S, but I actually read the links posted in any debate. Maybe you could do the same?

Later.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 17 2011, 05:58 PM

I don't know how much fuel entered the building and the damage it did. Apparently NIST claims it burned for several minutes... What is the basis for that statement? And regardless, even if true, I am not proposing the fuel as the cause of anything other than igniting other fires or perhaps causing things to explode such as transformers.

I don't think and fires burning for a few minutes would cause the columns to buckle.. and it didn't... nothing buckled or failed for an hour!

We did see some extensive fires move through the towers after the plane strike. When the top of WTC "collapses" (or whatever word you want to use.. there was a huge "bubble" of flames coming out (don't know the word).. indicating that there were fires at that level at the time.

I've speculated that there could have been and likely was some sort of engineered attack .. not the plane cause fires which initiated the collapse. But it is conceivable to me... though I don't know the technology that pre planted incendiaries would have been set off by the fires from the planes... timing being not critical. What was critical is that if this "works" eventually those incendiaries would cut through the steel leading to a progressive column failure, buckling and collapse of the top section down onto the lower one.

If also conceivable that the plane was not the ones we were told they were and could have delivered a payload we don't know about.

But the collapse appears to careful observers to be the floors being destroyed not the columns being destroyed. And to destroy the entire floors would seem to require extensive and massive explosives place throughout the foot print and going off at about .1 second intervals. I suppose that would be a possibility... but it seems rather hard to believe that sophisticated demo planners would attempt this.

And why did the top of WTC 2 tilt over? Was that instead an attack of the columns which went bad?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 17 2011, 06:06 PM

QUOTE
And why did the top of WTC 2 tilt over? Was that instead an attack of the columns which went bad?


Because the planners wanted to drop the Towers toward the Plaza ie east side of the complex, where they had the most empty space (never mind those little buildings down there) and avoided blocking the roads around the perimeter of the complex as much as possible.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 17 2011, 06:29 PM

The elevator shafts were only diagrammed in a 2 D section in the link an d were only the LOCAL and Freight elevators..all the large express elevators are not shown and they were almost 50% of the elevators and more than 50% of the area of shafts.. If you examine the shafts in "3 dimensions" you will see that there was some interconnection of all the local backing up to Car #50 . Express shafts going from 1-78... for cars 12-17 were connected /open to car #50's shafts as were car 45, 46, 17 and 49. Shaft 12-17 were 900 SF alone with the shaft of car #50 and the 45,46,47 and 49 being about 440 square feet.

If fuel entered the other side at floor 79 elevator motor rms above shafts 16-23 these were also 900 SF of open shaft to floor one which connected to all the local shafts on that side.

So ALL of the 50 shafts it is possible that fuel entering on 79 could migrate to 38 other shafts. Since the local shafts were stacked up only those local shafts in the lowest to story tier would go to floor 1.. with the local shafts in the middle tier going down to floor 44 and in the upper tier to floor 78. But the only continuous vertical shafts reaching up to 79 were car #50 and 12-17.

I certainly don't know how much fuel may have gone into those shafts... or whether it was ignited or anything about its behavior. I can only describe the path that existed for liquid to flow down through the tower.

Were there reports of fuel in the stairs? They also lead from top to bottom. I have not examined the reports of people using those stairs.

I also don't know how much fuel was consumed in the flare up at the instant of the plane strike... or again how much fuel was delivered. We can only know/guess at the amount that would be in the tanks if those were the actual commercial flights... and there is good reason to believe that those were not the stated commercial flights.

I don't know much about the fuel from the planes... but it is not what I believe initiated the collapse. I do believe it could cause things in the building to explode however.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 17 2011, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 17 2011, 06:06 PM) *
Because the planners wanted to drop the Towers toward the Plaza ie east side of the complex, where they had the most empty space (never mind those little buildings down there) and avoided blocking the roads around the perimeter of the complex as much as possible.



LOL.... well that is an answer.... but one I hardly can take seriously. Let me see... they planned WT2's top to fall off to the EAST not the north onto the plaza?... and only the top 32 stories and only a portion of those stories? And then went it went all wrong they pushed the abort button and blew the top up?

You're not serious are you?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 17 2011, 07:19 PM

Demolition 101:

QUOTE
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

Posted by: SanderO Jun 17 2011, 07:54 PM

Thank DYEW... for that explanation. But it does not apply to the collapse of the twin towers.

The twin towers structure as you should know was a core of 137'x87 feet of 47 columns in a 6x8 grid with the 3rd row having only 7 columns. Then there were the 236 closely spaced (40" OC) facade columns.

To topple the twin towers one would have to destroy almost all the facade columns on the side you wanted it to topple and about 12 of the core columns on that side as well. Like cutting into the side of a tree trunk. This would leave the remaining columns on the other side trying to carry all the weight of the building with a fair amount of it cantilevered... and the bracing beams and connections were not designed to support that load as a cantilever. Bit if they could then the top might act like the top of the tree trunk above the slice and fall toward the slice... or in the case the side where all the columns were destroyed.

What we did see is that the damage... of whatever cause... did destroy columns on the east side and being a progressive redistribution of the axial load on that side to the less or undamaged side. When enough columns were no linger functioning and the remaining ones were stressed beyond their yield strength.. beyond the factor of safety.. the columns on the west side began to buckle. The east columns offered little to no resistance and so the top section began to DROP and TILT... Tilt to the side with little to no resistance... and buckle the columns on the west side... where the famous horseshoe columns and other buckled columns were from. The east side drop of a one column height of the core - 36 feet would account for about 20° of tilt of the east side's lower section as it dove in toward the core on a virtual hinge the the west side of the core... the last remaining columns to buckle. At this time the two masses were engaged in a mutual destruction... top's bottom being destroyed by colliding with bottom's top on the east side. This rapidly fractured the entire upper frame which then "poured into" / onto the top of the lower section... most of it. some of it continued straight down over the side to the east and landed no more than a hundred to two hundred feet from the east facade.

For the entire top to continue to go over... the hinge would have to support rotation (all the load of the upper 30 stories) and the entire upper 30 stories would have to remain rigid. Since he hinge location was INSIDE the tower as the west edge of the core.. a rigid rotating and supported at that hinge location would rotate INTO the lower section since the hinge was 87' + 35' or 123' from east facade which about 10 stories. So IF the impossible theoretical rotation continued the lower 10 stories would end up side ways on top of the foot print with about 20 stories or 240 feet outside the footprint. Now thus rigid block on its side having rotated 90° would then have to hinge off of something to support the mass... or else the top would continue rotating about that "rigid hinge" until the top had gone a full 180° and was not crashed through the lower section AND the hinge of course and be at about 48th floor. Of course this is impossible.

The top's initial rotation caused it to collide with and destroy the top of the lower section... it's bottom.. slow the rotation and gravity took over as the top fractured apart.

No way in hell could that top rotate over and fall off as one unit. It would have to hinge off the facade on the east.. the one which we saw with all the fire.. and the west side would have to rotate UP... we did not see that.

Look carefully at the top tilting and then disappearing "into the bottom". That's what I see.

I have created a cartoon sequence of the collapse if you want to see it... email or PM me with your email address.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 17 2011, 10:38 PM

Given all of the factors I linked to, which side of the scale would you say had more weight?

That the alleged fuel load in the scale of things would not and could not cause multiple explosions (some of them immediate), http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash.jpg (esp as per WTC2), spread throughout the floors to cause more multiple explosions, dissipate into a droplet effect down shafts (immediately remember) to destroy steel doors, knock down walls and "destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems" (and according to NIST have enough umph to "buckle steel" and cause the collapse), cause http://www.ae911truth.net/videos/gallery/MoltenMetalFlowsatGrPFC.wmv, keep ground zero hot for months or should we just accept wild speculation (and exaggeration) fitted around a theory or do we agree that fuel fire isn't the culprit?






