IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Nist Photo Shows Possible Evidence Of Thermatic Rection

Paul
post Jan 17 2011, 08:51 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Check out this photo of what i think is the north tower which is just fresh from the 911datasets.org torrent release 09 it shows what looks like some sort of attempt at cutting through the corner column thatis supporting and taking some of the load of the towers above notice the white smoke rising from what looks like a massive thermatic flare up situated coming from the left hand side of the column somewhere near it's bottom? what we might be seeing is a thermite demolition charge at work and if it really is what i think it is this is cold hard proof that the government was involved in 911 so lets hear what do ya think? It's about time the 911 perps party came to a screaming crashing end once and for all, crash and burn.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 17 2011, 08:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 17 2011, 10:29 AM
Post #2





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



The corner sections had two columns and were 2 stories high. One floor had a "column" mid way called "300" in that photo. The other floor did not. The large opening (over 72") between the corner columns were used to move large material into the building hoisted up on the outside as the opening between the rest of the facade columns was 24"

The very bright area is not a column burning, but adjacent to one. I can't identify what it is, but it looks very hot!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 18 2011, 05:29 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 18 2011, 12:59 AM) *
The corner sections had two columns and were 2 stories high. One floor had a "column" mid way called "300" in that photo. The other floor did not. The large opening (over 72") between the corner columns were used to move large material into the building hoisted up on the outside as the opening between the rest of the facade columns was 24"

The very bright area is not a column burning, but adjacent to one. I can't identify what it is, but it looks very hot!


When you say it is very hot how how hot do you think it is? And also do you think whatever that hotspot is it is burning behind the column or at an area next to it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 18 2011, 06:48 PM
Post #4





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



I have no idea how hot it is. Although temps can be determined of color, the color balance of the film would be key. It appears to be at the top of the floor near the ceiling?...adjacent to column 301. On the floor where it is... there is no column 300.

Without knowing the floor plan and build out on that floor it is hard to say what it is. I haven't a clue. It does seem to have a hard right edge which might indicate a glowing plate. However... fire could be burning which behind / seen through a rectangular opening. The flames to the left are orange and transparent and obviously cooler and on the outside as you can see through them to the aluminum cladding. Also note that the cladding above the flame area in the center looks as if it was exploded out.

I don't have the expertise to "read" fire damage. So my musings mean little.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 18 2011, 08:02 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



Oops.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jan 18 2011, 08:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 18 2011, 08:18 PM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



The WTC Towers were very boring buildings in some ways. Most of the floors are pretty much the same over and over again. And there's enough information available, ie plans and layouts, that we have a pretty good idea of how the buildings were constructed.

If you want to take a building down, you've got to take out the strongest parts first. In the Twin Towers, the hat trusses, the 81st floor and then the other mechanical floors were the strongest points. In order to drop these floors you have to blow out at least one corner and key columns to start the collapse.

It turns out that the NE corner of the 81st floor in WTC 2 was the exact corner you would want to take out first, if you wanted to initiate the collapse of the top of the building and push it toward the E-NE into the Plaza and away from the streets. The 81st floor had beams instead of trusses, so the whole idea that the collapse started because the trusses or truss connectors failed is very unlikely. The 81st floor also carried a lot more load then a normal floor with tons of elevator hoists and then Fuji Bank(?) overloaded the floor even more with their 'battery backup system'.

If any of the floors above 81 failed first, 81 probably would have been able to withstand such a collapse. But if 81 failed, the top had nowhere else to go but down. Then they started blowing out the mechanical floors below but a lot of their dirty work was hidden by the debris cloud. But now and then if you look long enough you do find glimpses of what was going on as the buildings came down. Like in the picture below, where you can see the same thing happening but it's the NE corner under the next set of mechanical floors that they're taking out to collapse the next section.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 18 2011, 08:53 PM
Post #7





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



What was special about floor 81...structurally that is? Nothing... it was identical to all the standard tenant floors from
10-41, and 44-75 and 78-105. DoYou, please study the structure of the twin towers before making false claims.


Windows in the World in tower 1 and the Observation Deck in tower 2 were on 106 &107 and perhaps had some reinforced floors. The sky lobbies on 44 and 78 were typical floors structurally.

The towers did have 4 stronger regions at the mechanical floors which were located in pairs at:

8 & 9, 42 & 43, 76 & 77, 108 & 109

Floor 110 had radio/tv equipment and the hat truss was a 3D lens truss supported by the core with chords out to the facade and it was built from floors 108-110.

