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 )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
wtc collapse debate with SanderO, split from toronto event thread

SanderO
post Aug 26 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #1





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



The *evidence* for CD at the WTC is not as conclusive as many believe it to be. All of it is *circumstantial* and has been used by AE911T as signs of CD... but much of this *evidence* is also a sign of a gravity driven collapse.

The discovery of the red gray chips and iron micro spheres in the dust is interesting and needs to be explained... but it is not conclusive that NT was used to destroy all three of the towers. The three towers could have been the result of an engineered intervention... as opposed to weakening from plane strikes and fire damage or in the case of bldg 7 falling debris from tower 1.

The CD approach has created the situation where the truth movement seems to refuse to focus on the mechanism which started the gravity driven collapse... because they want us to believe the towers were completely destroyed top to bottom by some sort of explosive controlled demolition. But the evidence for that is really not conclusive. And this goes for the time of collapse, the ejections, the billowing cloud of dust at the conclusion, the *symmetry* of the collapse and so forth.. none of these prove CD and much of the observations cited are factually inaccurate... such as the speed and distance that describe the movement of facade columns away from the towers. Much of the evidence for CD can be easily refuted... except for perhaps the initiation of each collapse... and the truth movement is rather silent on that because it undermines their thesis that the towers were completely destroyed by CD. This seems to have boxed the CD advocates in... as virtually all of their *evidence* is how the towers came down and not what started it all and the *result*. To accept a gravity driven collapse would take away almost all their *case*.

NIST on the other hand makes a bogus case for the collapse initiation... which can be and has been falsified. But they are silent on the collapse phase. The truth movement has interpreted their silence on the post initiation phase as avoiding the post initiation controlled demolition of the collapse. There were some early discredited *pancake* explanations which were not from NIST but from OCT supporters who tried to explain the complex collapse (destruction of the floors.. peeling of the facade and buckling of an unbraced core)... with a cartoon (and very wrong and simplistic) notion of collapsing pancakes. This was correctly refuted by the truth movement and many scientists and engineers but most people associate the pancakse theory with NIST.

NIST also produced an absurd FEA of bldg 7 which does not resemble the collapse. They tried to show that the failure of column 79 could collapse the entire tower in their FEA... and it did.. but it did NOT resemble the collapse we saw and so it was proof of nothing.

NIST did a horrible job at explaining what happened, but the truth movement has don't no better. Both inadequacies cry out for a new thorough and proper investigation... which is resisted by the gov which has used 911 as the basis for some rather nasty foreign and domestic policy initiatives... (which have killed many and made many richer and more powerful and eroded the constitutional rights of all Americans)

The outrage continues!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Aug 26 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #2


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



re:
QUOTE (sanderO)
blah, blah, blah



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10800696
QUOTE
Thing is, even if the person IS a pilot and can provide the credentials, this doesn't make your organization immune to infiltration. Look at Richard Gage's organization. I've seen several people (I'll refrain from naming names) who absolutely do have sufficient credentials, yet push some pretty absurd stuff. One particularly persistent architect, for example, argues that only a small select number of explosives would be needed around the WTC crash zones in order to initiate the collapses, and that that from then on, it actually was a gravitational collapse. This of course flies in the face of what we see with our own eyes, combined with the testimonies of ground level explosions. (This person did get ousted from AE eventually.)


whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 26 2011, 06:59 PM
Post #3





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



What are you seeing with your own eyes? Certainly you cannot see what is taking place inside the core... you can't see what the explosions you claim took place at the bottom of the towers did to structurally cause a top down destruction... You can't see explosions going off as the towers come down... or even when the top section of tower 2 tilts. You don't see a mushroom type cloud from a huge explosive... and you don't see the facade blasted off the building.. but the glass being busted.

What do you see?

Why do you, Paranoia who likely know next to nothing about structural engineering, and likely nothing about the structural design features of the twin towers.. or the implication of a slightly higher than the typical (1.42) FOS on a progress failure in the core at the time which would cause the structure above to collapse.... did you see that?

You don't see hundreds of witnesses describing seeing any explosives in the period before the collapse/destruction took place...

You see what you want to see it seems to me. Or you see what the limits of your experience allows you to see.

So what did you see?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 26 2011, 07:01 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



SanderO, was WTC7 a "gravity driven collapse" in your opinion?