Posted by: talayo Jun 18 2011, 01:24 AM

The Richard Roth Telegram
A telegraph from the architectural firm Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, was distributed to reporters on February 14, 1965. The telegraph was in response to claims by real estate baron and Lawrence Wien that the design of the Twin Towers was unsound.

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

?????

Posted by: SanderO Jun 18 2011, 07:18 AM

Richard Roth was referring specifically of the tower's design to resist wind shear. I worked for and know Richard Roth by the way from 1970... this is of no consequence. if you understand the quote he mentions "stiffness" and that the towers because they were a 209 foot vertical beam... it has nothing to do with axial loading or column strength

The twins presented a challenge to designers because of the huge wind loads they would have to resist.

The tower's design was radical because in the traditional frame tower there is an overall grid of steel... as in the Empire State Building where I also have worked in flr 74 and again of no consequence... the twins had only a core and 236 columns at the facade. The rigid grid of the typical high rise frame was replaced with lightweight composite floors which were made from manufactured assemblies off site. This provided a column free office space. The trusses would brace the facade.

The concept was that the stiff facade of 236 columns would act like a tube... a cantilevered beam anchored to the ground which was rigid on its own and did not require diagonal bracing or heavy masonry (as with the ESB) to make the facade stiff and resist the wind. Heavy means expense. The "wall" of the tube was not rigid enough and so it required the floors to stiffen it (certainly at the center).

The towers design turned out to be not sufficiently stiff however. Wind tunnel tests were performed... the first time for a high rise building and it was found that the frame would flex too much... not fall over... not fracture... but that it would flex and sway in the wind. This would also stress the thousands of connections of the steel in the frame and had to be limited and make it uncomfortable for use.

They also conducted blind tests with humans to see how much motion was noticeable and tolerable to work in. They then "tuned" the design by using the rigidity of the core to provide the stiffness that the facade alone could not provide. This was done using visco-elastic struts which connected the bottom chords of the trusses to the columns at 80"OC to the column on each side of the truss seat. If you've seen the plan you can see these as diagonal members at the facade connected to the trusses. The members would act elastically to absorb some of the energy, motion of the facade from wind... and use the stiffness of the core. They were like the shock absorbers in your car... 60 per side per floor. The core side of the trusses were supported by a continuous (spliced) beam with truss seats and then connected to the 24 perimeter core columns with beam stub outlookers of up to 32" in length.

The towers' design was radical in many ways and the most was the open office space, truss supported composite floor concept which were required to dampen the flex from wind shear. The stiffness of the material in the dampers was selected to allow the maximum allowable movement FOR COMFORT of the occupants. They had a cycle life which I don't recall, but obviously could be replaced on some sort of maintenance schedule.

The economics was a major consideration with respect to the twin towers. Traditional construction techniques were prohibitively expensive and so the "factory" assembly approach was employed. The towers were built at LOWER than costs per SF for high rises because of this and it enabled the justification of their size... which the PANYNJ would see in revenue from increased rent / occupancy per SF of the overall site.

The factory production line assembly techniques required standardization of parts to a certain extent such as the floor assemblies which were manufactured off site in only a few configurations.. 60' spans. 60 foot with diagonal cut corners, 35' spans and 35 foot spans with a transfer "girder" (trusses) to support the corner assemblies. The towers from the perimeter belt channel supporting the trusses on the core side to the facade were an "erector set" project. The facade only changed by the thickness of the wall of its columns.

The designers chose to offset the facade panel assemblies vertically which were also manufactured off site. The offset strengthened the facade's ability to resist WIND SHEAR by having no continuous horizontal joints at the facade... with only 3 column splices every 30 feet and 20 feet with no column splices. 10,20,10,20,10....

Except...

The mechanical floors were a different animal altogether. Mechanical floor facade panels DID have a continuous horizontal joint at the top and bottom of each mechanical floor's panels joining to the tenant floors. The mechanical floor facade panels then were "beefed up" in wall thickness and cross section area with heavier spandrels too... they were wider than 14" above and below to make this facade stiff without the reliance on a membrane effect that the staggered panels above and below would provide. The mechanical floors also had heavier superimposed dead loads than the tenant floors and so their floors were thicker concrete and supported on steel wide flange beams... as would be done in a traditional frame. They also had 16 columns set about 8 feet in from the facade.

The towers were described as Vierendeel trusses. "A truss consists of straight members connected at joints. Trusses are composed of triangles because of the structural stability of that shape and design. A triangle is the simplest geometric figure that will not change shape when the lengths of the sides are fixed.[1] In comparison, both the angles and the lengths of a four-sided figure must be fixed for it to retain its shape." A Virendeel truss is "a truss where the members are not triangulated but form rectangular openings, and is a frame with fixed joints that are capable of transferring and resisting bending moments. Regular trusses comprise members that are commonly assumed to have pinned joints, with the implication that no moments exist at the jointed ends. This style of truss ...is rare due to higher costs compared to a triangulated truss.

The utility of this type of truss in buildings is that a large amount of the exterior envelope remains unobstructed and can be used for fenestration and door openings. This is preferable to a braced-frame system, which would leave some areas obstructed by the diagonal braces."

So all the "stiffness" of a vierendeel truss is in the rigidity of the connections. The spandrels and the 3 column facade assemblies acted as vierdeel trusses and the core itself was a vertical virendeel truss or space frame (3 dimensional).

The take away about a truss... is that when one member is removed there is a load redistribution to the remaining truss members... and this creates "asymmetrical" loading which can lead to twisting and torquing and internal instability of the members themselves... and even progress to a global failure in some cases.

This is again were the factor of safety comes into play and why it is so critical. The towers may have been designed to be stiffer than most towers... (I doubt that claim... but they were stiff enough)... and the design DID allow punctures or partial facade destruction to not critically (fatally) affect axial load carrying capacity and wind shear to some extent because of load redistribution and the FOS.

But the towers' weakness turns out the be those composite tenant floors which were "suspended" between the core and the facade and which themselves were designed to carry only 58#/SF axial load. No one expected sufficient excess loads to manifest on a tenant floor. But the reality is they WERE the ticking time bomb which could take the towers down if a means were determined to "drop" the threshold mass on a high tenant floor. Without the floors and bracing the columns fell like pick up sticks.

A means was found and they collapsed.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 18 2011, 07:30 AM

QUOTE
I have created a cartoon sequence of the collapse if you want to see it... email or PM me with your email address.


Quit the excuses and get a http://www.photobucket.com/ account.

If you know how to attack docs to email, uploading to Photobucket will be no problem.

At this point, your self imposed limitations are making it hard to believe you have anything that supposedly backs up your NIST lite claims.


Posted by: SanderO Jun 18 2011, 08:44 AM

I am not interested in a photo bucket web site for my work. What is your problem DYEW of providing and email? I have sent this material to many people via email... including several from PFT.

What not email if you are interested?

I don't have "NIST light" claims and I do have lots of work/research presented in drawings, charts and tables. I have produced those to assist ME in understanding the structure and the destruction. My work is ongoing and so I don't feel it makes sense to publish preliminary work and in some cases work which has not been reviewed by other engineers... although some scientists at the 9/11 free forum have seen it and no one has discredited what they saw.

I am prepared to share this preliminary work with interested parties. You seem to be intent on finding fault in my work... and I don't object to close scrutiny. But that would require you to actually LOOK at it and that is something that you refuse to do for some unstated reason and instead mis-characterize me and my work. This reflects on you, not on me or others who wish to not consider what I have to offer.

Do I care? Not really. People can choose to hold whatever beliefs they want and to be in some cases willfully ignorant when the possibility to be informed exists. Hard to explain that... but it seems to be operant.

My Factor of Safety study IS published on the Deep Politics forum 911 section - https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?7130-Safety-Factor-of-WTC-Steel-Columns. You can go there down load it and produce a critique /evaluation showing the mistakes. I would welcome that. If you read that forum you can see that I have revised my estimate for the FOS from 1.54 to 1.65.

What do you think the FOS is and why? Does it matter?