The key to the destruction of the twin towers as any engineer knows who has studied the details of the structure is the floor "system". The floor system not only carries all the tenant's uses, furniture and staff but it braces the facade laterally by acting as a membrane between facade and core.

The floor system was structurally "suspended" between the inside of the facade and the 24 perimeter columns of the core. On the facade side the floors trusses at 80" oc were connected to every other column and at the core side were supported by a belt channel cantilevered off the perimeter core columns with outlooker beam stubs.

The perimeter of the core was a tube or rectangular arrangement of columns which received lateral support from the beams which connected to the 23 interior core columns.

Understanding comes from accurate observation and knowledge of the structure.


The collapse of the twin towers was a process where the upper sections floors were "released" from the facade and the perimeter core columns. We don't know how this was done. The beam stubs could have been blasted or melted, but once the were broken from the core columns the columns could no longer support the core side of the floor system and it collapsed down. It appears that the facade connections were not attacked explosively, but they could have been burnt, but getting to them was much more difficult than getting at the beam stub outlookers which were EXPOSED inside the elevator and mechanical shafts/risers.

It took sufficient collapsing floor masses to overcome a floor which was not attacked or weakened in any manner. With a safety factor of 4 or 5... when the mass dropping on a local area of a floor exceeded its design capacity by 5 it would shatter and collapse. This would drop even more mass onto the same area of the floor below and collapse it. The collapse was not uniform as in pancakes of 1 acre floors, but sections breaking from overload in compressed time spans and collapsing down.

In the case of tower 1 the top section had floors 93-110 which came crashing down on 92. This included all the heavy steel from the HVAC equipment, the steel supporting the floors 108-109, the steel from the hat truss outside the core. The destruction of those 17 floors to rubble took about 4 seconds and in that time it began to overcome the 92 floors and it collapsed.

The floor collapse had surpassed the threshold mass and nothing would stop it from destroying all the floors it crashed up including the upper most mechanical floors at 76 & 77..

The collapsing mass (avalanche) did several things:

It crushed the concrete in the floor slabs - this was 2.5-4" thick with little or no aggregate
It ripped and shredded the metal decking that supported the concrete
It ripped and mangled the floor trusses
In some cases it ripped the angle truss seats right off on the facade and belt girder side... bent most of them
It pushed out at the facade as it grew in volume
It pushed into the core as it grew in volume
It crushed everything crushable
It broke apart most structural connections in the floor system


The result of the avalanche was that the facade was pushed away and broke apart... some of it in multi story sheets of 36'x10' panels. It poured debris into the core breaking many of the lateral beam connection which enabled the core to stand as a rigid 3 D lattice of steel. The core's floors were destroyed by the collapsing mass.

When the collapse had broken all floors down to the ground.. crushed and pulverized the concrete and building materials and contents all that was left were some of the core columns which stood as high as 50 stories. One column in tower one stood over 70 stories.

The final act was the Euler buckling of the remaining core columns which buckled from their own weight without lateral support. These massive columns at the base reaching up 50 stories were like stacking 16 pencils one atop the other and highly unstable without the intermediate lateral support. They quickly collapse straight down.

The building's floors were not designed for such "over loads" although the columns could hold the building up with perhaps 30% of them destroyed. Once the floors (and the loads they represent) were disconnected from a column.. they represented freed stored PE which became the dynamic energy which crushed the floors which WERE still connected and supported by the perimeter core columns.

This was not an attack of the columns - but of the floors' connections to the columns.

How this was done is yet to be determined. You could disconnect the floors by blasting the core columns IN to the core or as noted above simply cut the beam stub outlookers.... or both!.

The columns were strong enough and then some to support everything above them. But the FLOORS WERE NOT.

Understanding comes from accurate observation and knowledge of the structure.

Once you understand the structure, you can understand how it was, or might have been done.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jan 18 2011, 08:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 18 2011, 09:47 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 18 2011, 08:53 PM) *
What was special about floor 81...structurally that is? Nothing... it was identical to all the standard tenant floors from
10-41, and 44-75 and 78-105. DoYou, please study the structure of the twin towers before making false claims.


I do believe personal attacks are not allowed around here. In the meantime, I will be more then glad to back up my statements and then we'll see whose the one making false claims.

------------

05/17/2002 - Updated 12:10 AM ET


Machinery saved people in WTC

By Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY

NEW YORK The 16 people who escaped the burning top floors of the World Trade Center's south tower owe their lives to an unlikely hero: a row of giant elevator machines that shielded one stairway from destruction. About 2,000 people were on or above the floors hit by two hijacked jets Sept. 11. USA TODAY has identified only 16 survivors from those floors. These survivors were all in the south tower. They all used the same stairway. And they all made it out because an enormous elevator machine room happened to be located on the 81st floor, where the nose of the jet hit.