Why do you constantly ignore the witnesses ranging from rescue workers, people in the building and "virgin" media reports about secondary/multiple explosions both immediately before and after initial impacts?

I've shown you where the remote possibility of "jet fuel" exploding in the basement is highly unlikely due to the timeframe and the out of service lifts and the passenger lift being occupied. One of the links I posted is by a credible source (FEMR2).

I've shown you video evidence where the facade of one of the towers was ripping itself apart travelling downward at the same rate of speed of the debris. Was the "piledrive" going faster than freefall?

The alleged downward force that you claim collapsed the towers was sprayed mostly out and away from the buildings. Any downward forces would have been chaotic and not uniform. Even the footprint of the towers was relatively devoid of debris.

The buildings were reduced, not to dust, but to powder.

"Air pressure" allegedly causing the visible squibs, jet fuel "spray" causing the basement explosions, vehicles causing other secondary explosions, gravity...that's your opinion. You've come across so much resistance to your theory all over this forum because you offhandedly dismiss CD no matter what is posted.

Do you actually believe that the perps relied solely on "physics"? They actually "knew" that collapsing the upper section would cause a "gravity driven collapse"?? And succeed?

Seriously?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Aug 26 2011, 07:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 27 2011, 08:58 AM
Post #5





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



One,


[b]Why do you constantly ignore the witnesses ranging from rescue workers, people in the building and "virgin" media reports about secondary/multiple explosions both immediately before and after initial impacts?

I don't dispute that there were explosions heard... but I do question whether these can be confirmed to be pyrotechnics and not things in the building such as transformers exploding. You would expect to have transformers exploding wouldn't you?


I've shown you where the remote possibility of "jet fuel" exploding in the basement is highly unlikely due to the timeframe and the out of service lifts and the passenger lift being occupied. One of the links I posted is by a credible source (FEMR2).

The time frame has not been clearly established as to when the jet fuel might have come down the shafts and ignited. The pathway down through multiple connected shaftways was certainly available. Car #50 was in the center of the core and shared shafts volume with local car shafts on all three sections. The cars to the the WOW and observation decks between rows 900 and 1000 went from top to bottom and also connected and shared shaft volume with local shafts. Cars would not block fuel plunging down the shafts and I believe that there was reports of the smell of kerosene/jet fuel at the lobby.


I've shown you video evidence where the facade of one of the towers was ripping itself apart travelling downward at the same rate of speed of the debris. Was the "piledrive" going faster than freefall?

The facade was not ripping itself apart at anything like free fall acceleration. The collapse from of the floors was proceeding at about 65 mph with some areas ahead and others behind. This was BEHIND the facade which peeled off AFTER the collapse from of the floors descended past it. The free falling debris eclipses the visible floor destruction at about floor 50 which was traveling down at the above mentioned 65 mph while the heavier than air debris was accelerating and over took the slower floor collapse. Look at the video carefully. FF is a rate of acceleration not a speed. After 5.5 seconds an object in FF reaches about 60 mph...and after 8.5 seconds it reaches 120 mph. The floor collapse/destruction DID have a period of acceleration since it began *at rest*... but reached a terminal velocity of 65 mph... and did not continue to accelerate.


The alleged downward force that you claim collapsed the towers was sprayed mostly out and away from the buildings. Any downward forces would have been chaotic and not uniform. Even the footprint of the towers was relatively devoid of debris.


The collapse of the floor mass which was about 1000 tons per floor was basically downward and gravity driven. The growing mass of the destroyed floor rubble was grinding itself into dust, powder and fine grained material with the millions of collisions caused by the impact with each successive floor. The floor collapse also had to push all the air on each floor out of the way... no two objects... even gas and debris can occupy the same space at the same time. The collapse was moving at 65 mph which is about 100 feet per sec. and so the 18,000 cubic yards per floor volume of air had to be pushed out of the way in about .1 sec. The air was forced outward. Notice the clear air above the tower as it collapses. This is from the air above the towers being drawn into the negative pressure created by the floor collapse. The air in the center of the towers reached speeds of over 400 mph by the time it reached the facade pushed put of the way of the collapsing debris. This massive over pressure of air destroyed the floor contents and carried them right out the windows in what we see as relatively uniform ejections along the facade at each floor just ahead of the collapse front. This pressure also pushed at, stressed and weakened the bolted connections of the facade panels which bulged and then sheared those bolts and toppled away from the towers. You can see panels peel off well after the floors have raced past them leaving them with no lateral bracing.