Posted by: amazed! Jun 18 2011, 03:50 PM

Why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can! laughing1.gif

Posted by: IslandPilot Jun 20 2011, 01:18 PM

KP50 says:"Here's my problem with SanderO" up at the beginning of this page of posts, then lists some "reasons" for this opinion, one of which "seems" to be valid:

QUOTE
My problem is that he thinks that his theory (minimum explosives, gravity does the rest to simplify it) over-rides all the evidence that contradicts it. There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers.


There is no doubt there were several "explosions" within the towers, some possibly initiated before the "explosive event" from the alledged aircraft impact. The primary use of explosives was to "initiate" the gravitional collapse sequence of the towers, even though there is further evidence of "explosive ejections" during the collapse. It was obvious from the beginning, that the buildings collapsed in a manner similar to a "Controlled Demolition".

It appeared as if the entire building just "suddenly EXPLODED" and turned into dust and a few pieces of steel. It is easy for most people to "reasonably assume" that the "impact" of a commercial airliner would have brought the building down, without any alledged "structural weakening" from jet fuel fires. I, myself originally "bought into" the "floor pancake" collapse theory when it was announced.

Then I heard Dr. Judy Wood on Short Wave Radio. The Government OCT guy on that program attacked her so viciously... that I figured she must be onto "something". All she asked was for people to visit her site, (http://www.drjudywood.com/) and "look at the evidence" for themselves. "Where did the buildings go", she asked. And sure enough, I could see that most of the buildings had "turned to dust", with quite a lot of "weird fires" and other stuff. She seems convinced that some secret "Directed Energy Weapon" was used to destroy the buildings. Maybe so, maybe not. Today I lean toward "probably not".

From there, I followed a link to Archeticts and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/)... where I learned from Richard Gage's professional presentation that the alledged aircraft impacts and the ensuing fires could NOT HAVE CAUSED the collapse of WTC 1,2, or 7. He provides us with credible information to "indicate" that the collapse of these buildings is "very similar" to the characteristics of a "Controlled Demolition".

In a "Controlled Demolition" he tells us that EXPLOSIVES are used to initiate the subsequent GRAVATIONAL COLLAPSE of the entire structure, by SUDDENLY REMOVING a few floors worth of its supporting columns. Once this "structural gap" is created, the upper part of the building (FALLS) is accelerated by gravity due to its "weight" (velocity and momentum) which then "crushes" the rest of the entire structure (both top and bottom parts) into its own "footprint".

Mr. Gage goes on to explain that the explosive removal of supporting columns is "usually" initiated at the lower floor levels of a building... but it doesn't have to be accomplished in this manner, as long as the "weight" of the upper part of the building is sufficient to crush the top floor remaining on the lower part. In fact, he explains that a "top down" controlled demolition would require a lot less EXPLOSIVE energy to initiate the collapse, because the upper columns are nowhere near as massive as the columns in the lower floors.

Since GRAVITY is the MAJOR FORCE acting to destroy the building, it falls straight down toward the center of the Earth, into its own footprint. In the case of WTC 7, Mr. Gage's conclusion of a "classic" Controlled Demolition is consistent with actual observations. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are some significant differences between the actual "observed" collapse sequences, and that of the "classic" controlled demolition "promoted" by Mr. Gage. (I will provide supporting info later.)

MY PROBLEM with SanderO, goes something like this.... To explain his "concept" of the twin towers "collapse"... he will use terms and acronynisms unfamiliar to non-archeticts. He'll say something like the buildings had enough PE stored within them, that only a few explosions were necessary to increase "Static and Live floor loadings" beyond their UTS to release enough "Dynamic KE" to overcome the FOS of the supporting structure.... which may be true...(somewhat)... if you can "crack his code":
PE: Potential Energy
KE: Kinetic Energy
UTS: Ultimate Tensile Strength
FOS: Factor of Safety

Most Commercial Pilots are familiar with terms such as: Vne, Vmo, LEMAC, %of MAC, IAS, CAS, Vse, Vs1, MGTOW, CG, VOR, TACAN, Vx, Vy, TAS, Vyse, etc. etc. When we use our "lingo" in our explanations of 911 events, non-pilots have difficulty and become very FRUSTRATED while trying very hard to understand what we mean.

In addition SanderO seems to "step on his own feet" by making a few small "typos" in some of his "long winded" (I should talk?) explanations, making his ideas even more difficult to follow. Two examples from his last post:
What is your problem DYEW of providing and email?
What not email if you are interested?

Even more frustrating, from the same post, is this:
QUOTE
My work is ongoing and so I don't feel it makes sense to publish preliminary work and in some cases work which has not been reviewed by other engineers... although some scientists at the 9/11 free forum have seen it and no one has discredited what they saw.


The first statement is understandable... especially when you see all the time wasting BS on this site about Warren Stutt and Legge's "Preliminary Pentagon FDR Reports" that weren't peer reviewed. SanderO's email information is very interesting and informative.... I haven't seen his "cartoon" yet. But WTF is he referring to "at the 9/11 free forum"? [A very interesting thread "at the 9/11 free forum" can be found here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-collapse-model-t361.html#p10288

This post is long enough already... it is not my intent to "trash" SanderO, I'm just trying to "explain" some of his "stuff". It is unfortunate that many of our "regular devoted truthers" find him obnoxious and offensive. I do not wish to become a member of "that club" (double meaning intended).

My next post will try to explain some of his stuff that may actually border on "brilliant", if one is willing to endure the process of trying to "figure it all out".... salute.gif

edits: corrected misspelling of Dr. Wood's name and added site links for her and Richard Gage.

Posted by: talayo Jun 20 2011, 05:58 PM

IslandPilot:

While your thoughts and defense of sanserso are commendable, you seem to not understand the problem with his position.

It does not matter whether he is right or wrong about the possibility of the collapse to had been driven mainly by gravitational forces.

I can flat out conceed that HE IS RIGHT.

That only proves how it could have happened, not how it happened!

All the research and effort seems to go into the architectural aspects of the towers. This is like looking at a crime scene and concentrating in the detailed design of the weapon that was used and brushing off any of the other clues and circumstances of the crime.

Once we are outside the world of architecture, what can be his research? I do not believe sanderso had any unique access to the sites, confidential documentation, etc.

He refers to his in-deapth and factual research when he is making claims for which there is not supporting evidence. For example, for many of the items to have been obliterated without recognition (practically all) the collapse would have had to act as a "blender". What is his evidence of such a behavior?

Many of the critics of the goverment narrative consistently mentioned the lack of a sufficient debris pile for a building of that size. He does not find any thing unusual about the size of the pile, based on the claim that buildings of that type are 95-96% air. Even if that is true, his assumption is that there is not a significant amount of air in a debris pile. I guess all the steel columns align themselves neetly so they present a solid pile, no air of any kind. This is simply nonsense. The peripheral columns were rectangular tubes of approximatlely 14 inches per side. Calculate the amount of "air" in these columns alone. Since, he agrees that they collapsed towards the outside it is very difficult to argue that the tubes were flattened.
It seems impossible to make any dent in his position.

I am still waiting for an explanation about the missing 100,000 tons of material that were not include in his calculations for "air".

If you want to make some of the commenters to take a different attitude towards his hypothesis, please do not return to the architectural issues. Deal with the issues that he ignores, and show us that our points are irrelevant or if they are not convince sanderso to adjust his claims to include them.

Posted by: KP50 Jun 20 2011, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (talayo @ Jun 21 2011, 09:58 AM) *
That only proves how it could have happened, not how it happened!

All the research and effort seems to go into the architectural aspects of the towers. This is like looking at a crime scene and concentrating in the detailed design of the weapon that was used and brushing off any of the other clues and circumstances of the crime.

Let's try an example to back up talayo's point.