The machine room contained a dozen 24-ton elevator hoists, which pulled high-speed express elevators from the lobby to the 78th floor. The Otis Elevator 339HT machines were the largest in the world when they were installed three decades ago during the towers' construction. Lined up like a row of soldiers in front of Stairway A, the machines helped protect the stairwell.

The elevator equipment room covered more than half the width of the 81st floor. Its size forced the tower's designers to route Stairway A around the machines. The detour moved Stairway A from the center of the building toward the northwest corner away from the path the hijacked jet would take.

<snip>

The elevator machine room also may have helped contain the upward force of the explosion, protecting Stairway A when it was in the building's center above the 82nd floor. To hold the 600,000-pound weight of the elevator hoists, the beams supporting the 81st floor were twice as big and four times as heavy as those on the 79th floor.

USA Today

----------------

"Date : 17/03/2008 19:23
Sender : Michael E. Newman

Re: Question about UPS in WTC2

Enrico,
Modifications were made in 1991 to reinforce the 81st floor of WTC 2 in an area occupied by the United Parcel Service.

Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.

Both of these modifications are documented in the section of the NIST WTC Investigation Report known as NCSTAR 1-1C (go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf ).

What is perhaps confusing is that both modifications were made to areas where there are two-way trusses (the corners of the building) and the acronyms (UPS for "United Parcel Service" and "uninterruptible power supply") are the same.

However, these modifications were made eight years apart for two different tenants, so there is no link between them.

I hope this answers your question.

Thank you,

Michael Newman Spokesman, NIST WTC Investigation

**********************************************************
Michael E. Newman

Senior Communications Officer
Public Affairs Office - National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070
NIST info at http://www.nist.gov
NIST news and Tech Beat newsletter at http://www.nist.gov/news
WTC investigation info at http://wtc/nist.gov

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/14467

----------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 19 2011, 05:58 AM
Post #9





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



Let's establish some facts about the elevators.

There were 11 express passenger and one freight elevator which served the 78th floor sky lobby between column rows 500 and 600.

There were 8 express passenger and one freight elevator which served the 44h floor sky lobby between column rows 900 and 1000.

There were 3 express passenger and freight elevators which served the Windows on the World and the Observation deck between column rows 900 and 1000.

There were express elevator machine room above the sky lobbies and on floor 110. If these massive elevator machines collapsed, the beams supported and floors under them they would plunge down inside the elevator shafts perhaps destroying some lateral beams in those rows and little else. Floors outside the core would be unaffected.

NE Corner of WTC 2 Floor 80

What is interesting about the NE corner of floor 80 in WTC 2? It was close the location where the starboard engine of the plane exited the building. That engine and the wing tanks might have initiated fires along the east side along the path they traversed. Note the entire east facade shows fire at floor 80 or so. Apparently there a UPS back up system installed close to that corner. This required some reinforcing of the structure to support the concentrated loads of the UPS lead batteries.

It's possible and likely that the fires ignited and caused the UPS batteries to arc, explode/ignite and melt the lead which poured out the corner. Lead acid batteries are housed in containments for escaped acid. Recharging of lead acid batteries releases explosive gases as well. It's conceivable that the melted lead spilled over the containment and out the corner.

This one location was the only place liquid metal is seen pouring from the towers. And the only place where a UPS was reported to be located. Coincidence?

There is concern that the color of the liquid pouring out was the color of steel, not lead or aluminum. The color might have been reflecting the rising sun in the east causing the white reflective molten metal to appear yellow. I don't know. It's a possibility. Melting of the corner columns would have shown some deformation in the structure above the corner I would think.

Even if the corner was attacked it would no cause a global collapse. And if were the cause of a local collapse at the corner it would require exceeding the safety factor for loading the floor where the collapse began. This means that 8 or more floor corners above the collapse would have to fall onto the 80th floor corner before it would collapse progressively to the ground. But this would only involve the NE corner... not the entire floor.

It makes no sense to simply attack the corner of the 80th floor.

Observation tells us what happened to the structure below the strike zones. Their floors collapsed first... which pushed off the facade and left the core columns which then toppled from Euler buckling. We don't know what happened above that which released the destructive mass of upper floors. That is speculation. It was not at the facade, but in the core though NIST tries to make a case the the facade was pulled in and it came down. Rubbish.