The buildings were reduced, not to dust, but to powder.

The towers contained 90,000 tons of lightweight no stone aggregate concrete which was crushed and pulverized in the descending avalanche which was somewhat contained by the facade. The lighter than air particles were disbursed away from the towers carried by the very not air created by all the mechanical friction of the grinding of the concrete. These are the so called *pyroclastic* clouds. The collapsing debris/rubble and pulverized concrete was "pouring" downward like water from a spout and would be disbursed outward upon hitting the ground. The total mass of the concrete intact was be only 35 feet tall and with so much carried aloft in the hot air and strong winds there was little left within the footprint. The collapse was a very energetic event which produced much heat and caused the billowing clouds... hot air rises! Most of the steel survived and was not turned to dust or powder... The Spire consisted of all the core columns standing to floor 50 with cc 501 up to floor 78! The fallen steel was hauled away and sold for scrap
.


"Air pressure" allegedly causing the visible squibs, jet fuel "spray" causing the basement explosions, vehicles causing other secondary explosions, gravity...that's your opinion. You've come across so much resistance to your theory all over this forum because you offhandedly dismiss CD no matter what is posted.

I don't dismiss an engineered intervention which could have initiated the top down gravity driven destruction we witnessed. Once begun there was no need for additional energy inputs. All CDs rely on gravity to crush the structure once the axial supports have been undermined. If you don't think that gravity is what destroys structure in a CD then you don't understand how a CD works.


Do you actually believe that the perps relied solely on "physics"? They actually "knew" that collapsing the upper section would cause a "gravity driven collapse"?? And succeed

Yes I do. I believe that whomever engineered this understood the weak points and that with the core steel having a factor of safety of 1.65 and some core columns carrying 2x or more the load than others... it would take only the destruction of as few as 8 columns to "CD" the upper part of the structure which would then provide the driving mass to destroy all the floors... considering that each floor weighed 1000 tons... but each floor could only support an additional 900 tons... so having as much as 15,000-20,000 tons of mass fall upon them would DEFINITELY destroy them one after the other from top to bottom. All engineers worth their salt also know that without bracing the core columns and the facade columns would self buckle and could not stand... and they did... they all toppled over and broke apart at their weakest point - their connections.

ALL CDs are gravity driven with after a destruction of axial loads. There is no reason to believe that any WTC FLOOR... not set of columns... could support more than 4 or 6 floors before collapsing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 27 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Once again SanderO, you come across as trying to have it both ways.

Either the OCT is true, or it is false.

There is so much evidence contradicting the OCT that it really doesn't matter precisely how the towers were taken down. They were taken down, and everybody knows it.

Flash back to Peter Jennings' (RIP) observation that day: "Gosh, it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions you've seen"

How right he was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 27 2011, 04:13 PM
Post #7





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



No I am not having it both ways. I am trying to have the correct way.

NIST has made several serious mistakes. The towers did not collapse from sagging trusses pulling in the facade columns. The shear stud failure did not lead to column 79 taking the entire building 7 down.

AE911T has made several incorrect assertions... and incorrect observation reports... there was no evidence of explosions during the collapse and the concrete slabs were not pulverized in mid air and there wasn't 4-12 inches of dust/powder or whatever for miles around the WTC site and there wasn't steel beams, girders or columns ejected at 70 mph to 600 feet from the towers... and the collapse/destruction was not accelerating a 2/3 of free fall acceleration... There was no pyroclastic like flow or clouds there is no evidence to support any of the above.

We don't KNOW what caused the towers to collapse above the plane crash zones...

