Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ North Tower _ Molten Steel Beams - 9/11

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now Dec 10 2011, 01:33 PM

Hi guys check out this video i found which was uploaded only a month a go, it shows and engineer in a steel
yard with some huge beams from the wtc, you can see the bottom of a steel beam which collapsed, the steel
is severely corroded away, the engineer says the beam started to melt and burn right through due to heat,
and that it is significantly corroded and that the backside of steel beam is actually gone.

Seriously guys look at the start of the video look at what is glowing this just proves what the firefighters
have said all along to be true, no they are not mistaken as the idiotic OCT supporters expect you believe.
We have been saying it all along for years now that there was in FACT molten steel present at ground
zero and this proves it, the debate is over finished.

Obviously this attack was deliberate and inteneded to collapse the steel beam, no wonder the buildings
came down, who knows how many other steel beams their are just like this one. This evidence is of the
utmost and is of paramount importance.


I wonder what other gems they have hidden in that section of the scrap yard, my only guess this is where
they took it all to hide it before it was shipped of melted down and destroyed.

Molten steel beams - 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNHNvwI-P9g

whistle.gif whistle.gif party.gif party.gif

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now Dec 10 2011, 06:32 PM

Is anyone here still not convinced the fucking assholes lied to us on 911? Just a quick update boys & girls i hope you like it.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now Dec 10 2011, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (9/11 Justice Now @ Dec 11 2011, 08:32 AM) *
Is anyone here still not convinced the fucking assholes lied to us on 911?
Just a quick update boys & girls i hope you like it.




Anyone notice there is no ironworkers cutting the base of this steel beam sticking out of the ground where are his pixels? I dont see them.

So debunkers where is your ironworker this time show us where the god damn pixels are? Show us where the bloke is cutting the beam with
the torch? No pixels no god damn fucking ironworker, anyone who chooses to claim otherwise has the burden of proof.

[singing] "Soon they will all be in jail...Soon they will all be in jail...And we wont have to worry no more...And we wont have to worry no more..."

[singing] ''Soon the OCT will be finished...Soon the OCT will be finished...And we wont have to worry no more...And we wont have to worry no more..."

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

Posted by: Maha Mantra Dec 11 2011, 01:45 AM

In the bottom photo it kind of looks like someone with dark coveralls, with two legs and a lighter thing on top like a head. He is standing back and holding a long lance like device it looks like.
It is a rather poor image quality.

But for the sake of it, in all the videos I've seen, the core columns are stacked on top of each other in three-story sections using plates and brackets to hold them in place end to end. If indeed demolition was used, the thick beams did not require cutting through, only the bolts or brackets keeping them atop one another. The perimeter columns on the other hand were put together in a staggered fashion as welded together sections with staggered bolt-together points. Also access would perhaps be harder through the ceilings than the core columns via the elevator shafts. It is possible by eliminating the core structural integrity, the floors may have brought down the perimeter columns until they got to be very thick-walled towards the bottom. Since all the debris except eight stories in the basement, ended up outside the perimeter of the buildings, there isn't sufficient load to have destroyed the columns dowm where they had two to four inch wall-thicknesses in the staggered perimeter columns. The mass of floor material would overcome the floor connection points easily as they aren't any stronger at the lower floors, but all the columns were thicker as they got lower and the common floor connection points wouldn't have as much effect in pulling or pushing the perimeter columns out of place. The basement core columns were so massive and stabilized by the ground attachment points and the ground, it seems unlikely that they would have been displaced significantly.

The video does show melting of steel beams. Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degree F. and it does wick away heat quickly, so the air temperature would have to have been over 2700 degrees for a long time. Longer and hotter than jet fuel and office furnishings will burn ? I think so. I have seen steel bend from fires involving oils and fiberglass with excellent air supply for 45 minutes plus, but not melt or erode/corrode. And not thick steel which can wick away more heat, only thinner steel.
Plus the steel was insulated for fire everwhere but where the planes may have removed the insulation, and we don't see hot fires left at the impact points at the time of collapse. The fire had moved away from those areas to the point people could look out through the impact holes.
That the core columns fell straight down first, as indicated by the antenna, and the top of the building collapses above the impact hole first (not below) indicates dismantling of the core columns above the impact zone. The verticle descent in an un-symmetrical damaged structure indicates another aprartus dismantling columns symmetrically COUNTER-ACTING the asymmetrical instability.