The destruction was accomplished at the core perimeter, likely at the beam stub outlookers as there were only 28 of them and 12 of them would likely be all that was required to release the floors from the core side. These were accessible as well as they were in elevator and ventilation shafts and could be "cut" by placing termite on top of them. But this is speculation.

Observation shows that the NE corner at floor 80 was a result of damage (fire and so forth) not the direct cause of the collapse. When WTC 2 began to collapse it tilted away from this corner, not toward it... so it was not the "weak" part which initiated the collapse of the top section.

Accurate observation and understanding of the structure leads to understanding the observations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jan 19 2011, 09:13 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 17-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



It is difficult to know who is right, or who is wrong, about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

When I am almost convinced that the pull of gravity did most of the work, then some further reflexion takes me back to the theory that something is clearly not right.

Here is for example one simple thing that for me cannot be explained by gravity alone, assuming that what has been reported is correct (no furniture, computers, or filing cabinetes could be identified.)

Let's look at the top 6 floors of either building. Clearly the maximum velocity that they reached before hitting the ground is equal to or less than free fall velocity. That is not very significant.

The concrete floors were not particularly massive so their weight cannot create sufficient kinetic energy to pulverize any thing.

Then, what force pulverized all the furniture, computers, and filing cabinets that were present in some of these floors?

So, to restore my belief in gravity, can someone explain that simple question.

It has been pointed out that there may have been some explosives at a few key points and then gravity took over.

The problem with that theory is that I cannot see any logic whatsoever to consider the very top floors as key points so is very unlikely that in a "frugal" approach to explosives some would be placed in those floors, so the question still stands.

If a steel filing cabinet were to be dropped from a plane at an altittude of 30,000 feet onto a hard land surface I have no doubt whatsoever that it still could be identified as a "former" filing cabinet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 19 2011, 09:42 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (talayo @ Jan 20 2011, 02:13 PM) *
It is difficult to know who is right, or who is wrong, about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

When I am almost convinced that the pull of gravity did most of the work, then some further reflexion takes me back to the theory that something is clearly not right.

Here is for example one simple thing that for me cannot be explained by gravity alone, assuming that what has been reported is correct (no furniture, computers, or filing cabinetes could be identified.)

Let's look at the top 6 floors of either building. Clearly the maximum velocity that they reached before hitting the ground is equal to or less than free fall velocity. That is not very significant.

The concrete floors were not particularly massive so their weight cannot create sufficient kinetic energy to pulverize any thing.

Then, what force pulverized all the furniture, computers, and filing cabinets that were present in some of these floors?

So, to restore my belief in gravity, can someone explain that simple question.

It has been pointed out that there may have been some explosives at a few key points and then gravity took over.

The problem with that theory is that I cannot see any logic whatsoever to consider the very top floors as key points so is very unlikely that in a "frugal" approach to explosives some would be placed in those floors, so the question still stands.

If a steel filing cabinet were to be dropped from a plane at an altittude of 30,000 feet onto a hard land surface I have no doubt whatsoever that it still could be identified as a "former" filing cabinet.

I also had similar thoughts to this - namely that the top 25 floors of WTC2 started falling as an intact block and the upper of these floors should in theory have remained roughy intact in order to be the top most layers of the rubble. Also this whole mass should have come to ground at the same time and caused some incredible damage given the weight x velocity equation. So where is it all? I do know that in some of the footage you can see flashes within the dust cloud which could be those top 25 stories being blown to pieces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 20 2011, 07:41 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 19 2011, 05:58 AM) *
Let's establish some facts about the elevators.

It makes no sense to simply attack the corner of the 80th floor.


Of course not. That corner was just one of many places that had to be destroyed in order to drop the building in a certain way.


QUOTE
The destruction was accomplished at the core perimeter, likely at the beam stub outlookers as there were only 28 of them and 12 of them would likely be all that was required to release the floors from the core side. These were accessible as well as they were in elevator and ventilation shafts and could be "cut" by placing termite on top of them. But this is speculation.


I'm not saying that the destruction wasn't accomplished there. I'm saying that this particular corner was a key place to begin the destruction. And yes, most of your post is speculation.

QUOTE
Observation shows that the NE corner at floor 80 was a result of damage (fire and so forth) not the direct cause of the collapse. When WTC 2 began to collapse it tilted away from this corner, not toward it... so it was not the "weak" part which initiated the collapse of the top section.