We do know that after the tops were destroyed the lower sections were gravity driven collapses... which ended with huge hot gases and strong don drafts from the collapse driving the dust away and aloft... The collapse produced/releases enormous amount of heat energy which heated the air... carried the dust aloft and disbursed it for tens blocks around the site in all directions. The dust was at most a few inches thick on Barclay and church streets and no more than 1/2 - 1" thick a block and a half to the east as City Hall Park. The heaviest steel feel away from the towers and toppled as far as 450 feet from elevations as high as 1,300 feet.. There is no evidence of much material at all being exploded up... but more the illusion of debris filled air being "left behind" as the collapse raced down at 65 mph before the aire was "cleaned" / replaced by clean air from above. There wasn't explosive ejections from explosions but from over pressure of the air being forced out of each floor, destroying the contents and carrying it out the windows. There was some liquid metal at the gash on the 80th floor of tower 2's NE corner but we can't determine what it was from the APPARENT color as refraction, diffraction and other atmospheric and optical effects will change the color of objects. There were explosions in the towers but we can't confirm they were pyrotechnics. Things like transformers in buildings will explode when there are fires. William Rodriguez only says he heard and felt explosions but does not know what they were. He's even confused about the exact time. There were boom boom boom sounds which could also be the first series of floors collapsing. How do we know what collapsing concrete slabs sound like? There was a thunderous roar during the collapse which sounds more like millions of building part colliding and grinding themselves up energetically than it sounds like explosions going off down the towers destroying them.

We do know that most of the facade columns peeled off and all the remaining core columns which were most of then to floor 50 survived the destruction of the floors and collapsed from Euler buckling when they lost their bracing. Some of the facade panels were pushed outward and dropped almost straight down... some even rotated and did a full 180 and impaled themselves into both Church and West streets.

We don't know the origin of the red gray chips and the mechanism (aside from high heat)n which created the iron micro spheres. We do know that there was enormous heat created DURING the collapse from friction... but I can't tell you how hots it was.

We don't know what planes hit the towers and what their payload might have been.

We need a new investigation to determine what happened.

There's lots we know and lots we don't know. I am interested in the truth not far fetched theories...

This post has been edited by SanderO: Aug 27 2011, 04:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 27 2011, 06:20 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort)
Do you actually believe that the perps relied solely on "physics"? They actually "knew" that collapsing the upper section would cause a "gravity driven collapse"?? And succeed


QUOTE (SanderO)
Yes I do.


Nature isn't a predictable beast SanderO. Both towers were hit at different levels and different sections. Tower 2 had much less of a "payload" given the initial explosion and escape of fuel (if the OCT is to be believed). Both collapsed in the same way. Military elements in the op would have had a major problem with this. Everything needed to be buried. Literally.

QUOTE (SanderO)
There were boom boom boom sounds which could also be the first series of floors collapsing.


1. The basement explosions were instantaneous in the basement of tower 1 according to Willie Rodriguez and others. If the floors had have been collapsing at that speed do you seriously believe that the individual or even "series of floors" and the sound of their collapsing would have been distinguishable as a series of "booms"?

2. The same explosion which ripped steel doors and destroyed walls did not pass through elevator 50 because there was a survivor in it. What did it do? Go round the thing?

3. On the video collapse, do I have to post this again SanderO??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT7mmmc-YY...feature=related

Watch the section of facade falling down and the rate of the facade being ripped.

QUOTE
I am interested in the truth not far fetched theories...


Sorry man, your "theory" is the most far fetched I've heard yet. Simply ruling out all audible and witness testimony along with video evidence as and when it suits is "theorizing" too.

Finally, I believe you missed my first question:

QUOTE
SanderO, was WTC7 a "gravity driven collapse" in your opinion?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Aug 27 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 478
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 25 2011, 06:13 PM) *
AE911T has made several incorrect assertions... and incorrect observation reports... there was no evidence of explosions during the collapse


I beg to differ. Take a look at this closeup of the Gary Pollard NIST FOIA video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/71gerry#p/u/4/vW1PNdToCTQ

Count over four columns from the bottom left. Keep your eye on the puff of smoke ejected after the main upper one. This is a separate event. This final ejection is the column being severed at high speed.

If you look at the Gary Pollard original you can see that the facade units are being targeted. Three being cut and six being left alone, then three, skip six.

This is the NE face of WTC2.

You can also see pulling of the columns and then a violent snapping back outwards just as the columns are severed.

No columns on the east face were severed by the airplane impact. Only broken windows.

http://www.youtube.com/user/71gerry#p/u/5/gf5qMVk4K4E

How could a straight line of columns be pulled inwards, when the exterior was arranged in an offset grid pattern? The only way is to cut many adjacent columns intermediate to their natural length.

How can two flimsy trusses at six feet on center, pull three robust box columns that are three feet on center?

