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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Collapse Hypothesis

JimMac
post May 25 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #21





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Another tid bit to the history of WTC is that the Federal Reserve Bank of NY took a lease for something like 40,000 Sq Ft (area from recall) back in the early days of leasing the building, because it was a dog to lease. The open space floor plan was a novel and exciting idea, but it was hard to find tenants to take advantage of the large floor areas in the beginning. Y'all know who is the controlling mind of the NY Fed Reserve.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 26 2009, 11:28 AM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2009, 04:19 PM) *
It would be difficult to get into every column with 100rds of tones of anything.

There is another heat source that will heat up steel for weeks,
that leaves elevated levels of tritium, and tends to vaporize steel,
and liquefy concrete.

I don't think any amount of thermite can do this.

The thermite wasn't the only cause of the demolition, just a part of it.

Received loud and clear. If you look downwards, such a source of energy would have a circular footprint.
If you don want that source of energy to be contained in each tower, that will leave the corners. So you
use your special source of energy, and for the corners you use good old thermite. Guess where on the
towers the flowing molten metal was seen? On the corners, yep.

Now, the question I have been asking myself is this... was the source of energy placed within the bedrock,
creating a cavity into which a part of the core fell, while the perimeter columns stood on the bedrock, thus
shearing and tearing the horizontal beams? Or was the source at the basement above the bedrock... not
sure of that.

However it seems that parts of the core descended a few levels.

If those columns are indeed corner columns (501,508,1001 or 5008), from structural data, we know there is a column
width transition from the 9th to the 10th floor, and no transition till the 60th or something floor. As I see a transition in
the photo, this means that this is the boundary between the 9th and 10th floors. Yet the large tridents mark the 6th
floor. Checking other pictures to guard against misleading perspective, it seems to me that this part of the core
sunk about 3 levels, either because the core fell into a cavity, or because its base was vaporized or knocked out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 26 2009, 01:46 PM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 26 2009, 11:28 AM) *
Now, the question I have been asking myself is this... was the source of energy placed within the bedrock,
creating a cavity into which a part of the core fell, while the perimeter columns stood on the bedrock, thus
shearing and tearing the horizontal beams? Or was the source at the basement above the bedrock... not
sure of that.


World Trade Center Slurry Wall and Steel Beam, Manhattan, New York City (Black and White)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 26 2009, 02:10 PM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 26 2009, 07:46 PM) *

Does this picture help one hypothesis or the other?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 26 2009, 06:53 PM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 26 2009, 02:10 PM) *
Does this picture help one hypothesis or the other?


Well, its a core column. I thought it was helpful. I guess you must decide. If you look closely, I think we see the top of a footing there too. (So far, I have not seen a pic of an actual footing in place, but that's kinda beside the point. )

Can you reconcile this photo with the idea that a small nuke blew a hole in the bedrock?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 27 2009, 02:43 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I wonder just how far ahead this demolition was planned.
at least months, perhaps a year, or maybe more.

Why were the twin towers built in the first place?
For world trade?
I guess.
But was there a need, for these buildings then?

The more I think about it the more it seems that they were built to withstand aircraft, so they wouldn't come down unexpectedly.

How long does aluminum and rust last? Forever?
I think it would have an unlimited shelf life,
made with those ingredients.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 29 2009, 05:20 AM
Post #27





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 27 2009, 12:53 AM) *
Well, its a core column. I thought it was helpful. I guess you must decide. If you look closely, I think we see the top of a footing there too. (So far, I have not seen a pic of an actual footing in place, but that's kinda beside the point. )

It's not a core column. Core columns were box columns until approximately the 2/3rds of the tower. This does not show a box column but an I-beam.
The perspective is also misleading. It's a column of the WTC, all right, but not of the core of the buildings. It's next to the boundary of the WTC area.


The last core column was removed in the "last column" ceremony.


Now can we reconcile the above last column picture with the idea that "a small nuke blew a hole in the bedrock"?
Well, if a small nuke created a (half-filled) cavity, and if the top of that cavity collapsed shortly after, you'd get a depression but not
necessarily a gaping hole. So the columns could sink a few stories but not disappear. Would that be possible, or helpful
for the demolition?

Also, if you absolutely want a gaping hole... you could have a gaping hole that covers only a few core columns.
There were 48 core columns. Is there a picture of 48 core columns standing on their foundations after the event?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 29 2009, 06:27 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 29 2009, 03:20 AM) *
The last core column was removed in the "last column" ceremony.

What "force" bent that column? Has anyone done a "free-body diagram" yet? Breaking, ultimate, and yield strength(s) anyone?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...train_A36_2.svg

T = F x r

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/torq.html#torq

This thread has already gone borderline "Alt theories" and it might get moved soon.