Looks like the entire east wall from the 80th floor to the top, failed at about the same time, since it is still intact when it peeled away from the rest of the building. That means a lot of floors and connections had to fail simultaneously, when the collapse began. Even if the building tilted away from the NE corner, then that would mean the NE corner was already severed from the building and was no longer attached. Some of this damage to the NE occurred during the initial explosion and the rest of the cutting was observed right before the collapse, when the molten metal started flowing out of that corner. So technically, you could say that this corner was destroyed 'before' the collapse.


QUOTE
Accurate observation and understanding of the structure leads to understanding the observations.


But that doesn't stop people from twisting the evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 20 2011, 07:51 AM
Post #13





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



We don't see the the tilting block blown to bits. We do see it disappearing into the debris cloud as it falls. Most of it came down onto the lower section. Some of it when over the side. It was able to rotate because one side had no resistance and the other was supported by some undamages columns and a vitual hinge was created and the tikp began to rotate over. This is similar to felling a tree. However this tree has the dimensions of 208'x208'x360' high.. and the notch that made it fall was about 36' tall. So it was able to rotate through the 36' - which represented one destroyed column (3 stories) a most. Once the lower section of the top rotating part hot the upper section of the still standing part it sent a massive shock from the collision through both structures which also caused a mutual destruction where they collided. The momentum kept the lower section of the tilting top moving west into the tower as the virtual hinge was a few hundred of feet to the west. Gravity was at work to so the rotation has not a arc but more like a parabola with a large vertical component to the motion as a result of gravity. The supporting columns also were overwhelm by trying to support all the upper part's weight when they were designed to carry perhaps a fraction of it. Those columns then bent and buckled too causing the virtual hinge to move down. And this caused the west side of the top to then crash into the west side of the bottom..

If you do the trig only small amounts of the floors were actually over the side and fell out side the foot print to be crushed byt the falling heavy facade panels. Parts of the hat truss went out side the foot print to the S and E as well. Most of the mass (CG) was still inside the foot print and came straight down causing the avalanche of collapsing floors below.

Pulverization

It seems to defy intuitive thinking that nothing recognizable would remain from a gravity driven collapse. Here we need to examine the forces at play - gravity and what they would do to the contents. In addition we need to look at the forces at play in a somewhat confined turbulent mixing process. Also we need to note how the same degree of contents destruction took place at WTC 7.

In WTC 7 we believe that its destruction was similar to a "classic CD" where the lower center structure is destroyed which causes the entire center to drop and pull in the perimeter with most of the mass coming down in the footprint. If this is true, gravity did most of the destruction at WTC 7 after the initiation in the lower central core area. We saw the top descending until it was out of sight blocked by other buildings. We didn't see the destruction at the base.. or the top being exploded to dust... we saw the top section descend and begin at a free fall acceleration. Gravity produced the crushing of all the crushable contents - the same pulverization of concrete of the floors, the same destruction of the floor pans and the same destruction of most of the contents to small bits and pieces. It was less than half the height and mass of the twin towers.

The "other means" to explain the complete pulverization and crushing of the crushable contents of WTC 7 is some sort of global explosive attack of the entire floors took place which pulverized everything. These explosions would have fractured the steel at their joints and left it largely intact in a pile of steel beams, girders and columns.

Or being non crushable at the forces at play in a gravity collapse, the joints would fail and the steel would land like a pile of pick up sticks.

In the case of the forces involved in a twin tower top down driven gravity collapse we need to look at the forces involved. They were dynamic forces as the mass was in motion, not static forces of the intact structure. The towers are reported to weight 500,000 tons. Of that 220,000 tons was the steel frame. Those 200,000 tons largely survived and did some of the crushing, though most of the facade went over the side.

The weight of esch rented floor concrete outside the core was about 930 tons. That floor of 31,300 square feet was designed to support an addition 100 pounds per foot or 1560 tons of contents. If the typical floors was only supporting 50% of this load it would add 780 tons to the weight of each floor giving the total weight per rented floor of about 1,700 tons.

With a design load capacity of 1560 tons and a safey factor of 5 - meaning it could carry 7,800 tons of static load, it is understandable that a dynamic load of 3 or 4 floors and their contents weighing about 5,000- 7,000 tons would destroy a floor.

When the top section came apart it was 17 floors weighing 17 x 1,700 (not counting the antenna weight) = 28,900 tons. So essentially approximately 30,000 tons of mass descended upon the 93 floor over a span of a few sections as the 17 floors above came down on it.

This was not likely enough to crush it all to fine grain rubble, but likely larger chunks and bits and sections of steel mixed in. This mass of course overwhelmed the 93 floor and this added another 1,700 tons to the collapse debris. By the 50th floor with 60 floors of debris raining down the mass weighed in at closed to 100,000 tons and it moving at 60 MPH. This means that each square foot on the 50th floor had 6,500 pounds falling in it moving at 60 mph. That will pulverize a 2.5-4" thick concrete slab to dust in a instant.