You are burgled while you are away and your front door has been bashed in. However there was also a large open window which the burglar could have used to get into the house. Do you conclude that the burglar did not bash in the front door because he could have more easily climbed through the window and opened the door from the inside?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 20 2011, 09:33 PM

I will once again apologize to the readers of this forum for my numerous typos. I don't preview my posts and and am a terrible typists. I do occasionally go back and do an edit to remove my typos.. which often include word substitutions such -what- for -why-.. and the automated spell check misses such correctly spelled nonsense. I also type in a "stream of consciousness" and again without editing my language may be difficult to understand. I also plead guilty to occasionally using technical engineering jargon. I try to explain these phrases at some point in the discussion, but don't feel the need to do this repeatedly.

The key to understanding the WTC collapses is in accurate and technically informed observations along with thorough knowledge of the particular structure being observed and engineering.

My understanding or "theory" as some like to call it is built on observations of the collapses/destruction and a study and understanding of the structure. I believe these are consistent.

Many point out observations which they believe are not supported by a gravitational collapse. They understandably believe that these observations... if correct... imply that explosives were present during the collapse. These observations include the apparent pulverization of most of the building and contents, the size of the debris pile, the absence of steel recovered and various ejections seen emerging from the facade as it comes down. Some see the "spire" disappear and others believe that heavy steel has been ejected at speeds of 70 mph to over 600 feet from the towers. Each of these observations needs to be properly understood and "read". We certainly can ever agree on an explanation of the cause if we can't agree on the "collapse" we all observed.

Some of the observations require explanations which are well beyond my own technical expertise... such as how an avalanche could grind friable material into such fine grain debris... By the way it certainly wasn't all reduced to dust and most of it in "the pile" was more of a sand size grain size. And certainly lots of the material which was reduced to dust was carried aloft and dispersed and did not form a "debris pile". Again I don't know how much material was dispersed as dust... but the collapses spread dust up to perhaps an inch over more that 40 acres.. extending several blocks from the site. The pulverization is a fluid dynamics problem and it apparently was manifest in Bldg 7 as well. So it seems that when high rise buildings made with lightweight concrete slabs collapse from 700+ feet not much of them or the contents on them seems to survive. We don't have much of anything in the historical record to refer to... no buildings collapse with massive piles of concrete and contents.. and none of that size has ever collapsed or been CDed... with the tallest structure being 25 stories of so... completely different animals.

And of course the main thrust of the engineering analysis is that the twins were a very unique and radical design and that too has never been CDed nor has one collapsed. So whatever took them down... these were unique events. If it happened three times it could be from the same "natural" process... just easily as it could be from total demo from explosives.

The ejections seen shooting out the windows ahead of the collapse from DOES look like what we might expect from an explosion... We've all seen debris radiate away from an explosion... so it is natural to think that these ejections were coming from explosions within the towers. It seems to make perfect sense.

However we also need to consider the possibility that the collapse debris would displace the air on each floor as it raced downward inside the facade. If this scenario is what happened then the air HAD to be displaced outward. And a simple calculation can produce its speed. I did it by working backward. We know that the collapse time was about 10 seconds for the North Tower to come down from around the 93rd floor or thereabouts. And that's about 1,100 feet of drop in about 10 seconds. or about 9 stories every second or about 100 feet per second. Regardless of whether the collapse was accelerating or not... the AVERAGE speed was 100 feet per second. 60mph is 88 feet per second so the collapse was about 10% faster... so I call it 60+mph as the average speed. But all the air on each floor was dispersed in the same .1 second. And since it couldn't move IN it had to move out... and if we take the air located at the boundary between the core and the open office floor it was either 60' or 35 feet from the facade and this air was pushed to the facade in about .1 second. And the air was therefore traveling at either 60 or 35 feet in .1 seconds. This would be either 600 or 350 feet in 1 second. So you can see that the expelled air was either moving at 400+ mph or 230+ mph when it reached the facade. Both of these speeds pack enormous "destructive energy". And this is enough to destroy all the contents... the ceiling tiles, the gypsum wall board and almost anything else and send streaming out the windows after breaking them. I don't know how fast air is coming off an explosion.... but the air as described above seems to match the observations or ejections we see at the collapse front.

Could they be from explosions? Why not? But this raises the issue of complexity and coordination and timing and so forth. Air pressure from collapsing debris makes much more sense to me. Perhaps not to others.

To conclude... the first step is to get the observations correct and then look for the mechanism which science offers to explain them. Not what we think these look like... because we've seem bombs explode in the movies... but actually how "materials" behave.

I don't have a problem with everything Gage says... only some of it. And I don't expect to be 100% correct either. I've been revising and tuning my understanding over time as I drill deeper into the observations, the engineering and the science. But I can only go so far, because I am a dumb architect. And I realize that.

Posted by: IslandPilot Jun 20 2011, 09:43 PM

Is SanderO really trying to be Obnoxious, or is he just being "assertive"... Is this "important" and does it really matter? It depends... let me try to explain "both" sides of this question:

Let's start with the proposition that it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER EXACTLY HOW the Twin Towers were destroyed, as long as it is evident that they were NOT destroyed by aircraft impacts and the jet fuel fires resulting from aircraft impacts, as claimed by the Government's NIST Building Performance Reports.

At this time, it's easy to determine, and "prove" very serious errors and "ommissions" in the NIST Documents. Whether NIST personnel were aware of the "false" information, and "intentionally" included it in their official US Government Document, to provide "misleading" information, is a "questionable" matter, still open for debate.

When NIST Personnel INTENTIONALLY REFUSED to AMMEND the "false, inaccurate, and misleading" information in their report, after several serious efforts and requests were made by others, who provided "conflicting" information, observations, and facts to NIST's initial Report... NIST Personnel became GUILTY of a FEDERAL FELONY CRIMINAL OFFENSE by "knowlingly" submitting FALSE INFORMATION on a US Government Document, paid for by taxpaying citizens. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the LAW for this CRIME.

It would be very easy for "Expert witnesses" like Dr. Judy Wood, Mr. Richard Gage, and several other "experts" in "building structures", and "explosive demolition techniques" to prove to a jury of "average laymen" in a "real Court of LAW" that the buildings were NOT destroyed in the manner described by NIST Reports. NIST's information is so "flawed", that an average High School Student, could determine how "wrong" it is, after being exposed to a few "basic" facts and observations.

Here in a "nutshell", is the most basic "proof" that the NIST BUILDING PERFORMANCE for WTC 7 is "completely wrong".

NIST claims that WTC 7 "collapsed" due to the "uncontained fires", which heated one or two floors, in an area supported by the infamous "Column 79".

Although WTC 7 appears to have the "shape" of a "regular trapazoidial prism" on the outside, it is not a "symmetrical structure", by any means. The reason for this is... that it was built "over the top of" a large existing electric "Utility substation". To do this, the "pattern" of regularly spaced supporting columns and beams had to be altered to accomodate the Electric Substation beneath WTC 7's lower floors. Several additional structural members (transfer girders, elongated trusses, and cantilevered beams) were added to provide necessary structural support for the entire building above the level of the Substation.

The end result of the altered column spacing left "Column 79" in the first row of columns behind the WIDEST face of the of the Trapazoid, as well as being one or two column rows inside of the angled face of the building. The longest floor span trusses in the entire building were connected to "Column 79". It supported the weight of more floor area than other nearby columns. Whether or not column 79 was "beefed up" compared to nearby columns, is of no consequence in the NIST "Collapse Scenerio",... but the LENGTH of the floor trusses it supported, and the "extra" distance between it and adjacent columns "WAS THE PROBLEM that "caused" Column 79 to FAIL, thus initiating the collapse of the entire building according to NIST.

The HEAT of the intense fires on one or two floors in the area of Column 79 caused more "thermal expansion" and "growth" of the long trusses connected to it, than the "thermal expansion" of the cooler and shorter trusses connected to the other side of it.

