Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback Options

[onesliceshort]

Your picture shows a clear shot for plane 3 to hit WTC7.

Would the north tower have crushed wtc7 if that spire hadn't stood its ground?

[SanderO]

When you see that gif in its entirity, I see 30 (or 40?) storys of a cold steel framework desintegrating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqSLIPwZ430

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW82nyrSOCQ

And falling straight down.

I'm trying to figure out how it came apart and fell the way it did.

1. Was there any visible evidence of this steel framework more or less in one piece in the debris pile?

there were segments as long as 108 feet and several 72 feet.

2. Was that framework connected by shear studs? Bolted?

welded plates from column to column...you can't thru bolt 4" plate box columns. But the 1/2" thk platge used for the splice was only to hold then columns in place until the bracing was welded to beam stub outlookers.

3. At first glance it appears that the base was pulled away from underneath it rather than the falling debris pushing it over. The remaining concrete on the framework that turns to dust suggests that it collapsed in on itself. That it fell desintegrated as it fell.

When a multi segment column buckles,such as the spire... from Euler buckling... the axial load like a typical buckling load caused the column to *bow*...push down on the end of say a kite stick and observe how it buckles. The multi part columns simply kick out the segments at about mid height... or teeter over and fall as several can be seen doing. Mid height would be flr 37 for col 501 and and 25 or so for the other spire columns... below the camera's view angle.

4. Is there any footage below that eyeline?

NO.

Look up Euler Buckling and it explains why the spire came down. No back up explosive sequence because there is no evidence of exploded core columns. Nice clean breaks at the splice plates col to col.

[SanderO]

Would the north tower have crushed wtc7 if that spire hadn't stood its ground?

No... T1 was 350' away... and the buckkling force was DOWN...a toppling core column would have made a nasty gash... but not crush the B7.

[elreb]

No... T1 was 350' away... and the buckkling force was DOWN...a toppling core column would have made a nasty gash... but not crush the B7.

I actually agree with SanderO on this one!

[onesliceshort]

I actually agree with SanderO on this one!

Fair enough.

I didn't mean that the tower would fall like a tree by the way!

And when I asked about the manner in which the spire fell, I haven't seen an explanation as to why the lattice of cold steel desintegrated the way it apparently did when it was still intact after the collapse had run its course. The lattice itself (SanderO), not so much that it fell.

[paranoia]

Definitely weird mate.

Here's another image (aerial)

(IMG:http://archive.org/download/GregSemendinger_gjs-wtc030/GregSemendinger_gjs-wtc030.jpg)

Is it still standing or is that the dust trail??

i cant say for sure mate, but for better context, this is the video it was grabbed from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2VcxDzWk4

01:07 - South Tower collapsing.
01:30 - Core remnant went down.

also, if memory serves me correctly - there is another video slice, i saw it many years ago, and assumed that everyone would latch on to it and it would become commonplace to find it in wtc demolition discussions, so i took it for granted and didnt save it. anyway, in the clip there is 2 guys at a desk watching and discussing the tower collapses. in front of them is a monitor showing a video with a unique perspective of one of the two towers in the process of destruction. at one point in the clip (that they are analyzing) you see a clear view of a grid-like section of core beams remaining while the floors and concrete dust are peeling and have done peeled downward. that grid-like cross section of what appear to be beams is seen partially in the screengrab/video i linked to, but this other video has a much better view of it. unfortunately i havent been able to find it again though. i could have sworn the video was from SPIEGEL and the men were speaking german. let me know if you ever run into it...



re: the spire - one thing's for sure, its not "dustifying" - lol at judy wood and followers... i could see how they would think that though, because the columns fall down so swiftly that they appear to disappear from sight. but its very obviously falling, not turning into magic dust. though it does lean, which imo would concur with buckling (per sanderO's suggestion), it doesnt appear to fully topple over to one side - which is what i would expect to see if it was indeed falling to due to buckling. instead it seems to drop straight down, in spite of that initial minimal leaning. that is why i interpret it as an indication of being cut (down below) by charges. funny btw, that when i went searching for eular buckling and wtc, all the results i found were from debunkers trying to dismiss demolition theories. speaking of which-

Look up Euler Buckling and it explains why the spire came down. No back up explosive sequence because there is no evidence of exploded core columns. Nice clean breaks at the splice plates col to col.

mr.O, how tall would you say those beams are? please draw if you would, a rough depiction of one or several such columns, and show where the buckling occurred and at how many locations along the height/length of that column (or set of columns). thank you.

edit: not that im saying its not true, but for good measure, please toss in some pics of "Nice clean breaks at the splice plates col to col." of these particular columns (the tall ones seen in "the spire" videos) as seen in the debris pile.