Realize as well that the gathering enormous mass of collapsing debris was like a torrent of rubble which acted like a tumbler where the confined material in the tumbler crushes itself by collisions. Rock is often commercial ground and crushed in a similar process.

By the end of the collapse of the lower section which took between 10-14 seconds over 200,000 tons of material came down in the footprint with about 13 tons on each square foot. The fine powder of the avalanche then spread horizontally in a huge cloud reaching hundreds of feet from the collapse and much of it air born and dispersed by the winds.

The gravitational floor collapse phase was an extremely energetic and chaotic event which the building contents literally ground themselves up as a result of being somewhat confined in a narrow area (1 acre foot print). One can hardly compare this to a file cabinet plunging even 30,000 feet to the ground in free fall.

This was not a "neat" pancake collapse. That would virtually impossible to occur and require every floor truss connection (over 300 of them) on a floor to fail at the exact same instant and this to repeat 100 times.

Accurate observation is the key to understanding along with understanding of structure, statics and the performance of materials under dynamic loads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 20 2011, 08:05 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 20 2011, 07:51 AM) *
We don't see the the tilting block blown to bits. We do see it disappearing into the debris cloud as it falls. Most of it came down onto the lower section. Some of it when over the side. It was able to rotate because one side had no resistance and the other was supported by some undamages columns and a vitual hinge was created and the tikp began to rotate over. This is similar to felling a tree. However this tree has the dimensions of 208'x208'x360' high.. and the notch that made it fall was about 36' tall. So it was able to rotate through the 36' - which represented one destroyed column (3 stories) a most. Once the lower section of the top rotating part hot the upper section of the still standing part it sent a massive shock from the collision through both structures which also caused a mutual destruction where they collided. The momentum kept the lower section of the tilting top moving west into the tower as the virtual hinge was a few hundred of feet to the west. Gravity was at work to so the rotation has not a arc but more like a parabola with a large vertical component to the motion as a result of gravity. The supporting columns also were overwhelm by trying to support all the upper part's weight when they were designed to carry perhaps a fraction of it. Those columns then bent and buckled too causing the virtual hinge to move down. And this caused the west side of the top to then crash into the west side of the bottom..

If you do the trig only small amounts of the floors were actually over the side and fell out side the foot print to be crushed byt the falling heavy facade panels. Parts of the hat truss went out side the foot print to the S and E as well. Most of the mass (CG) was still inside the foot print and came straight down causing the avalanche of collapsing floors below.

Pulverization

It seems to defy intuitive thinking that nothing recognizable would remain from a gravity driven collapse. Here we need to examine the forces at play - gravity and what they would do to the contents. In addition we need to look at the forces at play in a somewhat confined turbulent mixing process. Also we need to note how the same degree of contents destruction took place at WTC 7.

In WTC 7 we believe that its destruction was similar to a "classic CD" where the lower center structure is destroyed which causes the entire center to drop and pull in the perimeter with most of the mass coming down in the footprint. If this is true, gravity did most of the destruction at WTC 7 after the initiation in the lower central core area. We saw the top descending until it was out of sight blocked by other buildings. We didn't see the destruction at the base.. or the top being exploded to dust... we saw the top section descend and begin at a free fall acceleration. Gravity produced the crushing of all the crushable contents - the same pulverization of concrete of the floors, the same destruction of the floor pans and the same destruction of most of the contents to small bits and pieces. It was less than half the height and mass of the twin towers.

The "other means" to explain the complete pulverization and crushing of the crushable contents of WTC 7 is some sort of global explosive attack of the entire floors took place which pulverized everything. These explosions would have fractured the steel at their joints and left it largely intact in a pile of steel beams, girders and columns.

Or being non crushable at the forces at play in a gravity collapse, the joints would fail and the steel would land like a pile of pick up sticks.

In the case of the forces involved in a twin tower top down driven gravity collapse we need to look at the forces involved. They were dynamic forces as the mass was in motion, not static forces of the intact structure. The towers are reported to weight 500,000 tons. Of that 220,000 tons was the steel frame. Those 200,000 tons largely survived and did some of the crushing, though most of the facade went over the side.

The weight of esch rented floor concrete outside the core was about 930 tons. That floor of 31,300 square feet was designed to support an addition 100 pounds per foot or 1560 tons of contents. If the typical floors was only supporting 50% of this load it would add 780 tons to the weight of each floor giving the total weight per rented floor of about 1,700 tons.