How does a cold concrete slab that is tied to the trusses fail enough to sag and pull the columns?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 28 2011, 12:28 PM
Post #10





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



Guys,

You are asking me to explain a whole series of observations and I will study the vids cited and see what I can come up with.

Let me address a few points.

AE911T and Gage state:

Girders (they mean columns I think) or beams were ejected at 70 mph and landed 600 feet away. FALSE

Dust was 4-12" thick for miles around lower Manhattan after the collapses FALSE

Symmetry (or organization of the debris field) is not something to expect from a gravity driven collapse) FALSE it depends on the plan form and Center of Mass.

The resulting *pyroclasitic* cloud is the fingerprint of a controlled demolition FALSE what sort of cloud would a gravity driven collapse produce? Obviously virtually the same.

90,000 tons of concrete were pulverized in mid air FALSE... no evidence of this at all

As far the boom boom boom... We don't know the time frame the fireman who makes this comment is referring to. I suspect that at the beginning of what others call ROOSD - runaway open office space destruction... the first several floors would crash down on the one below and make a boom then another boom until the avalanche sped up and there was more fractured mass in it. This is just a hunch. But there certainly was no reports of 96 booms for each floor. Or if these booms were explosive signatures why were they "separated" by a fraction of a second... why not all at once? What WERE they blowing up... sequentially?

My understanding of freight car 50 is that is was in the sub basements when the explosion was heard and the doors opened and there were building engineer(s) inside who were terribly burned. This does not preclude the fuel explosion from being ABOVE the car within the shaft at some undetermined floor. Again... this is only a guess.... which makes sense to me.

Nature IS very predictable at most times and that's what science is about a series of predictions or "laws" which describe how things work in nature.

My thesis is that the collapse was the destruction of the floors. This would occur when a threshold mass came crashing down on a typical tenant truss supported floor. These floors were designed to support 58#/SF and would certainly shatter/fracture or "*fail* is a minimum of 600# crashed down on each square foot as a dynamic load which would be as much as 10 times what a static load would be... so it would be equivalent to 6,000# per SF. So for the floor collapse to take place... it only required perhaps 4-6 floor masses and therefore it could take place if 4-6 floors were destroyed and dropped down onto the floor below them at ANY floor in the building... so this means that from perhaps floor 104 down the same result would follow if 6 or so floors were dropped on the one below.

This is 100% predictable engineering. I will guaranty that if you were to place 6,000 pounds on every square foot of any tenant floor... all 30,000 square feet of them... they would shatter, fracture and collapse... and then the one below would do the same and so on. Engineers size steel beams, concrete slabs based on PREDICTED loads... and these design loads have to meet the MINIMUM design loads in the building code. In the case of the Twins the code called for 100#/SF floors but they PONY and LERA asked for this to be reduced to 58#/SF and this request was granted and so the floors were designed to be 42% weaker than the NYC building code. FACT

Who said anything about "military elements in the op"? What I have described is basic engineering and would not necessarily require ANY military elements. YOU are alleging that military elements were involved. They may have been, but how can we know what they would have a problem with? Suppose a demo expert studied the structure and came to the same conclusions as I have and said.. this will be a rather simple job because the engineering decisions in the design... We really can take this down with very few devices and if we set this up for several floors it will definitely work.

Of course when one plans such things one can't test them... it's based on engineering and how a structure will perform. This is an important concept for ANYONE who supports CD... it WAS planned and it was ENGINEERED and the demo plans were BASED on getting at the weak points in the structure... such that the entire structure would collapse. That PRECISELY what demolition engineers do.

And in a sense, that is precisely what I have done with my structural engineering research into the twins. I have learned how to take them down with the least amount of *effort* and the MOST reliability.

Of course you could take a more traditional approach and destroy the core columns at the base which would lead to the core dropping... pulling the floors from the core side down and the floors yanking at the perimeter from the inside in a *classic" implosion into the footprint. This was not what we observed and would make little sense as the amount of explosive required to destroy the core at the base was way too large to be practically pre placed.

The destruction was a top down process which began at the crash zone elevation... had the structure above that *demolished* or collapse and that mass collapse all the remaining floors from the top down... with the face peeling away without lateral support and the remain core columns collapsing from Euler buckling.

THAT is a 100% predictable outcome.