EDIT: Euler buckling (of columns):

http://freewikimedia.com/en/wiki/Column.html

EDIT2: Oh yeah, engineers mostly like to refer to torque T as a "moment" +/- "arm" for whatever their reasons... (The boldface denotes vector quantities, as was standard in my collegiate literature back then anyway)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 29 2009, 12:53 PM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 29 2009, 05:20 AM) *
It's not a core column. Core columns were box columns until approximately the 2/3rds of the tower. This does not show a box column but an I-beam.


Hello, guillaumedoc, I just saw this post now, or I would have replied sooner. Your statement is interesting; i did a little study on just that subject this week after I saw a newspaper article stating that this column was a perimeter column. I didn't think so, which led me to investigate. Check this page out. I have a thread running on this issue too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 29 2009, 06:30 PM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 29 2009, 06:53 PM) *
Hello, guillaumedoc, I just saw this post now, or I would have replied sooner. Your statement is interesting; i did a little study on just that subject this week after I saw a newspaper article stating that this column was a perimeter column. I didn't think so, which led me to investigate. Check this page out. I have a thread running on this issue too.

Hello,

Are you still referring to the picture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapplegate/1380111770/ ?
It's neither a core column, nor a perimeter column of the towers. Perimeter columns
were resting on the famous "tridents" which were resting on box columns which were
resting on foundations ; not on I-beams. Actually, I don't think it's a column from the towers
themselves, but from the complex (i.e. a basement column) since it is shown to be next to
the bathtub wall, which the towers were not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 29 2009, 06:33 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (dMole @ May 29 2009, 12:27 PM) *
What "force" bent that column?

Hello dMole, are you talking of the ceremony column? Seems straight to me.
It was also standing straight before being removed, see for instance Meyerowitz's
book "Aftermath".

Edit. Page 269 of the book, states that the "ceremony column" is column #1001 of the south tower, expressly retained for a ceremony.

This post has been edited by guillaumedock: May 29 2009, 06:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 29 2009, 06:37 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 29 2009, 06:30 PM) *
Hello,

Are you still referring to the picture at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapplegate/1380111770/ ?
It's neither a core column, nor a perimeter column of the towers. Perimeter columns
were resting on the famous "tridents" which were resting on box columns which were
resting on foundations ; not on I-beams. Actually, I don't think it's a column from the towers
themselves, but from the complex (i.e. a basement column) since it is shown to be next to
the bathtub wall, which the towers were not.



Did you look at the web page mini-study I did? If you did, and still make the above statements, then we would be in full disagreement. The subject clearly is not a perimeter column.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guillaumedock
post May 29 2009, 06:46 PM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 8-March 09
From: Paris
Member No.: 4,191



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 30 2009, 12:37 AM) *
Did you look at the web page mini-study I did? If you did, and still make the above statements, then we would be in full disagreement.

Yes I did. I agree that it's not a perimeter column. However it is neither a core column as point ( B ) of the study claims. It is IMHO a column of the subbasement level of the WTC complex. So we are in partial agreement and in partial disagreement.

This post has been edited by guillaumedock: May 29 2009, 06:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post May 29 2009, 08:14 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (guillaumedock @ May 29 2009, 06:46 PM) *
Yes I did. I agree that it's not a perimeter column. However it is neither a core column as point ( B ) of the study claims. It is IMHO a column of the subbasement level of the WTC complex. So we are in partial agreement and in partial disagreement.


Ok, i'm not sure if you are construction savvy or not, but when you have a structural element of this massive size there is a load bearing reason. And, if you notice on the floor plan of sublevel5 where this column starts, there are no interior floor columns that do not form part of the core 48 (or 47) col array. So please tell me where you see it positioned, because it does not show on the floor plan. (unless you accept it as one of the core columns).

Back to you.

(btw, thanks for taking the time to sort this out, because i do believe its important)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Feb 22 2010, 02:55 PM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 18 2009, 06:23 PM) *
This theory is bunk. You should investigate Christoper Brown and his web site. http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html. This guy really disturbs me, because he a fraud and he is the source of this mis-information on the net. I can't believe how many people get sucked into his BS. BTW..the images he used are borrowed from a BBC news documentary which is also bunk. My guess is Chris Brown is on the dark-ops payroll, under the '9/11 obfuscation' chart of accounts.

Other than footings, concrete was not used as a structural element in WTC construction. Footings would have been gigantic and require truck load upon truck load of pre-mix.


Dude, most likely that the reverse of what you post is true. Or, that you are on the payroll not I. I am a US Citizen working to protect the US Constitution.

This is substantiated by the fact that I have filed a United States Code, Title 18, part I, chapter 115, 2382 filing at United States District Court with substancial evidence.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

Now, show us how you will work to protect the Constitution. Or . . . have it be true that you are working against it.