[SanderO]

Paranoia,

I have many slides explaining aspects of the WTC destruction. This site does not allow direct uploading from my hard drive. I can email the PDFs to you or anyone who is interested. PM me or send an email to jsandero at geeeeeeeeeeemail dot calm... I have one about Euler buckling.

try this:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post1449...it=Spire#p14491

If (as I believe it to be the case) that Euler buckling explains the the demise of the *spire*... and the popular 911 truth explanation is CD, cutter charges etc... those who offer another explanation - Euler Buckling - would obviously be *debunking* CD.

There are vids online about buckling of columns and the only key difference here is that the spire columns were on 36' segments. Col 501 was the tallest and it stood 78 stories... the shorter columns were about 50 stories... The ladder looking *thing* are columns 501 and 601 connected by cross bracing inside the express elevator shaft which extended to flr 44 (bracing was on all floors).

You can simulate how the spire would buckle in a small experiment. Take several small sticks... about 10" long and 1/4" x 1/8" and glue them together end for end. Col 501 was 26 segments tall! To simulate 501 glue 26 together and it will be 260" or 21' tall! Very tall and very thin! But you can do the experiment with 6 or 7 sticks. You can even put some tape around the joints to hold them in place.

When the glue has set... stand up the assembly (carefully) to vertical... then push down on the top. Observe what happens and where it buckles. If your work was precise... the assembly will bow and then break into several 10" sticks mid height and the top will section will drop straight down.

Structure is NOT scaleable... but this experiment will show you what happened to the spire columns.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 28 2012, 08:24 AM

[onesliceshort]

..then push down on the top

That experiment would have nothing to do with what we observe happening to the spire (well, I know what you're saying given the difference in materials but there's a major difference between a fragile, glued structure and welded cold steel). There is no "load". Just the upper weight of the structure itself.

And if it did simply fall, for whatever reason, are you saying that a welded steel structure would break apart? That's why I was asking if there were any images of the structure in the debris pile.

1. It was last to fall so should be more or less identifiable on top of the debris pile.

2. I'm not presuming that the entire structure would have survived but major portions, no? Again, it was last to fall. No crushing weight to destroy it.

3. Notice what is necessary in Euler buckling experiments and what isn't available to apply to the fall of the spire?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...uckledmodel.JPG

From this paper on Euler buckling experimentation:

http://happevanrijn.com/producten/item/download/755.html

"In stability theory, the four cases of Euler buckling represent the elastic flexural buckling of straight bars. Above a specific load - the buckling load - a loss of stability occurs and the bar increasingly changes shape. The axis of the bar is deflected laterally.
Euler describes four cases for the buckling of an elastic bar with central application of compressive force and various methods of support.
WP 121 demonstrates the four cases of Euler buckling. Depending on the end conditions, different weight loads are required until the buckling load is reached and the axes of the bars are laterally deflected. The buckling length is clearly visible against the white backing wall with the grid patterning."

You're also presuming that the lower, what, 30 storys, were as (relatively) narrow as the visible upper structure. You can't make solid statements without all of the data.

Euler buckling also wouldn't necessarily apply given the solid, box like lattice nature of the structure. The two long columns either side are not fixed and do "wobble" but the steel lattice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqSLIPwZ430

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW82nyrSOCQ

The dust trail shows that it wasn't Euler buckling. The two long columns fall sideways but the lattice structure falls through itself (more or less).

(IMG:http://archive.org/download/GregSemendinger_gjs-wtc030/GregSemendinger_gjs-wtc030.jpg)

Whatever was left of the lower half of the spire was pulled away en bloque to allow for the observations.

Thanks for the description of what the spire actually is, by the way.

Edit: having looked at the videos I'm not 100% on the last image posted being the dust trail.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 28 2012, 09:28 AM

[SanderO]

If you follow the link I posted you will find my slide in the 911 FF about the spire. The aspect ratio of the spire columns exceeded the limit for slender columns.

There need not be a super imposed load on the column. The *idea* behind Euler buckling is that a column buckles from its own weight - self buckling.