The trusses COULD not and DID NOT pull the facade columns inward. That is NIST hooey.

The concrete slabs DID not sag and pull in the facade columns. That is NIST hooey
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 28 2011, 12:47 PM
Post #11





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



I looked at both videos several times.

What I see is that there is ejected material visible at the horizontal joint between panels which includes 3 columns. As you know the horizontal connection joints were staggered... so at an floor there were facade column-to-column connections for 3 panels.... about 3' above the floor level... then there were 6 columns (2 panel widths) with no joints on that floor and then 3 columns (one panel width) with connections.

I suspect that what we are observing here is that the floor above the joint is collapsing down. As it does it is failing the column-to-column joints just above the collapsing floor... and blasting out the material on floor... destroyed ceiling tiles, walls and furniture. All the air within the floor in being rapidly displaced... in about a .1 seconds and *explodes* outward through the path of least resistance which is the broken column-to-column joint and the broken windows. The collapsing floors above has destroyed the bracing for the facade columns and so they are able to move laterally, bulge or break apart which is what we are seeing.

What we see is not a series of spaced explosives... but a series of explosive ejections of pressurized air from the floor driven by the collapsing floor above.

That's what I see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Aug 28 2011, 01:33 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 478
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 26 2011, 02:47 PM) *
I looked at both videos several times.

What I see is that there is ejected material visible at the horizontal joint between panels which includes 3 columns. As you know the horizontal connection joints were staggered... so at an floor there were facade column-to-column connections for 3 panels.... about 3' above the floor level... then there were 6 columns (2 panel widths) with no joints on that floor and then 3 columns (one panel width) with connections.

I suspect that what we are observing here is that the floor above the joint is collapsing down. As it does it is failing the column-to-column joints just above the collapsing floor... and blasting out the material on floor... destroyed ceiling tiles, walls and furniture. All the air within the floor in being rapidly displaced... in about a .1 seconds and *explodes* outward through the path of least resistance which is the broken column-to-column joint and the broken windows. The collapsing floors above has destroyed the bracing for the facade columns and so they are able to move laterally, bulge or break apart which is what we are seeing.

What we see is not a series of spaced explosives... but a series of explosive ejections of pressurized air from the floor driven by the collapsing floor above.

That's what I see.


If a floor collapses you'd see many adjacent windows on a given level failing together, not according to the six, three pattern. Why would pressurized air choose that pattern to eject dust? This is too coordinated to be a floor failing.

Let's say a large portion of this floor system failed (the gravity driven collapse scenario). The concrete under the falling floor has to be pulverized before it can be ejected out the window openings. The crushing energy is coming from above by way of the truss, floor pan and concrete weight above the pan. If floor nine falls into the space of floor eight, which dust is being ejected at floor eight?

It appears the floor is being broken/pulverized and the dust is being sent upwards and out the windows. Falling floors are working opposite to what we see. Something more than gravity must be working on the concrete to get it to fine talcum powder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 28 2011, 02:59 PM
Post #13





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



Kawika,

It's not coordinated at all... It's how the building would come apart if and when the a floor collapses. The pattern you see is because the 10' w x 36' tall panels were in a staggered arrangement. The weakest place for them to break is at the column-to-column joint where there were only 4 - 5/8" bolts connecting one column to another.

You could say that the perps simply set explosives at each of the panel connections of the columns. But this so called approach is not repeated in the towers.

The panels often came off in huge assemblies with as many as 40-10x36 panels all connected together. If they were exploded off then the joint at every one of those panels would have had to have been exploded and severed at precisely the same instant... over 12 floors (4 panels) and 100 feet wide (10 panels). And this assembly I refer to from the west facade of tower 1 also does more than a 180 rotation ... all still connected as flat sheet of panels weighing north of 300 tons.

There is no way the detachment of that huge sheet can be attributed to explosions... and if it were... what was the strategy to take off such a huge assembly in one piece?

I am sorry to say you are seeing what you WANT to see... and you are looking for something which can be attributed to an explosion... or looks like an explosion.

When I look at those videos I see something very different perhaps because I have an understanding of how the floors collapsing would effect the facade... and where and how they were connected to the facade.