This post has been edited by Christophera: Feb 22 2010, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 27 2010, 08:22 PM
Post #36





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



http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6861/terminal.gif

terminal velocity revealed.

The twins were mostly air. Each 12 feet from floor to floor has 4" of concrete slab and 11'-8" of air with some office contents within the 11'8" as well as some ceiling /floor structure and ducts. But it was 97% air... except for the columns of course, in the core and partitions.

If one considers the collapsing floors the total height of the slabs was 36' and the other 1430 feet was air.

We can see that the facade was largely found outside the footprint and appears to have peeled away being pushed by the collapsing floors or explosions (less likely). The core frame seems to have survived the collapse a bit, some of it standing 70 stories before collapsing or in some cases toppling over. The lateral supports and the core floors likely collapsed ie, crushed by the massive weight of material falling from the top sections.

So the matter to examine is how did the floors break free from their supports. Or perhaps were the crushed by collapsing material from above. What caused the upper sections to collapse, ie be freed from their support (columns)? Were the columns exploded away? Were they displaced by explosions? Were they cut but incendiaries? Did the buckle from extreme heat (from whatever source) or did the structure torque and twist as a result of damaged columns and a progressive failure? Or a combination of the above? Regardless, it seems that once that sort of mass was free to fall, it would have enough energy to make it down to the ground at free fall only slowed by the time it took to destroy the floor and/or its columns connections. That time is very small when one considers hundreds of thousands of tons of material dropping on a 4" thick slab. That slab would hardly slow the collapse at all.

The gif above shows that terminal velocity was reached after a few seconds at about the 85th floor and appears to be in excess of 60 mph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gepay
post Sep 27 2010, 03:44 PM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 18
Joined: 29-September 07
Member No.: 2,270



QUOTE (JimMac @ May 23 2009, 10:19 PM) *
(Trust me on this), Architects do not give the slightest, faintest thought to how their crowning achievements will be one day be torn down. On the contrary, they imagine them to provide a sense of immortality to their creators. And if the impossible idea were somehow to apply in the case of WTC, they would need to bring in a team of demo engineers to advise at the planning stages. And to build such a structure using 'explosive' and therefore dangerous materials, even if it was done covertly, would be next to impossible. The idea is beyond far fetched. It just didn't happen.

Its true that professional people did think for at least a decade on how to demolish the buildings (legally on behalf of the Port Authority) but the covert action that eventually did occur was planned well in advance, maybe even five to ten years in advance by the people that eventually gained control of the buildings with that purpose in mind. They had a plan when they set up Larry Silverstein as the new owner, because he is a front man asset. He has backers.

Here's an interesting little tid bit from wiki: In 1989 Larry Silverstein proposed to members of the Israeli government that a Free-Trade zone should be created within the Negev region of Israel. The project ultimately failed, however it enjoyed popular support amongst leading Israeli political figures. (Silverstein was very connected)


There is much circumstantial evidence that Silverstein knew in advance. The price for his participation is evident in the destruction of WTC 7 which Silverstein had constructed. That and his portion of the 5billion of the terrorism insurance plus the government carted away all the debris on their tab.
Cui bono. Plus helping with "never again' . see Bibi Netanyahu's statement about how good 911 was for Israel. There is much actual evidence for Mossad help - the hifiving Israeli 'movers' filming the towers destruction- the noisy diversionary Israeli 'art students. etc

then there are all the benefits to the Bush admin and the neocons. This operation required help from elements of the CIA, the military, the FBI, etc. although I agree with the statement = "there's no disaster so bad that it can't be made worse by the government coming to help." This ineptness and turf battles and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing was used by the covert moles in the US government to be able to use the resources available to the above agencies to bring this off without being caught in the act. Although there was Israeli help , even the Mossad can't put the US airForce on hold down.

The WTC towers were huge buildings. They required a very complex demolition. My guesses would be it appears that seconds before impact, some of the core columns were weakened in the basement. Then a nanothermite thermobaric device(s?) were used to destroy the floors and the outer perimeter. The towers exploded like popcorn and threw tons of steel away from the foot print. This was after the top floors above the impacts were destroyed in a conventional demolition. You can't have 20 or more stories of a building 1/4 of mile up in the air tumbling onto some of the most pricey real estate in the world. Then the core columns were cut. And yes, the elevators had recently undergone upgrading that year by a business, Ace Elevator, that is not now in existence. The elevator operators all left that 911 day and didn't help with the rescue as they had in the first WTC bombing. And we have heard of the Bush connections to the security of the WTC. The tremendous heat left in the rubble is the smoking gun anybody who has a skeptical ounce of perception needs to know this was not done by radical islamic terrorists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 27 2010, 06:55 PM
Post #38





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



With all due respect the theories presented above about the destruction of the twin towers show a lack of clear understanding of their structure and a failure to properly describe the observation of the collapse.

