911 Debate Nukes Vs No-nukes, between open-minded folks Options

[SanderO]

Jim,

I don't think you understand my thesis completely and make some assumption which I don't think are true.

If you read the many accounts of people who escaped both towers there explosive events in almost all the elevator shafts a few moments after the plane strikes. These reports are of fire balls in the shafts and the smell of kerosene in the lobby. Most elevators were destroyed, cables broken and the cabs drop down, full of people burnt to death.

If 4 or 5,000 gallons of jet fuel got into the building they may not have melted the steel, but if atomized falling in the shafts and with electrical elevator electrical equipment arcing from shorts, explosions could and did occur.

Even the elevator which dropped into the basement had a passenger whose skin had burned off. These are scores of reports about the fires in the elevators and explosions in the local elevator lobby on the main concourse.

As I said I believe that there was some engineering to destroy the buildings and other explosives may have been lower down as the one reported down in the basement at or before the plane strike.

I can't prove that the avalanche of material churning for 80 floors would turn everything in the avalanche to dust. But I do believe such an event would do a damn good job of pulverizing most of it.

Even in CDs when the bottom ONLY is destroyed the debris from the collapses is often full of small material. And we've never seen building that tall collapse so we don't know what it would look like.

In WTC 7 which looks like a conventional CD, there is little evidence of explosions in the upper floors. Certainly not like what we saw in each of the twins. Yet with 7 the top 30 stories dropped down and seemed to be crushed into the same quality of pulverized dust and fall into a rubble pile several stories high. He was outside the bathtub and did not have the volume below it to hold so much of contents. You will recall that they had to remove 7 levels of basement debris in the twins.

My point about the structural system is one which most people simply are not focusing on or even away of. Of course the columns carry all the building loads, but the key is how those loads are transferred to the columns. Let me make another analogy.

Suppose we took a 48" square piece of plywood and cut a 18 x 36 rectangle out of the center and made something like a square donut shape.

The we took 24 - 1/4" thk 1" wide and 6" long pieces of wood and with a small brad nailed them to the inside of the donut equally spaced - 8 on the long side and 6 on the short side. The we took took 112 which were 1/8" thick and 1/2" wide and the same 6" long and tacked them with a small brad in each equally spaced around the entire perimeter. Let's add a dab of glue so the joints are a bit rigid. What we have is similar to one floor of the WTC framing system. (without the stubs or girder) and not with 3 story columns.

Let's put a bunch of dishes on the plywood to represent the loads. The 136 columns will carry the loads up to a point and if we add bricks or concrete block the the system will fail by either buckling or snapping of the battens or shearing the connections with the brads bending and breaking through the wood.

Whatever load we can safely put on each "floor" we will to on all ten and then carefully stack them up. Each floor is supporting it's safe load. But what do we find. The system is not stable because at each set of "columns" as we go lower in the stack is carrying more and more load. So this design will not work. What we have to do is make the "columns" thicker at the lowest floor but we do not need larger nails to attach the floors. Every floor is attached with the same small dab of glue and a single brad. If we built this 80 stories it would stand 40 feet tall and the columns at the bottom would be quite thick to support 40 sheets of plywood, but at the top those think battens were supporting a floor adequately.

When we stack the floors let's also add a dab of glue to each between columns so they don't slide off. Looking at once column line we would see a progression from 1/4" x 1" at the top to say 1 1/2" x 3" at the bottom (guess).

With our structural system complete lets get up on a very tall ladder and drop 4 concrete blocks on the top floor. What happens?

The weight of the 4 blocks overwhelms the small brads and the dab of glue and the top floor and with the concrete blocks crash down the outside columns might snap off and pop out or the might stay glued atop the one below. The collapse would progress completely to the ground in a matter of seconds since each successive floor was the same CONNECTIONS to the columns and those connections were overloaded.

In this analogy the plywood is a rigid laminated plate and would not pulverize at all. To do this more in scale, lets now cast the floors as 3/32"" thick plaster of paris donuts in the same shape. Since we can't nail into the plaster edges lets nail small blocks to each column about 1/8" x 1/2" so that the PoP slabs rest on the little blocks and the columns will sit with a dab on glue as before one atop the other.

It's still 40' high, but the floors are in scale at a very thin 3/32" of an inch thick. Columns are the same size. Obviously these floor would hold less than the plywood floors, but the 136 small blocks attached to holding them could carry additional live load.

This time we can drop some smaller weights... lets pour sand at the top. What happens?

