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 )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed

mrmitosis
post Nov 16 2010, 07:58 PM
Post #61





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



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

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

Could this be symptomatic of some kind of significant explosive event? I'm sure someone somewhere must have investigated this...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 16 2010, 08:41 PM
Post #62





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



I think it's camera shake. The camera was quite far from the towers and this would have shown on every video. Now what caused the camera to shake is another matter of interest. If the camera tripod was on a building roof or near some HVAC equipment which cycled on this may have been the cause. Hard to know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Nov 16 2010, 08:49 PM
Post #63





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



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

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

Does anything show up on the seismic readings?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 16 2010, 09:30 PM
Post #64





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



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


You bet it does. I have seen it but I couldn't tell you where I saw it. If you look you will find it because it is out there. Now I have no idea if it's happening at the same time the cameras shake or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 16 2010, 10:07 PM
Post #65



Group Icon

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



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


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



Vibratios from another angle. Ground floor level:



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



Sorry for the hit and run posts but I think it's better to see the footage, then comment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 18 2010, 04:43 AM
Post #66





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



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


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

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

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

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

angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 18 2010, 10:01 AM
Post #67





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

No case has been actually made for a controlled demolition which explains how it might have taken place to produce and match everything we saw. And the collapse of the lower section can be described as a gravity driven collapse using sound engineering and physics which does match what we observed. What we can't see is how this collapse was initiated and explosives and thermite are only a sketchy hypothesis at this point in time. This may turn out to be how the collapse was initiated, but the case has not been made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 18 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #68





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



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


Did it ever occur to you that you're the one who can't engage in honest, intelligent discussion? Keep trying to convince us that we're all idiots and then you can't understand why no one believes you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 18 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #69





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell me.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 18 2010, 11:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 18 2010, 10:53 PM
Post #70





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



And you're an engineer? Sheesh!

An explosion on 1 of the central core columns would weaken that core column to some degree or another.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 19 2010, 06:24 AM
Post #71





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



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

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

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 19 2010, 06:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 19 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #72





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



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

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


I'm a early bird but 4:24 am. Damn do you ever sleep?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 19 2010, 10:13 AM
Post #73





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



SanderO

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

Me, I'm just a lowly pilot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 19 2010, 12:02 PM
Post #74





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



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

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

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

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

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

But we didn't see that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 19 2010, 12:33 PM
Post #75





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



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

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

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

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

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

But we didn't see that.


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

angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 19 2010, 12:35 PM
Post #76





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



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

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

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

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

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

But we didn't see that.


blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif yes1.gif yes1.gif doh1.gif doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 19 2010, 12:55 PM
Post #77





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



Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't care to discuss technical matters about the twin towers, be my guest and hide behind whatever belief you choose to follow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 20 2010, 11:03 AM
Post #78





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



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

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

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

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

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

And yes, we completely agree that the coverup is worse than the crime.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 20 2010, 11:53 AM
Post #79





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



Amazed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rodriquez

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

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

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

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

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

I think that the planners understood that the building would collapse down by gravity and that could "conceal" the cause... initiation.., and they would expect it to be blamed on destruction from the planes and the fires. But this seems not to be enough energy to initiate phase I even if (though) once initiated it could set of the gravity driven collapse. These guys did some serious engineering analysis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 21 2010, 01:30 PM
Post #80





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rodriquez

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
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: 16th October 2019 - 01:34 PM