Anyway nano-thermate in the dust and trade 7 is enough to raise doubts very high about fire/damage induced collapse.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 11 2011, 08:38 AM

Maha,
A careful viewing of the videos shows the following sequence for the twin towers:

A period no movement.. smoke from fires.
In tower 1 the antenna begins to move down... a fraction of a second before the roof line show movement
The dismemberment/dissociation of the section above the plane strike zone. In both towers this looks like a CD instigated at the elevation of the strike zone with the top sections losing axial support and dropping down... largely on to the undamaged top floor of the lower sections.
A period of destruction of the lower section then commences from the strike zones down. The floors are destroyed and the columns... facade and perimeter lose their bracing... progressively from top to bottom. The columns... facade and core become increasing less stable as the bracing is stripped away by the collapsing floors. The upper column then begin to break apart at their connections. Once a connection fails... the stress is removed from other connections in the column and this leads to large column assembly failures.
As the collapse front moves down... only some of the core bracing is unaffected - inside the elevator shafts where the bracing did NOT support floor slabs. This is seen in the final demise of the core *spire* where rows 500 and 600 remain connected by the bracing within the elevator shafts. But those columns also succumb to Euler buckling and break apart and the weakest place - a column to column connection.. again once that happens the other connections are not under stress... this can be seen in the very tall toppling core columns at the end.
All of the collapse can be predicted if the floor (or some other mass) can be used to destroy the floor system... which would destroy the bracing and lead to the collapse/buckling/breaking apart of the steel frame... with no explosives or cutter charges required to destroy the relatively weak column to column connections.

The question to be solved... is how were those tops made to collapse? Were there explosives in the core? How much did the plane damage contribute to over all core weakening? How much did the fires contribute? And if this wasn't sufficient what WAS the other source of weakening?

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now Dec 11 2011, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 11 2011, 10:38 PM) *
Maha,
A careful viewing of the videos shows the following sequence for the twin towers:

A period no movement.. smoke from fires.
In tower 1 the antenna begins to move down... a fraction of a second before the roof line show movement
The dismemberment/dissociation of the section above the plane strike zone. In both towers this looks like a CD instigated at the elevation of the strike zone with the top sections losing axial support and dropping down... largely on to the undamaged top floor of the lower sections.
A period of destruction of the lower section then commences from the strike zones down. The floors are destroyed and the columns... facade and perimeter lose their bracing... progressively from top to bottom. The columns... facade and core become increasing less stable as the bracing is stripped away by the collapsing floors. The upper column then begin to break apart at their connections. Once a connection fails... the stress is removed from other connections in the column and this leads to large column assembly failures.
As the collapse front moves down... only some of the core bracing is unaffected - inside the elevator shafts where the bracing did NOT support floor slabs. This is seen in the final demise of the core *spire* where rows 500 and 600 remain connected by the bracing within the elevator shafts. But those columns also succumb to Euler buckling and break apart and the weakest place - a column to column connection.. again once that happens the other connections are not under stress... this can be seen in the very tall toppling core columns at the end.
All of the collapse can be predicted if the floor (or some other mass) can be used to destroy the floor system... which would destroy the bracing and lead to the collapse/buckling/breaking apart of the steel frame... with no explosives or cutter charges required to destroy the relatively weak column to column connections.

The question to be solved... is how were those tops made to collapse? Were there explosives in the core? How much did the plane damage contribute to over all core weakening? How much did the fires contribute? And if this wasn't sufficient what WAS the other source of weakening?


Yes Sander O however the steel that we see in the video is entirely inconsistent and cannot be explained by jetfuel office fires or the OCT, here
we have it melted steel for all the world to see, those firefighters where right the steel did melt and this is just part of what they saw who knows
what else is hidden in this section of the scrapyard, however though it would be good to know what section area floor of the towers this piece
came from, i think its time someone took a good look at this video and start hassling NIST again to please explain?