With a design load capacity of 1560 tons and a safey factor of 5 - meaning it could carry 7,800 tons of static load, it is understandable that a dynamic load of 3 or 4 floors and their contents weighing about 5,000- 7,000 tons would destroy a floor.

When the top section came apart it was 17 floors weighing 17 x 1,700 (not counting the antenna weight) = 28,900 tons. So essentially approximately 30,000 tons of mass descended upon the 93 floor over a span of a few sections as the 17 floors above came down on it.

This was not likely enough to crush it all to fine grain rubble, but likely larger chunks and bits and sections of steel mixed in. This mass of course overwhelmed the 93 floor and this added another 1,700 tons to the collapse debris. By the 50th floor with 60 floors of debris raining down the mass weighed in at closed to 100,000 tons and it moving at 60 MPH. This means that each square foot on the 50th floor had 6,500 pounds falling in it moving at 60 mph. That will pulverize a 2.5-4" thick concrete slab to dust in a instant.

Realize as well that the gathering enormous mass of collapsing debris was like a torrent of rubble which acted like a tumbler where the confined material in the tumbler crushes itself by collisions. Rock is often commercial ground and crushed in a similar process.

By the end of the collapse of the lower section which took between 10-14 seconds over 200,000 tons of material came down in the footprint with about 13 tons on each square foot. The fine powder of the avalanche then spread horizontally in a huge cloud reaching hundreds of feet from the collapse and much of it air born and dispersed by the winds.

The gravitational floor collapse phase was an extremely energetic and chaotic event which the building contents literally ground themselves up as a result of being somewhat confined in a narrow area (1 acre foot print). One can hardly compare this to a file cabinet plunging even 30,000 feet to the ground in free fall.

This was not a "neat" pancake collapse. That would virtually impossible to occur and require every floor truss connection (over 300 of them) on a floor to fail at the exact same instant and this to repeat 100 times.

Accurate observation is the key to understanding along with understanding of structure, statics and the performance of materials under dynamic loads.

That was quick. Do you keep a file of lengthy responses just to plug in on demand, regardless of whether or not most of the response has anything to do with the specific points being discussed?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jan 20 2011, 08:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 20 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #15





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



Do You,

The NE corner of WTC 2 was not the logical place to "begin" the collapse, nor was it what "failed" first. In the photo one can see the the SE corner leads the collapse/rotation as the virtual hinge was diagonally through about column 501. The tilt was to the SE not the East which means that the SE structural failure "begins" the collapse and tilting of the top.

The photo you posted also shows quite clearly that the east side of the tilting upper part is rotating INTO the lower section. It also shows the top where the hat truss begins on the 107 floor breaking. This likely means that the core failed at the 107th floor and the hat truss being stronger supported floors 107 - 110 as a unit for some time.

I believe your logic is flawed. The cutting should have been observed all along the east all and part of the south. However, what we did observe is massive destruction from the plane on the east side of the south facade and fires burning all along the east facade. Those flames might have masked a thermite type attack of the entire east facade, but why would we not see molten metal pouring from the entire length of the east facade? Why only at the location where the UPS room was and where the starboard engine exited the towers?

I believe you are trying to force the observations into your hypothesis.

No I don't keep responses ready to go. I address why everything which was crushable could and should be pulverized. Do you disagree with this explanation?

I am describing the motion of the top which was caused by destruction of the SE side of the core creating a virtual hinge.

I am not speculating as much as describing how a gravitational collapse of the lower section matches the observations and science. What evidence has this description "twisted"?

I don't see why column 300 is key to the collapse of the towers. In fact, 300 was not a continuous column... 259 and 301 were. However, breaking the corner spandrels would facilitate the facades from moving away from the core and turning a rigid tube into separate planes which would be much less stable. But even this would require that this destruction of the spandrel connections at 258-259 and 301-302 would have to occur up and down the entire tower and similar at each corner.

It's more likely that the connections of the spandrels were not strong enough to resist the loads of the collapsing floors pushing at the inside of the facade-bowing it, and "stretching it" so the bolts and welds between some of the facade panels gave way. I believe there were as few as 12 bolts per spandrel connection.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jan 20 2011, 12:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jan 20 2011, 01:15 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 17-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



I can read a passing reference to my 30,000 feet comment by SandersO. It is not my intention to criticize or diminish the value of the analysis presented by other participants; however, it is important for me to have clear explanations to the areas that I sincerely believe are not properly accounted for.