The weight of the same overwhelms both the floor and the connections and breaks apart dropping to the next and so on and so on. By the time this has gotten to the ground 40 feet below what do you expect to find? A stack of 3/32 floor slabs 80 high or 8" or a pile of broken up plaster in very small pieces and lots of plaster dust all over the place?

Do you think the columns would still be standing 40' high with the floors gone? Or do you think most of them would have broken their connections and tumbled to the ground?

Where would they be? The perimeter would be scattered outside the foot print and the core inside the footprint.

So to get this avalanche going we overloaded that top floor and gravity did the rest.

In the twins it's likely that at some point the floor system connections - beam stub on the inside and truss seats around the perimeter were overloaded and the floor dropped and this began the avalanche. It probably was multiple floor failure at first rather than a single floor.

I think this could be done with thermite attacking ONLY in half the core beam stubs and the diagonal corners. The model is not the actual system but the failure scenario correctly models the mechanism of collapse.

Does this ring true?

That's my theory anyway.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 24 2010, 07:37 AM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Jim,

I don't think you understand my thesis completely and make some assumption which I don't think are true.

If you read the many accounts of people who escaped both towers there explosive events in almost all the elevator shafts a few moments after the plane strikes. These reports are of fire balls in the shafts and the smell of kerosene in the lobby. Most elevators were destroyed, cables broken and the cabs drop down, full of people burnt to death.

If 4 or 5,000 gallons of jet fuel got into the building they may not have melted the steel, but if atomized falling in the shafts and with electrical elevator electrical equipment arcing from shorts, explosions could and did occur.

Even the elevator which dropped into the basement had a passenger whose skin had burned off. These are scores of reports about the fires in the elevators and explosions in the local elevator lobby on the main concourse.

As I said I believe that there was some engineering to destroy the buildings and other explosives may have been lower down as the one reported down in the basement at or before the plane strike.

The only thing I disagree with here is the source of the explosions. No way is jet fuel from a plane crashing through perimeter steel walls, then the core columns and everything else that was in the way like the floor slabs, then score a bulls-eye by pouring into the elevator shafts, atomizing and then exploding in the basement.

However, I do believe that certain parts of the buildings were deliberately destroyed during the crashes in order to prep the buildings for demolition. All of the major damage, including the impact zones are in key places. No one gets that lucky without knowing how the buildings were constructed and what parts had to be targeted to cause such a catastrophic and complete failure.

I can't prove that the avalanche of material churning for 80 floors would turn everything in the avalanche to dust. But I do believe such an event would do a damn good job of pulverizing most of it.

Even in CDs when the bottom ONLY is destroyed the debris from the collapses is often full of small material. And we've never seen building that tall collapse so we don't know what it would look like.

In WTC 7 which looks like a conventional CD, there is little evidence of explosions in the upper floors. Certainly not like what we saw in each of the twins. Yet with 7 the top 30 stories dropped down and seemed to be crushed into the same quality of pulverized dust and fall into a rubble pile several stories high. He was outside the bathtub and did not have the volume below it to hold so much of contents. You will recall that they had to remove 7 levels of basement debris in the twins.

Even though WTC 7 looks more like a conventional CD, it wasn't. Mainly because WTC 7 was not a conventional hi-rise. WTC 7 was built over an existing building, the ConEd Substation for lower Manhattan (gee what a great idea). In order to do this, WTC 7 was built on cantilevered trusses, that carried an enormous amount of load. With this building all you have to do is destroy the cantilever trusses that were between the 5th and 7th floors and that building had no where to go but down. Again, gravity would take care of the rest. That's why there is little evidence of explosions in the upper floors.

I think this could be done with thermite attacking ONLY in half the core beam stubs and the diagonal corners. The model is not the actual system but the failure scenario correctly models the mechanism of collapse.

Does this ring true?

That's my theory anyway.

Pretty good so far. But don't forget the hat trusses. They played a very important role in holding the building together for wind load and they played an important role in bringing the buildings down. I think that's why it appears that the top sections of the buildings tilted east in one big piece before they collapsed. I think cutting the connections on the west side, while blowing out the columns underneath the trusses on the east side would cause the tops to tilt before gravity took over and finished the job.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Apr 24 2010, 10:07 AM

[JimMac]

A chain is as strong as its weakest link and so it was with the floors system. The core perimeter was 448 feet long and was supported by 24 core columns. The 23 inner core columns had nothing to do with supporting the floors outside the core. The floors were connected every other column at the facade.

This is not exactly a true representation of the core load bearing, to say that the 23 inner core columns had nothing to do with sharing floor system support. The core is an integral structure, with cross beams, and cross bracing transferring loads between columns. The load points at the footings supported the entire core load bearing. Anyway, it's not a significant enough misrepresentation to matter in this discussion.