To support the weight of every floor above it, building columns must be in a perfect "straight line" alignment with all the columns above and below it. According to NIST, the thermal expansion caused by fires on one or two floors near Column 79 caused it to "shift" out of alignment with the elements of Column 79 on the floors above and below this area. This caused either the the failure of floor truss attachments, or an "off-center" loading of the column, which caused it to "buckle" and fail. Either of these failure modes, (or both) are what NIST says caused the "initiation" of the entire "collapse sequence" of WTC 7.

The NIST conclusions about "thermal floor span expansion" (if unlikely assumptions about fire intensities and durations in unobservable areas are valid) causing... a shift in column alignment,... which resulted in either floor truss attachment failure... and/or column failure due to "buckling" might be a "reasonable" explanation for how the collapse was initiated.

Unlike the NIST REPORTS for WTC 1&2, where NIST provides NO information about "global building collapse" AFTER "collapse initiation", NIST provides a computer generated simulation for some time period AFTER the "initiation" of the collapse for WTC 7... which shows no similiarity to what actually happened when Building 7 came down.


NIST spent MILLIONS of dollars to come up with a sophisticated "Computer generated "model" and "Collapse Simulation" for WTC 7 to provide the easily UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that is is COMPLETELY WRONG... and bears NO RESEMBLANCE to what actually happened when WTC 7 "collapsed to the ground", through the path of its greatest resistance, at near "free fall" speed, within its own "footprint", on the afternoon of 9/11/2001.

If "One picture is worth a thousand words", this video shows that EVERY WORD in the NIST WTC 7 REPORT supports the WRONG CONCLUSION. Check it out for yourself:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=247&MMN_position=428:428

Please note that the "actual WTC 7 collapse" on the left is presented "in SYNC" with the NIST computer generated collapse simulation on the right... and begins with the collapse of the penthouse on top of the building.
Direct UTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nbfeGjwZU&feature=related

Here's another "valid expert criticism" of the NIST WTC 7 report, from a Canadian: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=143&MMN_position=309:309

(to be continued in a response to talayo's recent post... made while I was working here.)

Posted by: SanderO Jun 20 2011, 09:51 PM

KP50,

Your last post is hardly what I have been working on for the past several years. And it's not ONLY me... I just happen to be the one who is over here trying to communicate these findings (and not being well received for sure!).

It would seem to me... that someone who DID want to destroy the towers... HAD to understand the engineering, and the weak points and exploit them. After all they didn't drop a kiloton of explosives on it. It may have looked violent and it was... but it didn't look like a nuclear explosion... it looked like a collapse... It came down over 10-14 seconds... it was process which spanned an interval of time. It was not a single event. Could it be multiple "explosions"? why not.... how many would it take to produce what we saw? You tell me.

Anyone who thinks the steel "disappeared" needs to study the 17 acre site, plus West Street, Vesey Steet, Church and Liberty Streets... steel covered all that and some was lodge in buildings across Liberty, Vesey and West Streets... that's more than 30 acres of steel.

If you want to ignore the structure and just look at the debris and the "ejections" you are cutting yourself off from vital information. But by all means, be my guest. But please don't say I am ignoring "evidence"... or assert that you can identify evidence which cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse and rules it out. Iron Spheres... you might say... These certainly can be associated with what initiated the collapse as could the hot spots below the debris from weeks and months afterwards. Those don't rule out a gravitational collapse. Remember I am not stating that the fires caused by the planes caused the collapse... and I am not ruling out explosives or incendiaries at the initiation. In fact I am calling for MORE focus and research ON the initiation... because that is where the engineering was if there was any at all... and there likely was.

I don't venture into aviation issues and apply layman's logic to it. I'll leave that to aviators and aeronautical engineers... and expect them to drill deeply into the planes, their flight profiles and all sorts of stuff I don't even begin to understand. But please don't discard out of hand an engineering analysis of the twin towers... something you likely don't know too much about... or ridicule someone who is advocating such study and actually DOING it.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 20 2011, 10:02 PM

Island Pilot,

I haven't gone into the destruction of building 7 very much and don't wish to open this one up at this time. However I would like to ask readers to consider that we don't know what happened behind the facade of bldg 7 in the few minutes before we saw the facade come down with a 2.25 period which matched G. I believe that there may have been not much left inside of bldg 7 when its collapse became apparent to the naked eye. So perhaps the main part of the collapse was actually slower before and behind the facade and what we saw was just the glass curtain wall. I am not certain of this but it is something to consider.

Also it should be noted that the most recent studies of the collapse of bldg 7 show movement BEFORE the 2.25 seconds of G acceleration... movement not seen by the naked eye. And the most recent traces of the collapse show the facade actually collapse for a brief period as GREATER than G... This would mean that it was not ONLY "falling" but some other force was pushing or pulling it down...

Unfortunately we can't see inside these buildings where apparently the collapse initiations took place. We have to induce what happened by careful observations of the exterior and knowledge of the structure... and science.

These were very complex events and we shouldn't try to simply and package them into something that every Tom, Dick and Harry can understand.. necessarily.

Posted by: IslandPilot Jun 21 2011, 02:27 AM

Thanks talayo for your thoughtful and well reasoned comments:

QUOTE (talayo @ Jun 20 2011, 04:58 PM) *
IslandPilot:

While your thoughts and defense of sanserso are commendable, you seem to not understand the problem with his position.

It does not matter whether he is right or wrong about the possibility of the collapse to had been driven mainly by gravitational forces.


I will respond to many of your other comments in the nearby referenced post, without providing several "quote bubbles", to save a little time and P4T site "bandwidth" (maybe).

I probably DO understand several of our "group's" problems with his position and statements. For one thing, his "abrasive" personality may not be intentional... he "writes" with the kind of "attitude and accent" typical of "Easteners" that us "Midwesterners" "love to hate"...

his excessive "assertiveness" seems to come across as a "snobbish", "know-it-all" attitude toward the rest of us. He tried to make a "sincere apology" a little while ago... which would have been OK... if he would have stopped there, but he "ruined that" by continuing on with more "stuff" to defend his views in the same post. I understand this because I have a tendency to do the same thing myself, most of the time.

At this time, he reminds me of Lassie trying to get someone's attention by his incessant barking... "Timmy's in the WELL!" "Timmy's in the WELL!"

But there is a possibility that he is "on to something" significant as far as explaining HOW the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 actually happened, rather than how it "could" have happened. But I don't think he quite understands it yet...

Maybe "Timmy really IS in the WELL", and maybe we should go over to the well and "take a look with a good flashlight".

His "area of expertise" is architecture and it is appropriate for him to seek out "clues" to the 911 Crime in the area of architecture and building construction. I found the info he sent me by email to be very informative and "enlightening" in some ways.

Yet I also found it somewhat "dissapointing" because it made no attempt to account for ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT of additional HEAT or (explosive) ENERGY beyond that of gravity, to account for the complete "dustification" and "destruction" of the Twin Towers and their ENTIRE CONTENTS into very HOT "Pyroclyastic Dust" clouds which rose to heights much greater than the twin towers themselves. The "weird" fires, and "molten steel" seem impossible to "explain" by any kind of "gravitational collapse"... (or so it would seem, to most "normal people")

The "Theories" of Mini-Nukes, and "Thermite/Thermate" reactions, as well as Dr. Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapons, and "Hutchenson Effect" seemed to "explain" some of the 911 anomalies.

Dimitri Kasalov's ideas about underground NUKES planted to "demolish" the buildings before they could be allowed to be constructed, do a VERY GOOD JOB of explaining most aspects of the 911 WTC events, including the SEQUENCE of building destruction, and WHY WTC 7 had to be Included in the "plot".
Some of this stuff actually SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE! And I can't yet eliminate these ideas entirely.

Yet as you have already mentioned, how important is it to know the PRECISE MANNER in which the buildings were made to fall down.

I can assure you that it certainly wasn't very IMPORTANT EXACTLY HOW the buildings came down to the people who planned and carried out this terrible crime. I'm sure that you and I, and SanderO have already expended more time and effort trying to figure things out, than the actual Perpetrators who caused the buildings to collapse on 911.