But i think the only way we are ever going to truly find out what happened is if we get a new investigation and this piece may prove very useful
in acheiving that goal.


Posted by: SanderO Dec 11 2011, 11:24 AM

9/11 Justice,

There might very well have been some parts of melted steel which was caused obviously by the presence of concentrated heat. Self evident that isn't it? The question is could this heat be the result of some very unusual process associated with the destruction of the skyscrapers?

While we KNOW that there exist incendiary devices which COULD do that... substances such as themite which COULD explain this... have we ruled out that some chemical process resulted FROM the collapse which could have produced such exothermic reactions? I am not a chemist and don't know what the precise chemicals present were at the time. I can only speculate. But I did see someone produce a video of how to make thermite (Kevin Rynan perhaps?). He did it with some beakers, some elemental materials, water and heat... I don't remember precisely how he did it... google the experiment. But it got me thinking that IF.... IF the collapse process DID break many materials down to dust and powder size AND cause them to be mixed together AND there was water and sufficient heat present it seems POSSIBLE that some odd exothermic reactions could be kicked off and they COULD melt steel or aluminum etc. I am not asserting this is what DID happen... as much as proposing that it COULD have happened. And this is something for chemists and physicists to look into.

I happen to think that the collapse was gravity driven and it released enormous amount of heat in the mechanical destruction of the materials. I don't think this amount of heat production is inconsistent but a predicted outcome... from so much mechanical destruction. This heat then went on to do *work"... it caused the enormous dust clouds to billow up and carry dust and debris for very long distances from the site... it may have initiated unusual chemical reactions as well. Could these be hot enough to melt steel? Seems unlikely.... but I can't say it's not possible.

It's easy to explain the destruction by claiming it took energy to dismantle the structure. This is true and cannot be denied. We know explosions and intense heat will destroy organized structures. And we can look at the result as see it as the effect of that energy input.

But we also need to consider that a huge structure, such as a skyscraper weighing hundreds of thousands of tons contains enormous stored energy... gravitational and also chemical.. stored in the bonds that hold materials together. Destroy the structure and energy is ALSO released. This needs to be considered.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 11 2011, 12:02 PM

The molten steel, held that way for days or even weeks, required large amounts of energy.

My hunch is that tactical nuclear weapons were somehow employed. The large residual levels of radiation tend to support that theory.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 11 2011, 01:07 PM

Yes the heat remained for months... there was a heat sink with a huge debris blanket of insulation over top... not unlike how heat is confined within a furnace. I am not familiar with how the high heat of a nuke is disbursed... but an in the air one causes an intense heat flash which radiates... look at what happened in Hiroshima.

Underground nukes too would produce very high local and destructive heat concentration... I don't know what that would look like... but I do know that some of the steel in the basement levels was hardly effected at all and some of the core and perimeter columns even stood above the rubble and supported down to bed rock. Why wouldn't that steel be melted?

I'd like to see an explanation of how blast nukes which also produce enormous localized heat matched the debris... I am not saying this is impossible... but I don't see it. Please explain.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now Dec 11 2011, 01:25 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 12 2011, 02:02 AM) *
The molten steel, held that way for days or even weeks, required large amounts of energy.

My hunch is that tactical nuclear weapons were somehow employed. The large residual levels of radiation tend to support that theory.


Amazed what we are actually seeing is due to corrosion and melting i assume sulphur played a huge parts in this, i assume it would
take a huge amount of sulphur and and a huge amount of heat to do this. I see the government supporting scumbags over at the govt loyalist site
are having a lot of fun with this topic showthread.php?t=219791&page=56. I would love to go over their with this video and spoil
their little party, that would surely smother their flames, i would just love to be the party pooper, but my account over their has
been banned a long time a go, god these guys are slow to catch on, i have already posted this video on Kevin Ryans & Tony Tzamboti's
facebook pages i also made a post about it at Phil Jaydens forum, they will catch on eventually but they are slow, speaking of slow
anybody that supports the governments version the OCT only does so becasue they must be slow in the head, either that or they
have brain damage or some sort of mental illness that stops them from being able to realise the truth.