Another correction: it's not as if the floor trusses were 'hung' on just two 5/8" bolts. The trusses were 'resting on' plates, gussets or whatever, and welded. There is a big difference between hanging and resting. Also, they used 7/8" bolts at the perimeter for fastening. The bolts in this case would be primarily for keeping the truss member in a fixed position (as opposed to load bearing).

Back at you later on some other points. Btw, while they are interesting, you don't need to go into the analogies of framed construction so much for my benefit, as have framed many structures over time, and am quite comfortable with the conventional terms.

[JimMac]

Jim,

I don't think you understand my thesis completely and make some assumption which I don't think are true.

I think i understand your picture. The idea is that the collapse of a vertical section of floors was somehow initiated thru separation (cutting/blowing) of the floor system at certain of its connection points to the perimeter and core, and that mass, especially when it gained force thru motion was enough energy to destroy the structure below. You went into some detail about which points of failure would be sufficient to set the block of floors in motion. You argue that because all the floors are uniform in properties that if one collapses due to this effect, they can all collapse similarly.
This is essentially the NIST proposal, although with some modifications. NIST contrived a reason for truss failure which doesn't make any sense and has been demonstrated to be faulty. You get around that by saying that somehow the collapse was initiated.

Yours specifically: " to get this avalanche going we overloaded that top floor and gravity did the rest."
Are we ok so far? (without going into unnecessary detail)

[JimMac]

Its always good to have a visual. The pile driver as seen from above.


http://www.djmick.co.uk/images/2010/02/Wor...r-Attacks-1.jpg

The pile driver as seen from above.

This post has been edited by JimMac: Apr 24 2010, 08:10 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Its always good to have a visual. The pile driver as seen from above.


http://www.djmick.co.uk/images/2010/02/Wor...r-Attacks-1.jpg

The pile driver as seen from above.

You Are Forbidden From Viewing This Page

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[SanderO]

Let's talk core for a moment. The core was "full of holes" for one. This is especially true at the lower sections especially the sky lobbies.

There were 5 elevator shafts which penetrated all floors up to 107. Then at the sky lobby on the 78 there were 12 express elevators and 24 local elevators. The 44th floor sky lobby has an additional 23 express elevator shafts which included the ones which went up to 78. There were no floors or walls between the elevators so the only floors in the core were the corridors and some mechanical rooms. Of the 24 local elevators in each section (3) 6 went to the 9 floors, 6 to the next and so on in four groups. The top 9 only had 6 local elevators and so forth. The local elevators for each section were stacked

Here is the column size / load distribution for the 80- 83 floor core columns:

4.79% 2.92% 3.53% 2.57% 2.29% 3.47% 2.92% 4.79%
1.62% 1.82% 1.69% 1.62% 1.62% 1.69% 1.82% 1.62%
1.87% 1.87% 1.16% 0.49% 0.41% 1.11% 2.00% 1.72%
0.38% 2.24% 1.24% 0.97% 0.96% 1.71% 1.74%
0.38% 1.92% 1.70% 1.15% 1.07% 1.71% 1.71% 0.38%
4.92% 3.02% 4.00% 3.61% 2.14% 3.66% 3.02% 4.92%

Notice how small a percentage of the loads the 23 central core columns were. The 23 central columns were 33.7% of the total cross section area or load bearing capacity... the perimeter were 66.3%. Some are barely 1/10tth the cross sectional area of the corner columns. And the 4 corners did 30% of the work of the perimeter columns. These columns were key to the destruction and one of them was broken by the plane strike in the south tower and along with several others in the same corner it led to the tilting top.

The hat truss was primarily meant to move the loads of the antenna to the two center rows of in both axes. It also acted as a stiff end "plate" for the top of the open tube of the facade. The two center rows had diagonal as part of the truss extending out to the facade panels in the center of each facade.

When the and if the facade became disconnect the hat truss was instead of resting on the facade at the center, it was holding it up from top. The facade panels having no bearing were in tension and this was out side the design capabilities of the hat truss.

The facade side acted like a membrane as it was made of Vierendeel trusses (panels) staggered and bolted together. This system was able to re distribute the loads effectively when penetrated by the plane.

The central core columns carried NONE of the perimeter floor loads. They framed the shafts and supported the floors inside the core. The core had beams which were connected to them in both axes in a grid. These served to provide lateral support for each other. So they carried no axial loads as the perimeter core columns did for the floor system. They mostly held up the one above and floors in the core. However the core was like a 3 dimensional matrix or grid with little of it as floor space.

