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 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible, An explanation for the intelligent layman.

amazed!
post Jun 5 2011, 10:28 AM
Post #41





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



SanderO

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

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

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

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

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

I agree completely with your last paragraph.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Jun 5 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #42





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see what I'm getting at? Any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 6 2011, 05:38 AM
Post #43





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



mrmitosis

Maybe someone should ask NIST why they never tested for explosives at the WTC? I guess they were afraid of the answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 6 2011, 12:38 PM
Post #44





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



I am a bit confused by MrM's question.

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

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

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

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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Jun 7 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #45





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



SanderO -

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

Earlier in this thread, you stated that:

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

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


However, you also said that:

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


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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Jun 7 2011, 12:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Jun 7 2011, 12:16 AM
Post #46





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



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

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


Well, I'm sure we'd all appreciate an answer to that question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 7 2011, 12:58 PM
Post #47





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



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



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

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

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

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

So they were providing cover for:

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

My guess is that they were more concerned with #1 because they knew that the hijackers did it would not even be questioned. And of course the progressive failure of the entire structure from a progressive collapse IS a design flaw and IS a liability/negligence regardless of what started it... or is that... except for acts of god?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 8 2011, 05:09 PM
Post #48





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



sanderso says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You seem to be intelligent and particularly well informed, but your estimates seem, now and then, to be twisted to show that everything is normal. I cannot understand your lapses into questionable claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jun 8 2011, 09:05 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Stepping briefly back into this - SanderO said

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

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

You do know there were 25 stories above the plane impact in WTC2. What massive grinding force is acting on the furniture on, say, floor 103?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 8 2011, 11:56 PM
Post #50





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



talayo:

The floors were 4.5" thick

4.5 x 100 = 450"

450"/12' = 37.5'

One story height is 12'

37.5" = 3.125 story heights.

ALL the facade steel fell outside the foot print.

The total volume of the core steel

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

40,000 / 6.68 = 5,988 cu yards

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 9 2011, 12:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 9 2011, 12:06 AM
Post #51





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



KP,

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

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

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

The experts like Bazant were wrong, NIST made up stuff and sadly AE911T seems to make up some stuff too. Let's confine the study to the actual observations and what we know about the towers and their structure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 9 2011, 06:21 AM
Post #52





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



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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jun 9 2011, 07:07 AM
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



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

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


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

I'm about done with you SanderO - you're yet another Truth Liter, pushing the OCT every chance you get.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 9 2011, 08:43 AM
Post #54





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



KP,

With all due respect... rubbish.

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

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

Observations rule.

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

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

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

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

Research continues to this day. An inspection of some WTC steel is planned for this summer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 9 2011, 02:59 PM
Post #55





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



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

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

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

Truth Lite--now I like that term. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jun 9 2011, 04:30 PM
Post #56





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



Remember the antenna that was on top of WTC 1?

Same shit, different day and a different forum.

Five years later and we're still arguing the same bullshit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 9 2011, 06:40 PM
Post #57





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



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

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

The Antenna?

I think it began to descend and broke at some joint into two sections, one of which went over. The base likely drove down through the center of the core and did a lot of damage to those weakest columns 704, 705, 804. This would not kiely destroy the floors outside the core but would destroy the bracing inside the core.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 9 2011, 09:17 PM
Post #58





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



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 9 2011, 04:30 PM) *
Remember the antenna that was on top of WTC 1?

Same shit, different day and a different forum.

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



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

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

Cool picture of the antenna. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 9 2011, 10:30 PM
Post #59



Group Icon

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



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


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

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

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

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

The aove are "facts" too.

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

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



Amazed! made a very good point about the "hammer and anvil". Are you suggesting that all of this debris was crushed almost in mid-air? If the upper floors were being crushed too, the downward force would have dissipated too, no?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 10 2011, 06:40 AM
Post #60





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



One,

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Pages V  < 1 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: 23rd October 2019 - 10:28 PM