Once you understand the above FACT... and some "new information" provided by SanderO, it becomes much easier to explain EXACTLY HOW the Twin Towers were destroyed... including all of the other "weird" and "mysterious" "side effects" associated with the destruction of the TWIN TOWERS on 911.

The "EASIEST" and "MOST SIMPLE" solution to a problem, or a crime, is usually the BEST solution, or the one CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH. The "complex" nature of the "collapse dynamics" are difficult enough to understand and explain, but the associated "side effects" like the "high energy" pyroclyastic dust clouds, and the complete destruction of the building contents, and the presence of Iron/aluminum "microspheres", make it nearly "IMPOSSIBLE" to figure out HOW THIS CRIME WAS COMMITTED... until one realizes TWO IMPORTANT THINGS...

The "first clue" comes from your "accurate observations" and statements:
QUOTE
He refers to his in-deapth and factual research when he is making claims for which there is not supporting evidence. For example, for many of the items to have been obliterated without recognition (practically all) the collapse would have had to act as a "blender". What is his evidence of such a behavior?

SanderO has no supporting evidence for many of his claims, just yet, because, as you have observed (practically all) of it has been oblitered beyond recognition, so it "covers up" nearly all of the evidence. But the "evidence of" the near total destruction and dustification of almost "everything" is an important clue, necessary to solve this crime, if it can be adequately explained.

Once you understand that the perpetrators of this crime had no part in "planning" the "side effects" associated with the building collapses, it becomes more "obvious" that they occurred as totally "Unanticipated Consequences" which also happened to provide a "benificial" effects for the Perps.

As a matter of fact, I now believe that any "unit of average Demolitions Specialists" trained as a soldiers in today's US Army, would be able to destroy any building similar to the twin towers, and cause it to come down, in a manner like that seen on 911 with a minimum amount of explosives and technical information, with less than two days "access" to certain areas of the building.

SanderO's constant "babbling" seemed bad enough to most of you guys, until he went "over the top" with his post "challenging" Richard Gage and everyone else to explain some of the observed Twin Tower(s of Babel?) "Collapse Side Effects".

The one about the "Pyroclyastic Dust Generation" really "got my goat"... so I started trying to figure out how that "might" happen from the gravitational collapse of a tall building. This is really pretty easy to "figure out", and the "explanation" for Dustification also helps to explain the "weird fires" that were also observed in the Twin Tower area.

I will provide more extensive support for some of my "ideas" later.

it's past my bedtime, and I'd like to leave SanderO with an important clue about "beam stud outlookers", which he explained to me a long time ago. I want him to take another look at the pictures of his 70 story "core column SPIRE", just before it "Euhler Buckled" into "oblivion". What are all of those "tabs" protruding from the sides of those remaining core columns?... they sure look like "beam stub outlookers" to me. If this is true... whatever happened to all the "core perimeter channels" that were once welded to the "outlookers" and bolted to all of the inner floor trusses on every floor in the building?

HMMMMMM????? dunno.gif

I think "TIMMY'S STILL IN THE WELL!".... but maybe not for too much longer.... salute.gif



Posted by: SanderO Jun 21 2011, 04:21 AM

The channels that were affixed to the beam stubs we see still connected to the columns (beam stub outlookers) or tabs as you call them... are only a portion of the beam stub outlooker by the way... the other part is welded in the factory to the channels and then the two are connected in the field by a splice plate which is then bolted and or welded.

When the floors were destroyed by the huge loads raining down on them they failed in one or multiple ways and one of them was to rip the entire channel off at the beam stub connection... the connection of the splices, belts and or welds parted at the weakest point which apparently was the splice. In fact in examining the steel debris you can see man "tabs" and outlookers which survived the collapse still welded and in many cases bent but still attached to the spandrel or column. This tells us that the part of the connection failed and which part. So those tab welds to the core columns were much stronger than the splices from the tabs to the mating side of the outlooker which was attached to the channel. If you look through the debris you can find some truss support channels (lateral- long axis bracing) which has the other side of the beam stubs attached or perhaps evidence of where the HAD been attached.

The bracing in the short axis of the core between rows 500 -600 and 900-1000 was afixed between tho columns and these did NOT carry axial (floor) loads... so these were less prone to be ripped off from debris falling on them... as they did not support any floor. The long axis braces DID also support floor loads and they were on the side of the columns and were ripped off by collapsing floor rubble. If you look at the Spire you can see the bracing running from rows 500-600 (900-1000) intact, but the channels running outside row 500 and row 600 (and 900&1000) was ripped off. Columns 501 and 601 look like a huge ladder with the bracing being the rungs. This remaining bracing was in the long axis of the column. The shorter axis.. 22" (CC 501 was 52x22) was left unbraced by the collapsing floor rubble. Note that ALL the floor loads on one entire side of the towers were connected to the 8 core columns at that side... and that all the floor loads on each floor were supported by 8 beam stub outlookers.... that's a floor area of 60' x 208' or 12,000 square feet were carried by 8 beam stub outlookers. On the short side of the core there were 6 beam stub outlookers carrying 87' x 35' which was 3,000 SF.

The debris shows clear signs that the collapse failed connections... apparently the weakest "link" in the structure. If the connection fails... the members it connects are likely to be more or less intact. This is what the steel shows in the "pile".

Posted by: talayo Jun 21 2011, 07:37 PM

IslandPilot:

I do not find sanderso abnoxios. He is direct and assertive but that is not a problem.

I may find sanderso to be stubborn or frustrating but certainly not abnoxios.

Besides he has discovered a method to punish all of his critics.

He simply emulates Tolstoy and writes several chapters to respond to a simple question, so now you are forced to read lenghy dissertations looking for an answer to your objection. One gives up because of reading exhaustation, so he wins.

To the ones familiar with the British series "Yes, Minister", he would attract the admiration of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 21 2011, 09:48 PM

Talayo,

911 was a complex technical event and puzzle to solve. It does not lend itself to sound bites. Good luck with that.

Posted by: talayo Jun 21 2011, 10:25 PM

sanderso

You reply gives the impression that you do not have much of a sense of humor.

That was supposed to help to relax the exchanges!

Somebody states categorically that does not find you obnoxios in any manner and that is all you can respond.

I guess you decide to shelve Tolstoy and be brief with a sound bite.

The issue is as complicated as you want to make it.

If the towers were brought down by initial explosive charges, that is all that will need to be proven in court to dismisss the standard narrative.

The rest is interesting details, but you do not seem to think so.

Please let me know that whether your hypotesis is correct or the advocators of further demolition charges are correct what difference does it make from a legal stand point. A crime was committed. Now we are arguing about the "size of the crime". Either hypotesis is sufficient to put somebody in jail for a very long time, if not face capital punishment.

By the way, I do not believe that your hypothesis is correct or the multiple explosives is either.

Something very extraordinary took place that day that no theory/hypothesis formulated so far covers all the unusual events that took place that day.


Posted by: SanderO Jun 21 2011, 10:39 PM

Absolutely correct in that a crime is a crime is a crime. The research into what happened reveals facts about what the crime actually was... and can lead to how extensive the plot or conspiracy was...how long it may have taken to set up and so forth. Of course this leads to WHO may have done it. Sure if we have a dead body with bullet holes in it we know someone or one's likely murdered the person. But we have to solve the ACTUAL details of the crime.

Or as Mies Van Der Rohe said... "god is in the details".

So I don't believe the official story... but I don't accept the entire alternate one either because unfortunately.. I believe it too is plagued with incorrect statements... We don't want to "convict the wrong perp9s)... and we don't want to let anyone get away with the crime. We are a ways from solving this one.

Posted by: trimble Sep 11 2011, 07:10 PM

QUOTE
So it seems that when high rise buildings made with lightweight concrete slabs collapse from 700+ feet not much of them or the contents on them seems to survive. We don't have much of anything in the historical record to refer to... no buildings collapse with massive piles of concrete and contents.. and none of that size has ever collapsed or been CDed... with the tallest structure being 25 stories of so... completely different animals.