If fuel got into the core it could rain down on all the express elevators, for example and it did. All of them dropped and were burned up - many people died the elevators just after the plane strikes. Similar voids allowed the local shafts to be connected as one open volume. If heavy materials crashed through the core it would likely break the relatively weak shear connections of the beams to the core columns. The spire - row 600 stood after the "collapse" since the collapse was mostly the avalanche out side the core.

The trusses were connected by only two bolts through angles at the top chord on the facade side. When the floors were overloaded the bolts shears and the floors collapsed in - they did not stretch from heat at NIST claims. The main attack as at the core side of the floor system and when they was destroyed the first floor DID pull in at the facade and then the bolts sheared and the panels popped out and the avalanche was on.

NIST really didn't go into what happened after collapse initiation. They tried to pin that on sagging trusses pulling the facade so that the upper facade was unsupported and dropped. But there are several reasons why this is hooey. The facade panels peeled away and were basically distributed in a cross pattern with the building at the intersection. The trusses did not sag from heat and if they did that would not happen all around the floors at the same time and the bolts would shear before they pulled the panels inward.

I do see it as a collapse initiated by multiple floors (4-6) dropping free at the same instant. There is a progression obviously since there is some time interval for those floors even to drop at free fall - 8-9 seconds. There was some resistance and it turned into an avalanche more than dropping pancakes.

There are some areas which I am not sure about. Would the avalanche break up almost all the metal decks and trusses as I've see so little of this in debris photos. But I've only see images from the top of the pile mostly and not the bottom and middle as it stretched from the 7th basement to 4 or 5 stories above grade. But then again... 200- 300,000 tons of material in an vertical avalanche would do an lot of crushing and pulverization. Could it have expelled paper which would be ride the pressure wind pushing out at the avalanche broke through the floors?

There's lots to answer and the correct explanation must fit all the evidence.

[JimMac]

You Are Forbidden From Viewing This Page

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

hmmm.. is accessible by me. Maybe the host has your IP range blocked.

Try this one, same domain, but maybe you can see it

http://www.djmick.co.uk/life/new-world-tra...nter-attacks-1/

[JimMac]

The central core columns carried NONE of the perimeter floor loads. They framed the shafts and supported the floors inside the core. The core had beams which were connected to them in both axes in a grid. These served to provide lateral support for each other. So they carried no axial loads as the perimeter core columns did for the floor system. They mostly held up the one above and floors in the core. However the core was like a 3 dimensional matrix or grid with little of it as floor space.

Can you see this photo?

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...wtc2small_1.jpg

Its an interesting place to take a sample photo from because this guy also argues that the inner core columns were not connected, however despite that, here we see the lateral beams and cross bracing. His own argument is voided by the fact that the four corners of the core were used as crane mounts, and the four legs of each, were cross-braced. That involves four inner columns.

Here is more photo evidence of cross-bracing to inner columns

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images.../trident3_1.jpg

In any case, whether the inner columns shared the overall load for the core is not a factor in the load bearing of the external floor system. The load bearing capacity of the core is not in question.

Back later on other points you raised.

[JimMac]

The trusses were connected by only two bolts through angles at the top chord on the facade side. When the floors were overloaded the bolts shears and the floors collapsed in - they did not stretch from heat at NIST claims. The main attack as at the core side of the floor system and when they was destroyed the first floor DID pull in at the facade and then the bolts sheared and the panels popped out and the avalanche was on.

SanderO, again, the ends of the trusses are described as attached by gussets and welded. The ends are 'resting on' as well as fastened by bolts. There are also four bolts, two on the top chord, and two on the bottom truss chord. The trusses were resting, bolted, and welded, which means, they were fused, metal to metal, as well as resting on.

You are painting this picture as though the entire floor (section) is hanging on 48 5/8" bolts on the perimeter. It just isn't so.

Read this page, it will help, and the diagrams are from FEMA
Truss-to-Column Connections

"Most variants of the truss-failure theory blame the detachment of the truss ends from the perimeter walls for the pancaking of floors, and eventual total collapse of the buildings. It has been asserted that only one or two bolts connected the truss ends to the perimeter walls. However, according to both of the official government reports, the truss ends rested on steel plates that were both welded and bolted to the top chords of the trusses and attached via bolted damping units to their lower bottom chords."