However this video only goes to supprt the testimony of the firefighters and others at ground zero who reported seeing molten steel,
there can be no more doubting their testimony, not to mention the numerous others.

The debate is over the can no longer be any doubting the testimony of those who witnessed molten steel at ground zero, there is no
more room for reasonable doubt anymore, now we know they are not mistaken, and now their testimony can be back by hard evidence,
what we see here in this video strongly corroborates and supports their testimony, anybody who still doubts what they saw after watching
this video is a fool, and i personally myself do not have the time and energy to waste on fools, now it is a proven FACT that there was molten
steel present on 9/11 and what we see in this video also tells us that the conditions where right for molten steel, so now we know the conditions
in the pile on 9/11 where right for this to happen, we also have other evidence available that proves that this is the case and supports this
conclusion. The ball is our court now the OCT is slowly starting to crumble, it demise is not far off the days of the OCT are almost numbered
it is slowly starting to fade away and soon it is going to take down everyone involved in executing and planning it, the cat is out of the bag
and soon there will be no denying what really happened.




Posted by: amazed! Dec 12 2011, 10:38 PM

Considering the way the US military improves and refines its many weapons systems, the improvements in nuclear weapons must be substantial since 1945.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 13 2011, 06:50 AM

QUOTE
but I do know that some of the steel in the basement levels was hardly effected at all and some of the core and perimeter columns even stood above the rubble and supported down to bed rock. Why wouldn't that steel be melted?


For the same reasons why some parts of this steel structure survived and the rest of it didn't.


Posted by: SanderO Dec 13 2011, 12:49 PM

One needs to understand how complex multipart structures come apart when they fail. If you look at the peeling of the facades of the twin towers you can see that there are many very large assembles of the facade panels which came off as a *unit*. And the facade panels themselves were compose of 3 columns and 3 spandrels each... the so called chex. But even the columns themselves were built of from 4 welded plated with an infill plate welded at each end.

When there is a failure to say... the wall *system* if one set of connections fails... it is unlikely that the welds holding the plates together will. The bolted connections being weaker than the welds... give way first and then there is little stress on the welds. So what happened with those multi panel assemblies which peeled off... is that the stronger connections held them together and the weakest ones failed and that where the assembly separated it from the facade.

If you imagine the facade like a patchwork fabric and you apply even pressure to it... let's say like a powerful wind with the patchwork held in a frame... at some pressure the fabric will fail... likely where some of the patches are sewn together. All seams will not fail at once... the weakest ones will and the failure may propagate along a seam from one patch to the next. But once the seam breaks the fabric is under ittle stress and flops and flutters in the wind like a flag attached to a pole.

In studying the destruction and the debris from the twin towers you can see that the frame came apart at the connections/joints and steel splices... which were ALWAYS weaker than the steel members they connected.

There was buckling and bending and so forth type of failures as well from overloading and dynamic loads which occurred as various parts of the structure failed.

Posted by: hdog Dec 15 2011, 06:33 PM

Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 16 2011, 11:40 AM

QUOTE (hdog @ Dec 15 2011, 06:33 PM) *
Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.



I agree completely.

Sander0 is one of those guys who, through innuendo, wants to have it both ways.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 16 2011, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 16 2011, 10:40 AM) *
I agree completely.

Sander0 is one of those guys who, through innuendo, wants to have it both ways.

Which is a shame, because he's obviously smart enough to know better.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 16 2011, 08:54 PM

Excuse me?

Through inuendo?

Just a little fact check here- the Towers did not collapse but were destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall. This was the result of explosives, not gravity. I'm not going to respond as if I wanted to argue about the about the obvious I'd go to the the govt loyalist site forum.

They were "destroyed through the path of maximal resistance at about 64% of the rate of free fall"

Do you even know what you wrote there?

The path of most resistance presumably is mean to mean that someting is moving ... along a path... and in this case it mean FALLING or traveling down to the ground... and the path of most resistance would be *through* or crushing the steel columns.

So what was traveling through this path?