There is a lot of dust generated shortly, much less than 25-stories, after initiation. Arguing that pulverisation is a unique preserve of very tall building demolitions won't cut it. What is unique about the aerated concrete and steel floorpan sections? If nothing, what else could explain the difference? As much as I agree that collapse propagation was through a chaotic collapse from dynamic overload (resulting localised air pressures and velocity of components would be enormous), I cannot understand the quantities of observed DUST, even appearing well above (!) the collapse front, being expelled perhaps 10 stories after initiation. There surely must be an active agent at the start of collapse to produce such volumes of dust so early on.

An observation. Take a look at the second tower collapse. At the very start of collapse, in order to achieve collapse, an overloaded floor or floors (in a fragmentary but unpulverised state - chaotic collapse ...) will obviously have to start to fall, and then impact the one below. For this to happen, all the air below these floor fragments, which we might presume to be very large indeed courtesy of the interconnected floor structure, must either make its way above those fragments, or out of the side of the building. But there appears to be little expulsion of anything out of the sides of the building at first, and this must suggest very fragmented floor pans : this would support a chaotic collapse initiation and propagation method over "pancakes" (and, rather neatly, suggests the loss of rigidity of your tube). It also begs the question: how can an entire floor or floors become massively fragmentary across their entire area (ie. not just at the impact damage sites). We would expect little sideways expulsion around the impact site, but lots more on more distant sides. We do not see that disparity. What we DO see is little expulsion anywhere at the apparent external collapse front. Indeed, and very oddly imo, we get more expulsions much further up the tower (smoke not dust I assume?). Something has caused massive breakup of the floorpans. And are the floorplans broken for many floors above the visible collapse front, for we are getting instant displacement of smoke many stories above (no, its not ducting or a vacuum)?

Posted by: goprisko Jan 10 2014, 09:13 AM

QUOTE (Munkle @ May 16 2011, 04:32 PM) *
Reposted from http://dailypaul.com/node/152794/

by James_Madison_Lives


An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html

Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy


Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton <i>per worker</i> of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

Finally, one challenge which could be raised to this analysis is the assumption that such a scenario requires all the steel in the building to be heated to the same temperature in order to exhibit onset of failure characteristics. But if we discard the known fact that steel is an excellent heat conductor, and would wick the heat to all parts of the steel structure rapidly and evenly, and that the entire 96,000 tons was absorbing energy, and suppose that somehow all the heat was concentrated around the points of impact, which somehow melted or buckled only in these places, then we run across another problem. The problem with this hypothesis is that it leaves the 90% of the steel frames below the points of impact with all their strength intact, which would have made a free-fall collapse through the path of greatest resistance utterly impossible. We cannot hold that a free-fall collapse was possible because the steel in the towers was greatly weakened by the heat, then at the same time hold that the heat was focused in one place. One cannot have it both ways.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the <a href="http://dailypaul.com/node/151054">"momentum"</a> from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.

---------

Weight, length, temperature unit converter
http://www.metric-conversions.org/

Specific heat unit converter
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-conversion/convert-alpha/specific-heat.html


On the web one can find videos of BLEVYs of various materials. The LPG BLEVY is the classic case, but Fuel OIl BLEVYs have occurred and have been documented. Of particular note was the BLEVY of a fuel oil tank in a refinery.

For those unfamiliar with BLEVYs, a BLEVY occurs when a flammable liquid is heated to it's critical temperature while confined in a vessel and that vessel subsequently fails catastrophically. The flammable material is instantly vaporized into a cloud with entrained air, which conflagrates.

BLEVYs of LPG have a yellow-orange color with very little black smoke.

BLEVYs of Fuel Oil/Jet Fuel have a red-brown color with a great deal of black smoke.

It is essential that one keep in mind that a BLEVY requires heating of the fuel to it's critical temperature, such that failure of it's containment causes immediate change of state from liquid to gas.

In the case of an aircraft collision with a building, however, there is no heating of the fuel prior to failure of the fuel tanks. Instead the fuel tanks rupture through collision with the building and the fuel is released at ambient temperature and is not pressurized. The fuel is dispersed in droplets and streams very much like water released from a water baloon hitting a wall. In such a case, rather than a BLEVY, one should see streamers of flaming fuel flying in all directions.

So, there are two problems with the videos of the plane impacts at WTC.

a) The flame color of the BLEVYs shown are those of LPG BLEVYs, not Jet Fuel BLEVYs.

b) The impact would not have generated a BLEVY of the plane's fuel in the first place.

You may argue with me if you wish, but before you do................

I majored in Chemistry and in Biology and minored in Physics, Calculus, History, Economics, at Purdue on the BS. Then I majored in Geology and Limnology and minored in Operations Research on the PhD.

I worked as a Chemist in a refinery which made Jet Fuel among other things and was responsible for Testing it and certifying that it conformed to specs.

I worked in various Steel Mills on the shop floor rolling steel, and later, creating controls systems for furnaces which made steel.

I studied beam theory, strength of materials, etc.

In short, unless you have an education in the physical sciences, don't yell at or flame me. I'll yell back.

Dr. George


Dr. George

Posted by: goprisko Jan 10 2014, 10:22 AM

QUOTE (goprisko @ Jan 10 2014, 08:13 AM) *
On the web one can find videos of BLEVYs of various materials. The LPG BLEVY is the classic case, but Fuel OIl BLEVYs have occurred and have been documented. Of particular note was the BLEVY of a fuel oil tank in a refinery.

For those unfamiliar with BLEVYs, a BLEVY occurs when a flammable liquid is heated to it's critical temperature while confined in a vessel and that vessel subsequently fails catastrophically. The flammable material is instantly vaporized into a cloud with entrained air, which conflagrates.

BLEVYs of LPG have a yellow-orange color with very little black smoke.

BLEVYs of Fuel Oil/Jet Fuel have a red-brown color with a great deal of black smoke.

It is essential that one keep in mind that a BLEVY requires heating of the fuel to it's critical temperature, such that failure of it's containment causes immediate change of state from liquid to gas.

In the case of an aircraft collision with a building, however, there is no heating of the fuel prior to failure of the fuel tanks. Instead the fuel tanks rupture through collision with the building and the fuel is released at ambient temperature and is not pressurized. The fuel is dispersed in droplets and streams very much like water released from a water baloon hitting a wall. In such a case, rather than a BLEVY, one should see streamers of flaming fuel flying in all directions.

So, there are two problems with the videos of the plane impacts at WTC.

a) The flame color of the BLEVYs shown are those of LPG BLEVYs, not Jet Fuel BLEVYs.

b) The impact would not have generated a BLEVY of the plane's fuel in the first place.

You may argue with me if you wish, but before you do................

I majored in Chemistry and in Biology and minored in Physics, Calculus, History, Economics, at Purdue on the BS. Then I majored in Geology and Limnology and minored in Operations Research on the PhD.

I worked as a Chemist in a refinery which made Jet Fuel among other things and was responsible for Testing it and certifying that it conformed to specs.

I worked in various Steel Mills on the shop floor rolling steel, and later, creating controls systems for furnaces which made steel.

I studied beam theory, strength of materials, etc.

In short, unless you have an education in the physical sciences, don't yell at or flame me. I'll yell back.

Dr. George


Dr. George


Now to the collision itself.....................

The diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is 4.72 m = 188 in = 16 ft. It is made of aluminum skin on longitudinals supported by circular frames. All sections are ~ 0.06" thick.

The floor spacing in the WTC towers is 12 ft.

The perimeter columns were spaced on 52 in centers = 3' 4". They were box beams 14" square. At the point of impact their wall thickness was > 3/4"
They were unitized by horizontal beams "spandrels" on 12' centers. Construction was welded.

This means that the 767 fuselage impacted at least one and possibly two floors and 4 to 5 columns.

To visualize this cut the bottom off an aluminum pop can and insert it into a french fry maker. Then press the handle.