This post has been edited by JimMac: Apr 25 2010, 12:36 AM

[GroundPounder]

Here is the column size / load distribution for the 80- 83 floor core columns:

4.79% 2.92% 3.53% 2.57% 2.29% 3.47% 2.92% 4.79%
1.62% 1.82% 1.69% 1.62% 1.62% 1.69% 1.82% 1.62%
1.87% 1.87% 1.16% 0.49% 0.41% 1.11% 2.00% 1.72%
0.38% 2.24% 1.24% 0.97% 0.96% 1.71% 1.74%
0.38% 1.92% 1.70% 1.15% 1.07% 1.71% 1.71% 0.38%
4.92% 3.02% 4.00% 3.61% 2.14% 3.66% 3.02% 4.92%

Notice how small a percentage of the loads the 23 central core columns were. The 23 central columns were 33.7% of the total cross section area or load bearing capacity... the perimeter were 66.3%. Some are barely 1/10tth the cross sectional area of the corner columns. And the 4 corners did 30% of the work of the perimeter columns. These columns were key to the destruction and one of them was broken by the plane strike in the south tower and along with several others in the same corner it led to the tilting top.

first, where did you get your numbers?
second, it is pure speculation about the damage to any core columns.
third, citing nist does not help your case.
fourth, speculating about what did or did not happen to the fuel is just that, speculation.

in my opinion, the plane was turned into so much confetti and did much less damage then hyped.

[JimMac]

first, where did you get your numbers?
second, it is pure speculation about the damage to any core columns.
third, citing nist does not help your case.
fourth, speculating about what did or did not happen to the fuel is just that, speculation.

in my opinion, the plane was turned into so much confetti and did much less damage then hyped.

Its true he doesn't source the load percentage table, but the values seem fine. The corner columns carry the higher load because they are doing double work on the four corner floor area sections (one leg of the 'chair', four times repeated, with respect to the corner loads.) The inner core columns carry 35% of the core load according to the table, mostly irrelevant to the overall question of floor failure anyway.

The core columns may have taken some damage when whatever airplane it was, cruised into the building at 550 MPH ground speed. The building structural integrity was just fine afterward (in both cases). So the buildings apparently performed according to design expectation.

My conclusion, after reading SanderO, is that his thesis is a NIST variant, the collapse theory painted as donuts and avalanches; a spin using words.

The fallacies:

1) all the floor contents can be seen to be atomized and expelled (the huge mass laboriously calculated as downward force does not apply to the structure )

2) in the case of WTC2. the so called pile-driver building section is observed to disintegrate away from the vertical axis of the structure. It traveled at least 200 feet laterally off its vertical axis and ends up largely outside the building foot print. Its plainly observable in the photos. (look on page 1 of this thread, you will see it)

3) the core can be seen in various photos momentarily surviving the floor by floor explosions and existing in time, free standing above them. This fact, visually evident, negates the pile driver one more time.

4) ignores science, the laws of conservation of momentum are not obeyed.

5) The thesis claims that a high percentage building contents fell into the hole, when clearly they are seen blown beyond the footprint

6) does not consider (ignores) the certified fact that nano-thermite is found in the dust. Can cite the British research lab report verifying this if required. Disregards the obvious use of military grade high explosives in large quantity.

[GroundPounder]

My conclusion, after reading SanderO, is that his thesis is a NIST variant, the collapse theory painted as donuts and avalanches; a spin using words.

and therein lies the problem. if you start with a false set of premises and get others to believe it (a la nist hand waving), the rest is window dressing. the emperor and his non-existent clothes so to speak.

in the case of wtc1, the speed of the striking aircraft was much less than 550mph. by the calculations of a professor hoo-fatt at the university of akron (ohio) in 2005 paper titled, 'Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center':

'The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s.' this translates to ~290mph and was based on the assumption of a full fuel load. Doing the energy calculations for deformation of the plane, floor damage and exterior wall leaves NO energy left for core column damage. that's just the way it is.

couple that with the fact that the design called for being able to lose all the exterior columns on one side, both corners and still have the building remain standing, makes the whole collapse scenario fantasy at best.

just throwing that out there.

[SanderO]

first, where did you get your numbers?
second, it is pure speculation about the damage to any core columns.
third, citing nist does not help your case.
fourth, speculating about what did or did not happen to the fuel is just that, speculation.

in my opinion, the plane was turned into so much confetti and did much less damage then hyped.

NIST's report may and probably does contain mis statements and even lies. But they do have accurate information about the structure and some of the events.

The core column data was from http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/start which shows the size of every core column at every floor. I simply used the data from 80-83 and extracted that chart of percentages.

Researches such as Gregory Ulrich have produced the following analysis:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...assAndPeWtc.pdf

I have done my own calculations of the weight of the steel for the perimeter facade panels.

Addressing some points raised.