I think anyone who attempts to describe the towers destruction needs to study the structure because without that understanding it really is a *black box* and then we tend to describe what we see in terms of our limited technical experience. For example, I know next to nothing about aviation and avionics but a bit about air foils, control of them and navigation from sailing. But I would not attempt to analyze an air crash or disaster. I could say... TWA800 looks like a missile hit the plane and exploded it... and it seems plausible and there were witness to such an attack. The official account was a spark which exploded the fuel tanks... That sounds sensible too. I can't rule out the spark explanation because I simply don't know enough about these things to rule it out... even if it may SEEM far fetched to me. But there ARE aviation experts who have questioned that explanation and so it is questionable in my mind.

What seems to be lacking in the 911 Truth community is a real good forensic analysis of the structure of the towers and why and how they could be made to collapse. Of course you can blow them to bits.... but that is NOT what we saw. We saw something which LOOKS LIKE a top down collapse and might very well BE a top down collapse (of unknown cause).

Building 7 is a different problem. It appears to be collapsing much the way a typical CD does... once the lower columns have been rendered incapable of supporting the structure above. The 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration seem to imply that the supporting structure for the upper part was destroyed within the 2.25 seconds and offered no resistance and so the part we see was driven down by gravity. But we need to acknowledge some things about building 7:

There was movement measured which preceded the 2.25 second period of descent.
The east penthouse drops through the structure before the 2.25 second period of descent.
The north facade bows inward ahead and in conjunction with the descent
There is no evidence of the 58 perimeter columns being "exploded" as seen on the videos

None of the above rules out pre placed demo devices... but they can help us understand the actual collapse and what may have been taking place to produce those observations.

It is my belief that AE911T and most of the the truth movement has failed to give the proper consideration to how progressive incremental and almost unnoticeable failures can lead to a global failure. AE911t seems to imply that sudden onset of collapse = explosions. This is NOT entirely true./ Explosions CAN lead to sudden collapse and usually do. But MOST structural failure which *go global* progress with little noticeable impact BECAUSE of the factor of safety in the design. But as structural elements fail or lose strength one at a time, the FOS of the remaining structure drops until there is no FOS at all and the the structure collapses with a "rapid onset* or global collapse.

Those who refuse to understand the structure cannot possibly understand its destruction by any means.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 28 2011, 03:43 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



I think this thread has gotten way off topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 28 2011, 04:34 PM
Post #15





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



It has gone off topic...

...except when you consider that Toronto is about evidence and clearly some of the main presenters are presenting what they BELIEVE is evidence but it is incorrect and not evidence of what they have claimed it to be.

And as I wrote:

Those who refuse to understand the structure cannot possibly understand its destruction by any means.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 28 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



well, perhaps there is a way to better understand the structure.

essentially a copy of the wtc 1&2 towers was designed by yamasaki and was constructed with completion in 1976. though only 667 ft tall, according to an assoc prof of architecture, a dale gyure, this tower in tulsa[bank of oklahoma] tower shares similarities[identical?] with nelson and david.

additionally, there seem to be other similar yamasaki towers in buffalo, minneapolis, seattle, richmond.

i don't know, but i wonder if anyone has taken the time to study the plans for those towers. i somehow don't recall them ever being widely mentioned.

lastly, sanderO, what is your background? architect? civil engineer? employee of tishman-speyer?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Aug 28 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #17





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



I am a NYS state architect licensed in 1982 #015625 graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in Architecture in 1970. I've worked in the field of architect for over 40 years in New York, NY and CT. I do not do high rise architecture.

I used my basic education and understanding of structure to study and learn about the twin towers.

My first post graduation job was with Emery Roth Roth and Sons who were completing the plans for the World Trade Center when I joined the firm as a draftsmen. After completing my internship I've worked for myself as an architect.

I was an AE911T petition signer in 2007...and became a volunteer.. personally invited by Gage in 09 and then on to their Board at the end of 09. I was forced out of AE911T and off their board for suggesting the use of the words -engineered destruction- instead of controlled demolition and wanting to do a finite element analysis of the Twin Towers and get some of the licensed engineer petition signers to reverse engineer the twins and do a performance study of the pentagon. These were the reasons I was expelled from AE911T. Since leaving AE911T I have undertaken some of this work on my own.