The 767 fuselage is essentially open at the front. The nose is covered by a plastic radome, which has been dented in the past from striking birds.

The structural strength of the plastic radome can be neglected.

Upon impact, the fuselage will behave in similar manner to automobile bodies striking walls, or trees. The tree surrogate is the floor(s) in it's path and the columns.

The thin skin will fold under the impact, spreading the load from the initial paper thin section into a much wider area. Momentum will force more material into the impact zone
which will wrinkle. This crushing of the fuselage against the building structure absorbs significant energy, which among other things decelerates the aircraft.

~ 90 ft of fuselage lies in front of the wing. That is, 90 ft of fuselage must be crushed before the wing engages the structure.

For those bent upon driving this paper thin structure through the building, keep in mind that the fuselage is like a very thin soda can, and the building is like an old fashioned
wrought iron fence, only it has > 90,000 tons of mass in it's steel structure and the floor is 1/3 acre foot of reinforced concrete, essentially on edge.with a mass of 1200 tons.

In collision the 150 ton 767 is engaging 1200 - 2400 tons of floor, which is firmly tied into a 100,000 ton structure.

Yes, we have mv^2, but we have a ratio of masses on the order of 1:10, which means the ratio of v^2 is also 1:10. A 767 moving at 350 mph could accelerate the floor to 110 mph, if it could transfer all of it's energy into the floor. But the building structure transfers the energy into the balance of the structure so the ratio of masses is 1:1000
and the building could only be accelerated to 11 mph. The videos tell us that the building was not put into motion, that the structure resisted being accelerated.

So, given the building did not move, the plane's momentum had to carry it into the structure. Given the disparity between the two structures, the fuselage had to give, first.
The fuselage had to be crushed, shortening it. This crushing absorbed considerable energy.

The mass of the aircraft is divided as follows:

Fuselage - 34 tons
Wing - 50 tons
Empennage - 7 tons
Landing Gear - 3 tons
Fuel - 56 tons
Pax/Cargo - 24 tons

By the time the wing arrived at the building 17 tons of fuselage structure and 12 tons of payload were stationary.

Some 29 tons of mass had decelerated from impact velocity to zero. This significantly decelerated the remaining structure.
This rapid deceleration most likely sheared the wing structure, such that the wing encountered the building along it's entire length, rather than just at the root.

Encounter of the wing with the building further declerated 109 tons of mass to zero. The wing encounter lay across at least 3-4 floors and ~ 36 columns.

Remaining to be decerated was the aft half of the fuselage and the empennage and half the payload 36 tons.

Assuming an impact velocity = ~ Vne = 350 mph, it is likely that the wing impacted the structure at ~ 150 mph, and the aft half of the plane's fuselage stopped moving
about the time the aft part of the wing lay crushed against the building.

Yet no part of the planes was visible and no part of the planes fell from the building onto the forecourt.

I also note that despite unlimited funds, no full scale tests of this collision were made against a mockup.

For these reasons and the fire chemistry, the official scenario of the destruction of WTC is a hoax.

Yet to be determined is actuality.

Dr. George



Posted by: goprisko Jan 21 2014, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (goprisko @ Jan 10 2014, 09:22 AM) *
Now to the collision itself.....................

The diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is 4.72 m = 188 in = 16 ft. It is made of aluminum skin on longitudinals supported by circular frames. All sections are ~ 0.06" thick.

The floor spacing in the WTC towers is 12 ft.

The perimeter columns were spaced on 52 in centers = 3' 4". They were box beams 14" square. At the point of impact their wall thickness was > 3/4"
They were unitized by horizontal beams "spandrels" on 12' centers. Construction was welded.

This means that the 767 fuselage impacted at least one and possibly two floors and 4 to 5 columns.

To visualize this cut the bottom off an aluminum pop can and insert it into a french fry maker. Then press the handle.

The 767 fuselage is essentially open at the front. The nose is covered by a plastic radome, which has been dented in the past from striking birds.

The structural strength of the plastic radome can be neglected.

Upon impact, the fuselage will behave in similar manner to automobile bodies striking walls, or trees. The tree surrogate is the floor(s) in it's path and the columns.

The thin skin will fold under the impact, spreading the load from the initial paper thin section into a much wider area. Momentum will force more material into the impact zone
which will wrinkle. This crushing of the fuselage against the building structure absorbs significant energy, which among other things decelerates the aircraft.

~ 90 ft of fuselage lies in front of the wing. That is, 90 ft of fuselage must be crushed before the wing engages the structure.

For those bent upon driving this paper thin structure through the building, keep in mind that the fuselage is like a very thin soda can, and the building is like an old fashioned
wrought iron fence, only it has > 90,000 tons of mass in it's steel structure and the floor is 1/3 acre foot of reinforced concrete, essentially on edge.with a mass of 1200 tons.

In collision the 150 ton 767 is engaging 1200 - 2400 tons of floor, which is firmly tied into a 100,000 ton structure.

Yes, we have mv^2, but we have a ratio of masses on the order of 1:10, which means the ratio of v^2 is also 1:10. A 767 moving at 350 mph could accelerate the floor to 110 mph, if it could transfer all of it's energy into the floor. But the building structure transfers the energy into the balance of the structure so the ratio of masses is 1:1000
and the building could only be accelerated to 11 mph. The videos tell us that the building was not put into motion, that the structure resisted being accelerated.

So, given the building did not move, the plane's momentum had to carry it into the structure. Given the disparity between the two structures, the fuselage had to give, first.
The fuselage had to be crushed, shortening it. This crushing absorbed considerable energy.

The mass of the aircraft is divided as follows:

Fuselage - 34 tons
Wing - 50 tons
Empennage - 7 tons
Landing Gear - 3 tons
Fuel - 56 tons
Pax/Cargo - 24 tons

By the time the wing arrived at the building 17 tons of fuselage structure and 12 tons of payload were stationary.

Some 29 tons of mass had decelerated from impact velocity to zero. This significantly decelerated the remaining structure.
This rapid deceleration most likely sheared the wing structure, such that the wing encountered the building along it's entire length, rather than just at the root.

Encounter of the wing with the building further declerated 109 tons of mass to zero. The wing encounter lay across at least 3-4 floors and ~ 36 columns.

Remaining to be decerated was the aft half of the fuselage and the empennage and half the payload 36 tons.

Assuming an impact velocity = ~ Vne = 350 mph, it is likely that the wing impacted the structure at ~ 150 mph, and the aft half of the plane's fuselage stopped moving
about the time the aft part of the wing lay crushed against the building.

Yet no part of the planes was visible and no part of the planes fell from the building onto the forecourt.

I also note that despite unlimited funds, no full scale tests of this collision were made against a mockup.

For these reasons and the fire chemistry, the official scenario of the destruction of WTC is a hoax.

Yet to be determined is actuality.

Dr. George



I have recently come across an analysis of the video footage of the WTC during the morning of 9/11.

http://www.septemberclues.info/imagery_analyses.shtml

I found several downloads of his full analysis, ~500Mb, titled:
September.Clues.(2008).DVDRip.Xvid.avi

This analysis is compelling.

He postulates that NO CIVILIAN AIRLINERS IMPACTED WTC or the Pentagon.

That no passengers died

That planes were NOT HIJACKED

That Al-Quaeda WAS NOT INVOLVED

That the WTC portion was for the purpose of demolishing obsolete buildings

That the Pentagon attack was for the purpose of destroying the record(s) of malfeasance exceeding 2.6 billion $$$$

That the entire op was for the purpose of enabling a grab of Mid-Eastern & Central Asian Resources. and to keep
the NeoCons in power.

INDY

Posted by: amazed! Jan 21 2014, 05:01 PM

Dr. George

Welcome to the forum. Have you read the work of Jeff Prager regarding mini-nukes?

Do you think the nose landing gear assembly on a 767 might make it through one of the spaces where the windows were? And what about the main landing gear assemblies?

Do you think it possible that the strike points were prepared with other explosive devices that might have assisted penetration?

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