For slender columns the SR (slenderness ratio) cannot be greater than 1/150. If it is the column self buckles... no load required. (the example I provided would show HOW the column would break) Wood has difference Young's modulus and so behaves differently and materials are not scaleable in any case)

The SR ratio in the BEST case would be the shortest access of column 501 which was 22" = 1.87' the height of the spire was 78 floors x 12' =936' ... the SR ratio is 1.87/936 = 1/463 well over the 1/180. This was extremely unstable

The shorter spire columns reached to flr 50... 50x12 = 600.... Those columns may not have had a 22" short axis but let's use it anyway and those columns were well over 1/300. And consider that the columns were tapering down in size and in both axes.

Some columns toppled from swaying and in those the CG moved well outside the column axis and so the toppled as opposed to buckling. The swaying columns parted the welded splice connection at the bottom somewhere which kept the segments *in column*bfrom the leverage of the swaying.

There were many different mechanical processes in play in the destruction. Euler buckling describes the instability of the very tall columns. They could not stand without bracing. PERIOD, FULL STOP ... no debate.

http://www.assakkaf.com/courses/enes220/le...s/lecture26.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrdO8hPJGyg

http://www.csun.edu/~ehrgott/EXP5.pdf


Splices and erection

The box columns had very heavy welded angled on two sides at the top and bottom which had large holes in them for the crane to lift them up into place. The bottom angles were bolted to the column below already part of the frame. This positioned the columns and then the plates were welded over the two columns...likely 1/2" thick but no more than 3/4". They had filet welds. This provided additional stability until the bracing was welded at the floor levels... the column had the floors attached at 9' from the bottom... 21' and 33'... this left a 3' column (stub) above the floor level for the welder to work on at a convenient height...without scaffolding. Same deal for the facade panels... the connections were done 3' above the deck.

The splices and welds were not LOAD bearing and represented a tiny fraction of the total cross sectional area of the box columns. The bracing held them all in place in the end and without the bracing they were too unstable to stand.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 28 2012, 11:07 AM

[amazed!]

In the spirit of Aristotle comment that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, every time I see pictures of the dust cloud as shown above, I cannot help but wonder about the presence of nuclear devices there at WTC, at least in the towers....

[kawika]

I don't understand how any conclusion can be made about a target for a plane that never arrived.

These agencies drilled all kinds of scenarios. Do you think they were content practicing for just one at a time? They start with one and pile on other conditions to test the reactions of the first responders and the armies of support troops manning the phones and radios.

The "additional planes inbound" card was played at every location. Airports and ATC terminals were abandoned, Pentagon evacuated after the rescue began, OEM spoofed after WTC2 was struck.

They played the gas leak card to keep moving people north away from WTC7.

They played the truck bomb card when the Police Academy was chosen as a alternate site for the OEM.

There were cars exploding well away from collapsing towers, some in the shadow of WTC7, while buildings full of combustible materials were left with only broken windows.

The goal was accomplished. Confusion. Shock and Awe.

Why are we being distracted from the obvious? WTC7 fell down at almost free fall acceleration. We are told that this happened due to the failure of one connection on Column 79, due to normal office fires that were clearly burnt out more than an hour before.

We've already proven that even if the fire were raging at 5:19 on floor 12, there couldn't be enough expansion of the beams connected to the girder to push it off the seat. No seat failure = no building collapse. NIST has put forth a fantasy that cannot be backed up.

The funny thing is there are several other major defects in the NIST model that cannot be supported. They got the expansion formula wrong; the seat width wrong; the connection design wrong; the column design wrong; the push track wrong; the shear studs wrong; the fire timing wrong. Is this incompetence or FRAUD?

Please watch these three short videos:

Part One--Shear Ignorance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe0E9cjUbI

Part Two-- Expanding Lies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvRKZO5o_dA

Part Three-- Tangled Webs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0UcgMzs&feature=plcp


If you have questions, PLEASE! let me know.

This post has been edited by kawika: May 28 2012, 11:15 AM

[onesliceshort]

SanderO, those calculations and the Purdue lecture are directed at single columns. Not a lattice structure.
You don't see the difference? Please read all of my post.

The SR ratio in the BEST case would be the shortest access of column 501 which was 22" = 1.87' the height of the spire was 78 floors x 12' =936' ... the SR ratio is 1.87/936 = 1/463 well over the 1/180. This was extremely unstable

Again, you're assuming that the lower portion of the spire was as narrow as the upper portion. And you're referring to a singular column. Not a lattice structure.

I'm not saying this just to be contrary, I just think that what is observed doesn't tally with the physics you're citing.

Edit: and I'm equally not saying that the spire should have stood. I'm saying that the lower section was pulled from underneath it according to how it fell.

@Kawika

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Looking forward to seeing the third video!