This is the kind of statements that people repeat because it sounds so *powerful*... but makes no sense at all. It's pure garbage. Of course what one sees the the structure coming down and those structures contained 3 main components:

1. Core columns
2. Facade columns
3. Flooring (concrete slabs... which were supported on trusses or beams which were connected to the columns)

then there was the contents which consisted of:

3a. super imposed dead loads - walls, machinery, elevators, stairs, hing ceilings, wiring, mech equipment, plumbing,
3b. live loads... people and furniture

The columns supported ALL loads.

The observations shows the following:

1. The top sections above the plane strikes collapse down onto the top of the lower section... some material falls outside the footprint
2. The floors begin collapsing/being destroyed beginning at the plane strike zone where the material from the top section landed and proceeding downward... between the facade and the core and the floors (minimal) inside the core.
2a.The material ON the floors, between the slabs... is blasted out of the way as the floors comes down. The over pressure forces it out the window... and this is seen as puffs of debris / ejecta coming out the windows all at once... one floor at a time. The floor destruction proceeds at 65 MPH during the time it can be clocked.
3. The facade comes off... in sheets of various sizes.. some huge with as much as 20 or 20 facade panels attached to one another.
4. The core survives the floor collapse...some of the facade does as well... the core stripped of the bracing becomes unstable and collapse from its own weight as described by Euler
5. A huge hot cloud billows up and away... carrying dust and debris for hundreds (or more) of yards from the site. The air (cloud) was heated from the friction released by the mechanical crushing of the materials.

Did you see something different?

What was the path of most resistance?




Posted by: amazed! Dec 17 2011, 12:37 PM

To this layman, path of most resistance is the vertical line centered on the vertical axis of the structure.

The path of least resistance would be more theoretical because it seems on a practical level, there is none. Maybe off to the side or sideways?

Posted by: SanderO Dec 17 2011, 01:35 PM

The path of most resistance would seem to be through the columns which is what resists the gravitational loads - mass of the structure. This idiotic statement is telling us that the columns were crushed from top to bottom.

WRONG

Posted by: amazed! Dec 19 2011, 12:01 PM

Crushed from top to bottom, or severed/compromised from the bottom up, as suggested by the explosions heard by Rodriguez and many others?

Posted by: SanderO Dec 19 2011, 08:09 PM

Let's take a look at that statement...

There were 47 core columns which would be the *path of most resistance and you had to get them out of the way as Amazed suggests by explosions. So from flr 93 down how many column sections were there? one every 3 stories 93/3 = 31. 31 x 47 =1,457 36' long sections. That's a lot of connections to explode.

What is the evidence of these explosions? The core actually survived in both towers to the 50th floor and higher... so it hard to claim that those columns were exploded and the path of most resistance was removed.

The visual evidence shows a FLOOR destruction/collapse... which led to the facade columns falling away... being pushed away... and then the core collapsing at the end.

If the core below the 50th floor did not collapse before the floors from floor 50 down.. then what was the mechanisn which destroyed 50 floors (less the 6 from the lobby)?

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 19 2011, 10:55 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 19 2011, 07:09 PM) *
The core actually survived in both towers to the 50th floor and higher... so it hard to claim that those columns were exploded and the path of most resistance was removed.

You're kidding? Right? Please show me a picture of a core 50 stories tall at ground zero after the collapses?


Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 12:23 AM

1) Observed Behavior of WTC1 Core



The entire northern portion of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse to about the 50th floor with some columns extending as high as the 70th floor. all with no visible trace of buckling. The surviving columns are identified in Appendix A. All columns in the 500 and 600 CC rows remained erect and largely interconnected though the initial collapse. One 700-800 column pair was also identified, probably 703-803. There is good reason to believe that some other 700-800 column pairs survived to about the 40th floor because when the west portion of the surviving core did fall, column pair 501-601 was seen to fall with 703-803 in a single collective motion, suggesting all visible columns on the west were interconnected as a considerably larger structure just inside the obscuring dust. These images show that the flooring in the OOS n, nw and ne regions was stripped clean of the surviving columns.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 12:28 AM

WTC2 Core remnant survives initial collapse



The first 30 seconds of this video shows a pair of core columns falling off to the right, with a good view of the pivot. It confirms the identification of columns shown above, since we know the northern pair of columns fell away by the time the image was taken.



