IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible, An explanation for the intelligent layman.

Tamborine man
post May 23 2011, 02:48 AM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



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.

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: May 23 2011, 03:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 23 2011, 09:36 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 23 2011, 03:21 PM
Post #23





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post May 23 2011, 04:10 PM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



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.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: May 23 2011, 04:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 24 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



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




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 24 2011, 04:36 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Delete double post. (Sorry guys)

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 24 2011, 04:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 24 2011, 04:36 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



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.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 24 2011, 04:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post May 24 2011, 05:52 PM
Post #28


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post May 26 2011, 10:58 AM
Post #29





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 27 2011, 08:23 AM
Post #30





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post May 27 2011, 07:41 PM
Post #31





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 27 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #32





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post May 28 2011, 08:04 AM
Post #33





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Jun 2 2011, 09:54 PM
Post #34





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 2 2011, 10:48 PM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



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.

THE FIFTY-NINE-STORY CRISIS / The Citicorp Building and the Twin Towers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 3 2011, 08:38 AM
Post #36





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 3 2011, 03:06 PM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 3 2011, 07:18 PM
Post #38





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 4 2011, 09:22 AM
Post #39





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 4 2011, 09:40 AM
Post #40





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2019 - 09:59 PM