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 28 2012, 11:34 AM

[elreb]

If you have questions, PLEASE! let me know.

Perhaps you could shed some light on what the WTC7 drill may have been. [A good guess]

It seems reasonable that the building was intended to be destroyed from the “get go”; however something did not go according to the plan.

No plane of any type crashed at Shanksville. It wasn’t United Airlines…it was Universal Studios. I think that the C130 was in on the act.

This is why I lean towards a third plane/drone that just never got off the ground.

Giuliani is on the phone talking to Cheney, "Houston, we've had a problem"!

[onesliceshort]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0UcgMzs&feature=plcp

Layman-friendly. Fact based and verified. Nice one Gerry and Kawika.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[SanderO]

The collapse of the floors stripped the core columns of MOST of the bracing. CC501 had none left from flr 50 - 78. The columns that toppled over in rows 700 and 800 had no visible bracing left. In fact the only visible bracing was pairs 501 and 601 below flkr 50 and Euler buckling would apply to that PAIR as the short axis was 22" even if the combined long axis was 25'. Short axis rules.

There WAS NO 3D lattice left as a result of the floor collapses.... perhaps the occassional brace attaching teo columns... but one could not call the core a braced frame after the floors crashed down (or were blown to bits)... the columns buckled from Euler Buckling... they were not exploded... the frame could not stand...it was not stable.

Don't trust me... ask and engineer.

[onesliceshort]

Back on topic..

There's an excellent thread on this at the link SanderO supplied for his pdf.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-co...otion-t185.html

The guys there were saying much of what I and others, have been saying on this thread.

"Could you explain how the thickest core columns at the base could buckle under the weight of a mere core remnant, when a minute earlier they were supporting the weight of 'the tower' ?
I could understand some of the higher up, much thinner columns buckling, but I really can't visualise core base columns approaching buckling under such lesser load than they were previously supporting.
Again, if there's any really clear footage of the core regions just after descent, it would be very helpful...I'm a 'picture tells a thousand words' kind of folk..

FEMR2

"We have to lose this word "spire". They are not spires but at least 25% of the core including the entire width."

Major Tom

Been reading through it all day. It's a gem of a site. Here's just some of the videos, gifs and images to back up the above statements (for me anyway)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&sns=em

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/285877515.png

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/697379613.jpg

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/882307471.jpg

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/665519550.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej4SkdlyXHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzV1Pfyrl8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64rlnaCqY8

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7641/fl...esignfemr2b.gif

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/7083/wt...stubblebine.jpg


Another thread on a similar occurrence during the south tower collapse

Video at this post

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-2-co...-15.html#p14955

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images.../9/wtc2core.jpg

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/618/wtc...rthenlarged.png

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3618/wtc2corenorth.jpg

[SanderO]

The key to understand the Euler buckling is that the spire (501) was made of segments...relatively weakly connected one to the next... and the Euler forces exploited the weak connections... breaking the 936 foot tall column into segments...36' long...not buckling the segments.

Bracing normally reduces the unsupported length to 12' and restrains the column. The floor collapse destroyed almost all the braces... as the braces were part of the floor system... Floor goes... so goes the bracing.

The column to 78 weighed 1,073 tons! And that creates a lot of Euler buckling forces.

[KP50]

Hi all,

I've attempted to move all WTC7 discussions to the thread that already exists for them over in the Debate forum. Apologies if either of the 2 threads is now a little disjointed.

KP

[onesliceshort]

Hi all,

I've attempted to move all WTC7 discussions to the thread that already exists for them over in the Debate forum. Apologies if either of the 2 threads is now a little disjointed.

KP

Cheers KP!

[Tamborine man]

Sorry to say, but what we see in any of the video clips concerning the disintegration

of the core columns in WCT1 and WCT2, has nothing to do with 'Euler buckling'.


What we first of all are mostly witnessing is simple 'swaying', or, what in fact it's more

widely known as namely, "The Riemann Zeta Sway".


Secondly, what we see happening next, is the further collapse initiation phase of the

columns, and which of course can only be explained by using "The Poincaré Conjecture"

to actually fully understand this following sequence in detail.


Thirdly, we notice to our astonishment the 'pulverization' of the steel column 'spires',

and to this 'phenomenon' we can do nothing else but turn to "The Yang-Mills Theory"

for an in-depth explanation as to this occurrence - in all its pure simplicity.


So there you have it folks! All you need to do is brush up a little on the 'science' of it,

and all will be revealed - to everyone's utter satisfaction .......naturally! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

Cheers