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

Munkle
post May 16 2011, 05:32 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 15-January 11
Member No.: 5,591



Reposted from DailyPaul.com

by James_Madison_Lives


An explanation for the intelligent layman.

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

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

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

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

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific...tals-d_152.html

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

Some heat-energy content values:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

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

Specific heat unit converter
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-co...cific-heat.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 17 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #2





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

So James has shown that Phase I - initiation was not from office fires. Phase I is the collapse of the top 14 stories in tower 1 and a slightly more complex collapse sequence of the top 30 stories of tower 2... Both of which show a destruction from the bottom up or crush down... quite similar to a CD. So were there CD's at the tops which provided the mass to destroy the bottom? It's a possibility... much much much better than office fires.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post May 18 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #3





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



sanderso:


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


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

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

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

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

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

I do not believe that the responders manufacture BS!





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 19 2011, 12:50 AM
Post #4





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





Good comments talayo ....

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

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

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

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

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











Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 19 2011, 07:16 AM
Post #5





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research continues to get at the initiation of those collapses. And so all attention should be on the period before there is any perceived movement to the period when the destruction begins. It is in that period where the prize is to be found.... not the collapse phase.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Munkle
post May 19 2011, 06:59 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 15-January 11
Member No.: 5,591



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


Pardon me? It was imposed when the last 30 stories of the towers were built. The upward static resistance of the much heavier, massive lower box columns was equal to or greater than downward force at any horizontal plane in the structure, or it would not have been at static equilibrium, i.e. it wouldn't be standing. If you mean the additional load imposed by the momentum of collapsing floors, you would need to drop those floors from something like twenty miles up to generate the required energy to completely crush the lower 80 or 90 floors. The upward static resistance of 30,000 tons of vertical, cross-braced steel in the core alone is considerable, and then you have the perimeter columns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 20 2011, 04:03 PM
Post #7





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



Talayo

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

SandersO claim that is was gravity-driven is superfluous in that regard, but he likes to keep making it, as though it were profound information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 20 2011, 08:10 PM
Post #8





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



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


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

If you place 30,000 tons on ANY office tower floor it will collapse. That is the imposed load I referred to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 21 2011, 06:57 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



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

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

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

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

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

Pulverization had dispersed the debris away from the structure too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0ZBSDBZCY...nel_video_title

Sorry man, doesn't add up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 21 2011, 09:32 PM
Post #10





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



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

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

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

Yes some crushing and pulverization did cause the growing falling debris mass to push laterally. This forced the facade panels away and some of the debris DID fall outside the footprint. But MOST of it and obviously a sufficient mass remained within the facade and footprint and was able to destroy each and every floor. The facade acted like a chute containing the avalanche of falling debris... but it was not strong enough to hold it in.. like pouring sand into a cardboard carton... the walls bulge and will break depending on their thickness and the mass of the sand poured in... and SOME of the sand will migrate outside the footprint of the carton... leaving a cone shaped debris pile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 21 2011, 10:50 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



And the South Tower?

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

Look how quickly the floors below collapsed.

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see what I'm trying to understand?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 22 2011, 08:01 AM
Post #12





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



1SS

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

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calculate the pressure of an explosion:

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I am not sure what -halfway point- refers to... halfway in time from some start point to some end point? Or halfway ijn the height of the top section... or the bottom section. Please clarify and I will attempt an explanation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 22 2011, 09:22 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



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



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

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

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

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

Peace

OSS

ETA:



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


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 22 2011, 09:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 22 2011, 02:46 PM
Post #14





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



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

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

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

Unfortunately this forum makes it difficult to impossible to post my PDF graphics about the collapse... my research. If you would like to see it, PM me with an email address and I can send it to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 22 2011, 04:29 PM
Post #15





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



Yeah, it's not an explosion, and Hani Hanjour was a helluva pilot! laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 22 2011, 04:36 PM
Post #16





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



Here is a video of explosions:

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

does this resemble one of them?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUodIOAmBk&feature=fvst
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 22 2011, 05:25 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

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



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


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

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

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

I found these images:







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

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

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

But the lower floors too:

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

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images..._ejectiong.jpeg

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

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

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

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

I found ths link very useful:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=463:463

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

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...3/flooring.jpeg

Hi-res:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/WTCdemo...w_004SQ_RAW.jpg

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

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



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


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

Peace

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 22 2011, 07:54 PM
Post #18





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



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

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

More complexity would not be used because it could expose the plot. I believe it's possible to load the required explosives in THIS building in a few evenings of work by a small crew of 5 or six loaders. That's a guess, but I sense it was not that extensive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 22 2011, 08:19 PM
Post #19





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



OSS,

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

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

My guess explanation is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 22 2011, 08:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 22 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



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

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

I'm not trying to bust your balls SanderO. Just trying to think this through logically.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2019 - 05:09 PM