The titling top of WTC would not land 200 feet away if it had gone full over. The hinge point of the rotation was diagonally through col 501 and so it tilted to the SE. If you work out the geometry for a building with a plan of 208x208 where the top section which tilts is 330 feet tall it wouldn't fall further than 125' outside the foot print. And this doesn't take into consideration that it was dropping as well as rotating so the arc was not a radius.

The floor contents are not expelled most of the debris ends up in a pile centered about the middle of the building. What clearly outside the foot print is most of the 29,000 tons of facade panels. The fell away. Outside the footprint would include all the aluminum cladding and the glass and essentially anything attached to the facade.

There were explosions at collapse initiation and these DID throw the contents from the interior in all directions. However this may have been the only sex of explosions that did this and this was what dislodges the first 5 or 6 floors and began the vertical avalanche.

There was no pile driver. This is not my thesis. The fact that the core survived a bit as the floors avalanched down around it is consistent with my thesis that the central core had no role in supporting the floors and when the avalanche began they stood for a but before the 23 inside core columns and beams which held them in a rigid grid were mangled and it then fell.

In fact my thesis follows the laws of conservation of energy and science. The connections of the floor system were overwhelmed when several floors collapsed on them and this released all the stored gravitation energy in their mass.

I am not ignoring the nano thermite found. I don't know the role it may have played, but I do propose that there were explosions and very high heat which precipitated the destruction of 5 or 6 floors which then caused the avalanche. Thermite and or nano thermite may have been involved. I am more concerned it describing how the building came down, not what actually was used to release the stored gravitational energy.

There is more and ample evidence that the plane strike broke the perimeter facade and its contents including some fuel entered the building. Even if half the fuel exploded outside half made into the interior and something started the fires we saw and it was likely the plane. Could the plane strike of WTC destroy column 508? The trajectory of the fuselage takes it right at column 508 and the trajectory takes the starboard engine through the building to column 257-258 on the N side where it punched through and ended up on street to the north. This is also the location of the facade where liquid metal is seen pouring out of the facade. Is there a connection between the metal pouring out and the engine passing out at that column location? Perhaps. It could depend on the contents of the floor or perhaps there was thermite which was displaced and instead of cutting through core columns was then eating away at facade columns. I don't know.

We don't see liquid metal pouring from any other locations in either collapse so I think the connection to the starboard engine emerging bears some attention. If you have any doubt that a Pratt & Whitney JT9D jet engine weighing 46,000 pounds encountering some facade panels which were made of 1/2" steel plate at several hundred miles an hour wouldn't destroy the steel and possibly the same on the other side... you don't understand newton's laws of conservation of energy.

I am not trying to do anything more than come up with an explanation based on what I see in the videos and stills about the event and the debris and what I know about the structures. I have used the same science that anyone else uses.

I have calculated the weight of every facade panel and used basic science to determine the horizontal speed that they were traveling for them to end up where they did. The maximum speed was 34.4 MPH for the panels which landed on the Winter Garden. How they achieved that speed can be also be deduced from the videos of the collapse.

Here's how I determined the speed. When I look at the video I see one very large assembly of facade panels emerging from the debris cloud toward the west. It looks to be 6-9 stories high or even 12 and probably 6 or 8 panels wide (80 feet). I would have to do a careful calculation of that section to determine its actual dimensions, but it comes off in one massive section of facade panels.

So when I consider what would force such a large section of these panels to be blasted away from the facade, yet remain planer - not broken apart. They first appear to be almost vertical leaning at the top toward the West and in a second or two the top continues to rotate over and the enter assembly remains together in free fall and becomes horizontal as it plunges and is finally hidden by the debris cloud.

One explanation for this would be if there was a massive collapse of 6, 9 or 12 stories (depending on the size of the panel assemblies and freed the facade from lateral support in a rapid sequence from the top to the bottom... "unzipping" the connections to the floors... at one point the facade assembly is standing (we can't see it as it's behind the debris cloud) and then falls over like a domino pushed at the top when the last bit breaks away and the whole assembly then topples over. It would topple top first I would think.

Suppose I had a rather flimsy set of shelves - 9 of them resting on shelf pins set in one vertical side panel (facade). Now I drop a large weight on the top shelf and it breaks the shelf rests and in my experiment drops and breaks all nine in rapid succession. Then the side falls away top first and it topples over much the way that assembly of panels did.

But would that assembly have enough horizontal force for the top of panel to reach the ~34 mph (in a horizontal vector) as it topples over? It clearly has more horizontal force at its top than at its bottom or else it would drop vertical and not have the top tip to horizontal. I think not. The section seems to be also sailing a bit west as well as down.