Original analysis and follow-up discussion http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-2-core-remnant-motion-t191.html#p7004




Created on 03/28/2011 04:44 AM by admin
Updated on 04/27/2011 01:20 AM by admin http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_printable&PAGE_id=230&lay_quiet=1

Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 12:40 AM

The two previous posts showing the core surviving the collapse of the floors and facade was from the 911 Free Forums.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php


There's some very good work going on there, but if you don't look... you can't see.

Posted by: Tamborine man Dec 20 2011, 07:54 AM

Are you going to answer this question from DYEW or not?


"You're kidding? Right? Please show me a picture of a core 50 stories tall at ground zero after the collapses?"


Cheers

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 20 2011, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Dec 20 2011, 06:54 AM) *
Are you going to answer this question from DYEW or not?


"You're kidding? Right? Please show me a picture of a core 50 stories tall at ground zero after the collapses?"


Cheers

Instead, SanderO avoids the direct question and shows us pictures of WTC 1 during the collapse, not AFTER. Yes, some core columns were still upright after the curtain wall fell away. But then something cut the legs out from under those core columns, which were embedded in bedrock and they collapses within seconds.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 20 2011, 10:44 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 19 2011, 11:40 PM) *
The two previous posts showing the core surviving the collapse of the floors and facade was from the 911 Free Forums.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php


There's some very good work going on there, but if you don't look... you can't see.

I'm not surprised you're comfortable there. Thanks, but I tried them once and it was enough. I have my own site to take care of and I don't do this for a living. If I did, maybe I'd have time for such things.


Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 01:31 PM

I answered the question.

The core columns SURVIVED the floor collapse... they did not CAUSE IT... and they DID collapse because the floor collapse destroyed the bracing and left the core columns unstable and they then collapsed.

This is a matter of sequence... If the core columns were not destroyed first... and they weren't... then they collapse was not through the path of most resistance.

The floors seem to have collapsed first, followed by the facade then the core. The core was up to 50 stories tall standing without the floors or the facade before it too collapsed.

If you don't want to see the research and the data.. fine. It's there.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 20 2011, 03:35 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 20 2011, 12:31 PM) *
I answered the question.

The core columns SURVIVED the floor collapse... they did not CAUSE IT... and they DID collapse because the floor collapse destroyed the bracing and left the core columns unstable and they then collapsed.

This is a matter of sequence... If the core columns were not destroyed first... and they weren't... then they collapse was not through the path of most resistance.

The floors seem to have collapsed first, followed by the facade then the core. The core was up to 50 stories tall standing without the floors or the facade before it too collapsed.

If you don't want to see the research and the data.. fine. It's there.

And that sequence could have only happened with well timed explosives. Even if the curtain walls failed and managed to pull all the floor slabs and trusses with them, the inner core should have been able to survive for at least 30 - 50 floors above grade.



This is all that remained once the dust settled.


Posted by: amazed! Dec 20 2011, 04:39 PM

SanderO

We've probably discussed this before, and my apologies for asking again, but how is it that you reconcile the presence of the chemicals produced during the thermite reaction?

Happy Holidays.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 08:58 PM

DYEW,

"And that sequence could have only happened with well timed explosives." Who says? There is a paper written about progressive floor collapse:

"Vlassis, A.G. (2007). Progressive Collapse Assessment of Tall Buildings, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London.

Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss – Part I: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/968/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_I.pdf

Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss – Part II: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/970/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_II.pdf

Kaewkulchai, G., and Williamson, E.B. (2006). “Modelling the Impact of Failed Members for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Frame Structures,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 20(4), pp. 375-383.

The paper "Progressive Collapse of Multi-story Buildings Due to Failed Floor Impact" by A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli and D.A. Nethercot. is available at this link.