I have produced scores of graphics and spread sheets about the structure of the twin towers and I believe I know as much about their structure... and likely more than anyone at AE911T. I do know that Gage had no idea about the beam stub outlookers which supported the channels which carried the floor trusses. I had to explain that to him at a 911 event in Livingston Manor NY in 2010 summer. Gage is not much of an expert nor an architect as far as I can tell, but more or a presenter and aggregator of other people's research. AE911T is a PR operation and does no research.

I've recently completed a a Factor of Safety study of the twin towers steel columns and found that if the building mass was 500,000 tons the FOS was 1.65 as the total yield strength of all the columns was 815,000 tons. If you would like to see some of my graphics you can email me as I don't post them online... they are still preliminary and I have not published them...except a few at the 911 Free Forums. I've shared my work with several PFT members who have emailed me and most have found the work compelling and no one has falsified any of it...after receiving it.

I cannot assert that there were or were not explosives or incendiaries to initiate the destruction. I can confidently state that once the top sections in each tower came apart ... from whatever cause... and descended down onto the top intact floors of the lower section...the total destruction was inevitable and was "gravity driven".... and required no other explosives or incendiaries below the collapse region up top in the two towers. I am quite certain most are mistaking the signs of the collapsing fractured floor mass/debris/rubble as evidence of the use of explosives.

I also believe that with such a small safety factor 1.65 for the column steel and so few columns (24) in the core supporting the floors outside the core the design was EXTREMELY vulnerable to global collapse if as few as 8 specific core columns on one elevation were destroyed anywhere below the 100th floor. The plane strikes appear to have destroyed perhaps 2 or 3 of the key eight columns in each tower so it wouldn't take much more to "finish the job". The destruction we saw was basically a floor collapse destruction with the facade peeling away without lateral support and the remaining surviving core collapsing from Euler buckling. There is nothing "theoretical" about this as it is basic engineering applied to those structures.

If the destruction was engineered as many believe it was, the engineers who did take them down did exactly the type of study which I have done to identify the weakest points to attack to initiate a total collapse. Could they have placed more insurance devices? Why not? All I have discovered is how they could have been destroyed not how they were destroyed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 3 2011, 10:44 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



That is a very good statement of your position SanderO.

As a layman, I agree that whoever did this was very familiar with the structure and attacked it in an intelligent manner.

And that simply reinforces that the official story is a mass of lies and innuendo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 3 2011, 08:54 PM
Post #19





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



The NIST explanation of the cause of the collapse was sagging floor trusses from fires which pulled in the facade columns (buckled them) and the columns above came down and with it the floors they supported. The sagging trusses COULD NOT pull in / buckled the facade columns and sagging would not shorten them the distance NIST claims. Rubbish

NIST tried to build a case which begins with plane damage to columns (correct) and then ignores the possibility (probability) that the top's collapse was from a failure in the CORE (not the facade). The core failure would force them to come up with various causes for core column failure which they feared would require them to look for pyrotechnics in the core.... and that would mean that it was not JUST the planes... but some other pre placed devices. The core's bracing would prevent *sagging* trusses from buckling core columns so the only possibility for core columns to buckle would be: reduced strength... diminished factor of safety... or exploding the column to column connection.

Weakening DID occur and an increase in 300 C would reduce their yield strength 20%... so if core columns were destroyed by the planes and the steel had a FOS of 1.65 it wouldn't take too much more to have the entire core fail. Too much more could be nano thermite heating things higher... or a few explosives... Once the core failed.. the floors above came crashing down and the mass of those floors would fracture and destroy all the floors below... and the facade without bracing would also buckle. The strong core below the crash zone COULD stand on its own if it had MOST of the bracing. Without its bracing it too would collapse.

Our friends in the truth movement are making the wrong case or not focusing where the likely engineered intervention HAD to be. Impossible for an engineered destruction (CD) to have a *natural* or non engineered cause. But an engineered initiation does use gravity to *finish the job*. CD's ALWAYS USE GRAVITY. Knocking out the columns at the base is a guaranty that the top will collapse. Using the floor mass to destroy the floors below is a possibility only in long span open office space designs. The twins were a floor collapse susceptible design.

Focus on the initiation not on the collapse. That is where the prize is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 4 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Speaking only for myself, and apologies for being repititious, but the details matter only for those so inclined, with all due respect.

The Big Picture is more important, and the ongoing coverup of the Big Picture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 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: 17th January 2022 - 09:49 PM