But I also am wondering how and why this massive section managed to remain together as a unit weighing perhaps 80 tons by so few bolts. It was in free fall with no stresses - Yes it could and would... but how could it be exploded off the facade and remain as one unit of 28 facade panels (guess 4h x 7h = 28). 144'h x 70'w

Further the fact that the panels from the winter garden back to the North Tower were in the original relationship positions to each other and perhaps they were the very ones pictured in that Chandler video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5ITSvaRW4 noted above.

Assumptions
assembly of panels was
12 stories high = 4 panels high
7 panels wide = 70'
OAL size 70' w x 144 high

The top travels over 144 feet from vertical in the facade... to horizontal as it falls. This takes about 4 seconds to travel the horizontal distance equal to its height 144 feet - and would be at ~ 33 mph and this is remarkably close the 34.4 MPH speed of the calculation above the a height of 1164' landing 430' away. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/traj.html#tra8)

What this seems to indicate from the crude calcs and assumptions about the size of that large assembly is that it toppled over and there was very little force exerted on the bottom part. It was not exploded out of the facade... it fell over top first more or less.

So if you do a little bit of basic math and science you can connect the dots and describe what we saw instead of simply making broad claims as you seem to have done.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 25 2010, 12:21 PM

[GroundPounder]

sanderO, ignore any data you like and make as many errors as you feel is necessary.

a Pratt & Whitney JT9D only weighs 8-9k pounds. until you can show me a finite element analysis comparable to that of hoo-fatt, you got nada. sorry.

to assume that the facade is some paper strength structure is folly. it was backed up floors, welds etc etc.
i have stared at the picture of wtc1 showing the woman leaning against a beam in the 'gash' for hours. the damage was just not that severe, regardless of what i am told by 'authorities'.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/...wtc1_woman.html

blow that picture up and really look at it. then tell me what you see.

[JimMac]

Addressing some points raised.

The titling top of WTC would not land 200 feet away if it had gone full over. The hinge point of the rotation was diagonally through col 501 and so it tilted to the SE. If you work out the geometry for a building with a plan of 208x208 where the top section which tilts is 330 feet tall it wouldn't fall further than 125' outside the foot print. And this doesn't take into consideration that it was dropping as well as rotating so the arc was not a radius.

Here is a photo which DoYouEverWonder pasted earlier. Draw a vertical line down thru through the center of gravity of the top section which clearly seen, has fallen 'away'. Measure over to the vertical axis of main structure. Its at least 200 feet or more.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/WTC%20Squibs/WTC-2-collapse-N-low-squibs.jpg)

The floor contents are not expelled most of the debris ends up in a pile centered about the middle of the building. What clearly outside the foot print is most of the 29,000 tons of facade panels. The fell away. Outside the footprint would include all the aluminum cladding and the glass and essentially anything attached to the facade.

This is not what we see.. therefore i regard this claim as patently false.

There were explosions at collapse initiation and these DID throw the contents from the interior in all directions. However this may have been the only sex of explosions that did this and this was what dislodges the first 5 or 6 floors and began the vertical avalanche.

There was no pile driver. This is not my thesis. The fact that the core survived a bit as the floors avalanched down around it is consistent with my thesis that the central core had no role in supporting the floors and when the avalanche began they stood for a but before the 23 inside core columns and beams which held them in a rigid grid were mangled and it then fell.

"Avalanche down" is the same idea as pile driver. You are implying mass X momentum did the work.

In fact my thesis follows the laws of conservation of energy and science. The connections of the floor system were overwhelmed when several floors collapsed on them and this released all the stored gravitation energy in their mass.

right, the pile is increasing in mass (in your story), and the force is downward. "Released all the energy" is another way to say 'pile-driver'

I am not ignoring the nano thermite found. I don't know the role it may have played, but I do propose that there were explosions and very high heat which precipitated the destruction of 5 or 6 floors which then caused the avalanche. Thermite and or nano thermite may have been involved. I am more concerned it describing how the building came down, not what actually was used to release the stored gravitational energy.

Highly energetic explosions are seen propelling floor content mass outward on all levels, in a 360 radius. Most of what was known as 'the building' was atomized and blown horizontally with great speed before it 'came down'. This is what we see with our eyes.

What this seems to indicate from the crude calcs and assumptions about the size of that large assembly is that it toppled over and there was very little force exerted on the bottom part. It was not exploded out of the facade... it fell over top first more or less.

So if you do a little bit of basic math and science you can connect the dots and describe what we saw instead of simply making broad claims as you seem to have done.