From the introduction:

"It is concluded that such structures are susceptible to progressive collapse initiated by impact of a failed floor, mainly due to insufficient ductility supply under combined bending and axial deformation modes. Moreover, the development of shear failure modes is identified, thus further increasing the observed vulnerability of the studied floor system. Since these shear
modes of failure are expected to be even more pronounced when the actual dynamic rather than the static response of the impacted floor is considered, the need for further research work focussing on the shear capacity of a variety of connection types subject to extreme events is established. Finally, practical design recommendations that can improve the impact response of floor systems exposed to impact from the floor above are made."

page 24: "Hence, it can be easily concluded that in the event of failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below, the lower impacted system, modelled using a grillage-type approximation, is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse."

page 26: "Thus, although assessment is based on a simplified grillage-type approximation rather than a detailed slab model, the explicitness of the results leads to the conclusion that a floor system within a steel-framed composite building with a typical structural configuration has limited chances to arrest impact of an upper floor. This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability."

page 27: "To conclude, although there is room for further improvements with respect to its accuracy and applicability, the proposed assessment methodology provides an effective platform to rationally tackle the scenario of floor impact, which is one of the most prevalent progressive collapse initiation mechanisms."


According to the studies above, sustained progressive floor collapse in the open office space regions surrounding the core seem quite possible within the WTC structures and is worthy of further investigation."

The core was not stable because the collapse floors destroyed the bracing which turn the core for a 3D lattice... to separate columns up to 720 feet tall which minimal bracing. This was unstable and you can see some of the tall columns topple over others buckle from their own weight. If the bracing HAD survived the core would have remained standing. Look up Euler Buckling.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 20 2011, 09:14 PM

Amazed,

I am not a chemist... just a dumb architect. My understanding is that there was unreacted nano thermite found in 4 dust samples found outside the WTC site... in the dust from the destruction. I have no idea how to explain it. It may be related to the initiation of the collapse. My understanding from talking once with Niels Harrit that he believed there would have been no more than 4 tons of it. But this is a pretty estimate because there were only 4 samples. Nevertheless NT should not be in the WTC dust and it needs to be explained. I have no explanation.

If you are referring to other artifact such as micro spheres... I believe there was some very hot local situations... like high voltage arcs Which could produce the heat to melt, atomize and blast away the melted metal. I also believe that the were conditions CREATED where lots of chemicals mixed together with the heat from the friction of the mechanical destruction could cause odd exothermic reactions... even thermite like ones since the elements iron oxide, aluminum and sulfur were present. I am not a chemist and so I can't tell you with any confidence that this is possible. I suspect it is. The heat was enormous and lasted for several months.

Kevin Ryan made themite in his back yard with those chemicals... a few beakers, water and heat... Seems this was conceivable in the towers destruction... But that's the only explanation aside from these chemicals being placed there that I can come up with.

I don't think it's inconceivable that the planes that hit the towers... delivered more than jet fuel... include NT or thermite. If the objective was to collapse the core and then cause the progressive floor collapse.. perhaps the planes COULD deliver the themite or NT to weaken the core with heat along with the columns destroyed by the strike.

I do believe that collapse part..not the initiation part... did not require explosives.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 21 2011, 10:23 AM

That's a fair reply Sander.

I'm just a dumb pilot--neither chemist nor architect nor engineer. rolleyes.gif

But there is a rather simple explanation for the presence of those chemicals, and it is the elephant in the room. The explanation is that weapons-grade thermite products were used by the perpetrators.

Since there are so many OTHER fingerprints of military operations in the events of the day, this makes one more.

Common sense DOES play a role out here in the Court Of Public Opinion, and the Big Picture has its own quality of consistence--military and spook agencies contributed mightily, if not exclusively.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 21 2011, 05:24 PM

Amazed,

I have no confidence in the Al Qaeda story and so that leaves the question open my mind as to who did it... and certainly it could be an intel/military type operation. But it had to be very compartmentalized and and it all gets very complicated to try to nail down.. so I prefer to stick with falsifying the OCT and any other myth out there.... like collapsing through the path of most resistance.. or that symmetry mean something... or false statements about debris ejected...