First one needs to understand that as much as 40% of the core survived the collapse of the floors outside the core with 501 standing 0ver 70 stories and this included all the columns on the north side of the core perimeter. Many stood over 50 stories before collapsing. All this can be seen in videos if you bother to look for this.

This means that the core columns were not destroyed to enable the collapse of the lower section - ie below the plane strikes.

Next, each tenant floor was designed to support 100# per square foot with a healthy safety factor of perhaps 6. But it's likely that they would not collapse - total failure unless there was 1,000#/SF.

When the upper section in WTC 1 was destroyed or collapse it's weight mostly came down on the 92nd floor - uppermost undamaged floor from the plane strike and fire. The floors system alone weighed over 100#/SF so this meant that a sizable fraction of 1700#/SF descended on the 92nd floor over a few seconds as the top section was destroyed. This included the dynamic load where some of the mass was dropping 225 or more feet. Bottom line is that the typical outside the core floor such as 92 collapse from the falling debris and this over load condition continued right down to the ground. The top 17 floors weighed north of 80,000 tons and discounting the core and the perimeter the floors alone weighed over 50,000 tons and this does not include walls and furnishings etc. No floor system in the towers could support this load.

The collapse we saw was the progressive and very rapid at about 60 mph of the floors. In the process of collapsing the mass acted like a chaotic avalanche and pushed in at the core and out at the facade. The facade peeled and was pushed away by the avalanche of the floors. The core which was mostly shafts had much of the lateral support beams destroyed by the debris from the collapse above. The boom boom boom boom etc was the rapid sequence of one floor crashing to the next heard in the beginning of the collapse.

The plane strike did not push the top off the columns which held it up. Neither did office fires etc provide enough heat to weaken enough of the steel core columns to cause them to buckle and then fail releasing the top to plunge done destroying the floors below. No columns were crushed, certainly from the lower section.

It's possible that only a 14 of the perimeter core columns were "attacked" over three floors (each column was made of 3 story sections so there were 37 of them one atop the other obviously with the lower ones being the strongest. Only 24 of the core columns supported the floors outside the core, the remaining 23 in the center did little except carry the antenna and frame the shafts and support the few corridors and floor areas in the core. But even the center 3 columns did not carry the antenna alone (each tower was designed to carry an huge antenna). The hat truss was a three dimensional space frame which distributed the antenna loads to the stronger perimeter core columns and even out to a few facade columns. So attacking the for corner columns 501, 508, 1001 and 1008 and the ones which supported the hat hat truss 505, 506, 1005, 1006 and 701, 801, 708 and 807 at three floors and the joint where the connected to the columns above supported another three floors would likely be enough to "release" the tops, get them off axis and descending permitting the first 6 and then the remaining 11 floors to impact floor 92. And to finish the job that mass continued down growing by 3000 to 500 tons per floor destroyed. By the 50th floor the pressure was 50,000 PSI and by the time the collapsing floors hit ground the force was 100,000 PSI.

What was the explosion heard in the basement? If it was anywhere near the main freight elevator it was likely to destroy /weaken the 3 columns under the antenna (which led the descent of the top) These columns were not directly connected to the perimeter, but it they dropped they could pull some of the core perimeter inward via the lateral support beams. Careful examination of the collapse of the top of WTC 1 show the outer perimeter of the roof being pulled in as it descends indicating that the center was "hollowed out" some what.

Most of the steel columns were broken apart at their weakest point - the joints which held them together, though some were bent from the collapse itself.

There are still many mysteries about the destruction of thew twin towers but once those tops broke free the collapse was natural and predictable and required no explosives or incendiaries. The towers were 96% air by volume in the floor area outside the core and only slightly more when the columns are considered (but they did not get crushed).

Whomever did it understood the structure and its weak points and that was the open column free long span floor system. If they could overload that the floor collapse would take the columns with them or leave them too tall to stand unsupported. Plane strikes would and could not attack enough floors to set the avalanche going nor could local floor collapse from a few damaged floor trusses. NIST liedf and deceived. But they did not bother to explain the collapse after their bizarre collapse initiation fiction.

That's where the new investigation must focus - collapse initiation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 28 2010, 04:36 PM
Post #39





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



There will be no new investigation.

Not of this event, and not of the assassinations of MLK or JFK. Ain't gonna happen, and there is a reason for that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 28 2010, 05:03 PM
Post #40





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



I think you are correct. A new investigation will air some very dirty laundry and that would be unacceptable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: 25th August 2019 - 04:10 AM