In order to do basic science, the hypothesis must be correct. Your thesis 'Avalanche Driver' relies on the building mass remaining inside the bldg footprint envelope. I see 95% of the building mass (minus the core) blown outside the bldg footprint, whereas you do not. One of us is wrong.

[JimMac]

I knew I had a better pic buried around here somewhere.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/WTC%20Squibs/WTC-2-collapse-N-low-squibs.jpg)

DoYouEverWonder This is a fascinating picture. I've been studying all the different pics of this WTC2 explosion from various sources, where found.

I found this one by the late Bill Biggard, (he died covered in WTC1 debris) It has to be one of the more important photos taken.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart07.htm

The clouds of debris show the blast timing and outline perfectly against clear blue sky. What is truly remarkable is the distance he seems to have traveled to get to this location, from when the building exploded. He was at least 200 yards away, in the interval he relocated from HERE go figure

(IMG:http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/images/Biggart1765.jpg)

This post has been edited by JimMac: Apr 25 2010, 04:04 PM

[SanderO]

I made a mistake on the weight of the engines - a sloppy cut and paste. Nevertheless this mass moving at 400+ mph will tear through that facade.

[tnemelckram]

Hi SanderO, Jim Mac, DYEW, Groundpounder and Ricochet!

Nice civil discussion in light of the fact that SanderO is rocking a lot of boats, including my existing views, which are along the lines of Jim Mac's and DYEW's. This three paragraph quote from SanderO sort of summarizes what I like about what he is saying.

There was no pile driver. This is not my thesis. The fact that the core survived a bit as the floors avalanched down around it is consistent with my thesis that the central core had no role in supporting the floors and when the avalanche began they stood for a but before the 23 inside core columns and beams which held them in a rigid grid were mangled and it then fell.

In fact my thesis follows the laws of conservation of energy and science. The connections of the floor system were overwhelmed when several floors collapsed on them and this released all the stored gravitation energy in their mass.

I am not ignoring the nano thermite found. I don't know the role it may have played, but I do propose that there were explosions and very high heat which precipitated the destruction of 5 or 6 floors which then caused the avalanche. Thermite and or nano thermite may have been involved. I am more concerned it describing how the building came down, not what actually was used to release the stored gravitational energy.

One thing that has always been sort of an untied end is that I see the Twins falling in about 14-15 seconds whereas a pure free fall would take about 10 seconds. I see a little resistance in there delaying things about 5 seconds but still not enough for the bottom 75 or 90 floors to still be the "path of greatest resistance". In other words the bottoms were still taken out artificially (explosively assisted). That enabled the buildings to fall as a general rule in small parts into an area only a little larger than their footprint causing minimal damage to surrounding structures, pulverizing the concrete floors and allowing an easier clean up. But the shortest calculation I have ever seen for the amount of time needed for a pure "NIST Piledriver" through the path of greatest resistance without explosive assist is 42 seconds, but I suspect that actually it is much longer, with the maximum being the 500 or 1000 years that would be required to rust the bottoms to the ground in a natural lesser to greater entropic process.

So the 5 seconds that need accounted for are not enough to argue against explosive assist, just enough to invite a more sophisticated explanation. SanderO's theory seems to pretty neatly explain this by overall taking away a little explosive force that would have moved things more toward free fall and adding in a little gravitational force with resistance - 5 second's worth. Call it a "Modified Pile Driver Theory".

I'm not troubled that he accepts parts of the NIST Report - that vast collection of data has to contain some truths, maybe a lot. After all they did pretty much discard the "hot jet fuel fires" just as we do. The lies and obfuscations are in the NIST conclusions - especially in stopping with the bottom 75 or 90 floors "poised for collapse". I think we can all agree that SanderO is not urging the NIST conclusions on us.

The evidence of CD assist to some great degree is so overwhelming that the debunkers will seize upon anything, and indeed they seize upon the 5 seconds. Not that it matters because they have to get way past 15 and approach 42 seconds to begin ruling out a CD.
But that's been the only arrow in my quiver thus far. I think SanderO's theory is another way to cover the 5 seconds by taking away a little bang that removes all resistance and adding a little gravity overcoming resistance that explosives have greatly reduced. Neat.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Apr 25 2010, 04:21 PM

[JimMac]

The debris pile photos..really excellent photo coverage from about Sept 21 2001.

http://zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

There is so much meat in these photos, we could probably discuss them for months, and still learn something.

In this one, see parts of the core still standing to an elevation that looks as high as the top of the lobby facade elevation

http://zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_Northwest_Hell.jpg

This post has been edited by JimMac: Apr 25 2010, 04:41 PM