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 )

22 Pages V  « < 20 21 22  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation

SanderO
post Dec 28 2012, 07:03 PM
Post #421





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



OSS,

I didn't accuse anyone of being a liar, especially you. I don't question your intention or your integrity. I may disagree with statements you make... and you find statements I make incorrect. That's fine. You are not attacked and you should not demand I apologize. On other hand I have been handed all sorts of ad homs and insults which don't bother me as much as reflect on those who make such statements. It's childish and akin to bullying.

If weakened steel in the transfer truss gussets from missing material can be verified and the cause can be determined as sulfidation then more study on possible ways this could be done including the so called eutectic device needs to be looked into. Perhaps Jon Cole can show a eutectic device burning away steel? Wouldn't that be of interest to you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 28 2012, 07:24 PM
Post #422





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2012, 10:09 PM
Post #423





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE
There is strong evidence for their having failed prior to the obvious tower movements. I suspect that not only did this transfer structures collapse... but the 8 story trusses on the north of both the east and west walls may have been pull in or forced out when the more central structures failed. This would essentially leave the tower from floor 8 up with nothing to support it and 100 foot descent would meet no significant resistance.

The problem is, however, that there are very precise traces of the downward motion and not only did it average at FF for 100 feet, but there was a period of MORE than free fall. So there was something else in play of this is true? Could this be a spring action of some sort? If these velocity time/motion studies are accurate the 100 foot decent is not a simple gravity driven drop.

As Archimedes would say = Eureka. [I have found it]

I sort of promised to solve the puzzle.

I like the “faster than free fall” part! [If that is possible]

Where did that statement come from?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 08:42 AM
Post #424





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



femr2 did very detailed trace data on the movements of all three buildings. There was a detailed discussion of this observation at the 9/11 free forums.

Several researchers, femr2, achimspok, tom, enik and OWE to name a few at 911 FF... try to analyze the very careful study of movements and connect observations to what might have caused them

Irrespective of the cause of the failure it appears to have been in the transfer truss region and TTF is decent working hypothesis... at least it is supported by the observed movements. As in the twins which were likely a core led collapse which evolved into a ROOSD driven destruction we can't know what was going on inside the core because we can see there and have little data from the core columns.. and mostly fog supplied by NIST.

The small period of faster than FF might be explained by a spring like action... but it's very hard to wrap one's mind around it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 30 2012, 10:13 AM
Post #425



Group Icon

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



This explanation posted at the swamp (J.REF) sounds reasonable

QUOTE


Core and perimeter were still connected by the floor system. Once the core dropped at gravitational acceleration the core-floor-perimeter acted like a spring system. Firstly, the core pulled the perimeter inwards. Secondly, the perimeter failed at a very low elevation and was shot downwards by the "floor-springs". The falling core was slowed down at the same time until the entire system fell as one unit.
Of course the center of mass of the entire system cannot exceed gravitational acceleration but the perimeter can and it tells a lot about the intact inner structure of the upper and visible building part.


Sounds like there was a definite "kicking out" from underneath?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 30 2012, 10:55 AM
Post #426





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



That explanation was produced by femr2 and tom from 911FF who battle with the jerks on the govt loyalist site. That GIF was also produced by tom or femr2 or perhaps achimspok from 911FF,

It sounds like there was some sort of failure below 8 and likely not a single column unless it was supporting transfer trusses. A single column is more likely to be an isolated local failure... whereas a transfer structure will inolved several column lines. The entire north side of the core involved transfer structures and transfer trusses 1,2 & were on the east and west sides of the core... all of them used to span over/avoid penetrating the Con Ed sub station.

JUMP...

Would the existence of the sub station and the subsequent structural system to accommodate it suggest (possibly) that the sub station was the reason for the bizarre design which turned out to be where the structure appears to have failed.

Con Ed, of course, will claim that the engineers of the tower knew what they were up against and it became their problem. This does not make Con Ed negligent, but it does point out the bone head thinking in creating this difficult challenge for the designers.

I wonder whether the placement of the mech equipment and back up generators and electrical switch gear within these transfer structures might have played some role in their undoing. (I know OSS.. there were no raging fires there).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

22 Pages V  « < 20 21 22
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: 27th January 2022 - 04:49 AM