Posted by: amazed! Dec 22 2011, 10:43 AM

My guess Sander, is that you never served in the military.... pilotfly.gif

Posted by: SanderO Dec 22 2011, 11:35 AM

Amazed,

Your guess is correct... I don't think I missed much.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 22 2011, 04:49 PM

I do not hold that against you Sander, or anybody else who never made it into the military.

Just as I cannot appreciate the various cultural fine points of being an architect, and neither of us can appreciate the cultural fine points of being physicians, those who were never in the military cannot appreciate that culture.

And the point is that the events of 11 September, and all that we have learned about them in the intervening 10 years, have a distinctive military flavor. Obviously the Pentagon is a HUGE part of the story. Those who never learned the military mindset, and the military way of doing things, cannot appreciate the finer points. It's no fault of theirs, but they are naive.

This was a false flag operation, planned and executed with miliary precision. The flavor of the military permeates the whole thing and cannot be ignored.

Those towers came down by way of military methods. Probably much civilian assistance, but it was military all the way. IMO, the molten steel is the biggest clue at WTC.

Posted by: SanderO Dec 23 2011, 12:11 AM

Amazed,
I can't disagree with you when you write that with intimate knowledge of a discipline or a genre one can't understand it very well... and so I can't read cat scans or perhaps see military planning or the finger prints of a military operation. I do know that the military has screwed up all the wars it has engaged in over the last half century and so they clearly are not infallible.

The presence of molten metal, like the presence of unreacted nano thermite in dust samples must be explained. But I would point out that we don't much about the NT... there were only 4 samples and this has not been confirmed by other scientists. If it was in those 4 samples, it should be in any sample and I am waiting to learn if this is true.

The same sort of confirmation is required for the molten metal reports. I don't think that anyone can say with certainty what the metal was which was pouring out of the South Tower from some videos taken thousands of feet away. Yes we can under controlled conditions determine what a material is by the color it glows. But this was far from a controlled condition and there were many variables which make the determination less reliable. And of course why do we see it only in one corner which is not a particular key part of the structure? If similar examples were seen at multiple corners in both towers it might re inforce the notion that this was some sort of thermite or incendiary attack of the steel in the corners... which by the way were the columns which supported the least weight of any of the columns in the towers. Why attack the weakest columns?

There are reports of molten steel from deep under the pile... and images of what appears to be dripping iron from some steel carried on a front loader or something. This too needs to be explained. One guess is that the collapse created a soup of the right chemicals which mixed with water and heat and ignited and produced an exothermic reaction like thermite. Is this possible? I don't know. it's conceivable because the chemical to produce thermite were abundant in the twin towers... aluminum, sulphur and iron oxide. If this sort of spontaneous exothermic reaction is not possible... then perhaps there was thermite or similar which was placed in the structure and migrated down to the bottom of the pile. It certainly wasn't responsible for cutting the core columns down there because you can see most of the core columns were intact in the basement and some even stood above the rubble pile.

If there was molten metal it must be explained. At this date the evidence is still very sketchy and no conclusions can be drawn... and hence we want a new investigation to answer these questions.

It makes perfect sense that 9/11 was a false flag operation. But making sense and having proof are two different things. We need proof.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 23 2011, 10:51 AM

I have all the proof I need sir.

Happy Holidays

Posted by: SanderO Dec 23 2011, 07:57 PM

Amazed,

Happy Holidays to you and the others here on PFT.

You may be satisfied with the evidence and the derived proof. I'm not. I'm still looking for the explanation.

Posted by: amazed! Dec 24 2011, 12:04 PM

Don't forget to consider the forest, instead of just one or two trees....

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Dec 24 2011, 12:11 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 24 2011, 11:04 AM) *
Don't forget to consider the forest, instead of just one or two trees....



Least we forget how substantial these trees were.

cheers.gif

Posted by: SanderO Dec 24 2011, 02:37 PM

Now that you've mentioned the trees or tridents... the *trunks* of which are pictured in the previous post... about half of the tridents and some of the facade above them survived the destruction... and were standing and had to be cut apart with lances for both towers.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=4&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=249

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=1407

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=1406

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=1220

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=1146

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=592

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_id=6&PHPWS_Photo_op=view&PHPWS_Photo_id=575

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)