The remark with regard to my comments is imbedded in a relatively large set of explanations covering more than the claims of one person, as a result I am not sure what the response truly is (assuming that it was intended as a response).

I purposely reduced my questions to a very narrow area in what was a very complex set of dynamic forces. I still think that the question is valid and bringing the total dynamics of the collapse to any response completely obscures the answer.

My assumptions for the question to be valid are as follows:

The collapse of the building was fairly "vertical".

As a result, the upper floors did not reach the ground ahead of the others floors.

This completely invalidates any reference to the enormous weight and kinetic force from the floors below.

The velocity of the upper floors was, in no way, accelerated by the lower floors.

As a result, the maximum velocity possible for the upper floors is free fall velocity.

If you then refer to the contents of the upper 6 floors you have a crushing effect from 5 floors (highest value case) to 1 floor (lowest value case).

I cannot comment on the crushing of the concrete since I do not have expertise in that area or access to people that are knowledgeable and I can trust.

The same is not true for metals. I have access to very knowledgeable people that work with metals at many levels.

I consistently get the answer that it is their experience you need extraordinary (in capital letters) high compression forces to pulverize metal. Particularly all metals in a floor.

The traditional result is a very flattened metal as a result of very high compression forces.

This one I do not know if they are right but their claim is that there are industrial processes that exert higher compression forces that the ones that can be produced by five floors, and the purpose of the exercise is not to pulverize the metal.

Can some one tell me why my simple assumptions are wrong to a level that invalidates the question?

As "someone" use to say: "I want to believe"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 20 2011, 03:12 PM
Post #17





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



talayo is asking important questions and the answer requires advanced knowdledge of materials science as it related to the strength of materials as well as fluid dynamics.

It is the latter which would shed light on the tumbling, crushing of the broken building debris as it fell through the tower destroying each floor along the way.

There was lots of mangled twisted steel in the debris including pipes, and truss steel (bars and angles). Was there enough to account for all the steel? Seems not, but how can we know?

How fine can the metal be crushed... that is can it be broken into sand size pieces by such forces? Dust size particles? How much of the destruction was crushing and how much was abrasion? Metal can be sawn, filled, and sanded to produce shavings and dust size particles? Could such a collapse have abraded the most of the metal to dust? How can we know and can this be modeled mathematically or must it be determined from empirical tests?

It seems that steel and meta of a certain thickness and above survived more or less without more than being bent and in some cases not even that. Lighter gauges seems to not have fared well at all... filing cabinets and other sheet metal items such as ducts, wire and so forth.

I suspect that the destruction involving the collapse of hundreds of thousands of tons would cause a complex interaction which would grind, crush all materials less than some threshold thickness. But this is a hunch not based on science that I can explain. I don't think the fact that all the concrete was shattered to dust is unexpected or that no wall board remained and the same applies to other materials which are easily shattered and crushed like china plumbing fixtures or some brittler plastics, tile and glass. I also don't think a human body would survive in any recognizable form from such an onslaught.

The fact is the forces and the energy released in the collapse were as powerful as huge high energy explosives and we know what that does to most materials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 20 2011, 05:12 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



SanderO,

Can I be blunt?

We have all seen the evidence. We have all seen the videos. The towers were, to put it bluntly, blown to shit. The actual magnitude of the "blown to shittedness" as opposed to "act of gravityness" is pretty irrelevant to me. You cannot explain where the top 25 stories of WTC2 went to, despite your many words, the top of the building is "riding down" on the rest of the building, it cannot be explained where it went to other than by being blown up. Your tendency for reverting back to the official story all the time is getting tiresome when there is clear evidence of explosions happening all the way down the towers prior to the collapse and during the collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 20 2011, 06:28 PM
Post #19





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



I don't revert to any official story. I have stated innumerable times in this forum that I find the NIST explanation of what happened rubbish. I have also said that there was engineering involved in initiating the collapse which was gravitational. None of the buildings were "blown to shit" and that is not supported by the debris or the videos. WTC 7 is clearly collapse down as a result of the structure being destroyed over multiple stories below thr 23rd floor.

Exactly what about my explanations are "the official story"?

The tilting top was not blown to shit either and that is also nonsense.

I am interested in the truth and accurately describing what happened. I have been studying the twin towers for several years and have been an architect for 40.

Exactly what are you basing your statement it was "blown to shit"? Let's here your explanation of what happened... aside from the buildings were "blown to shit".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 20 2011, 06:41 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 20 2011, 06:28 PM) *
I don't revert to any official story. I have stated innumerable times in this forum that I find the NIST explanation of what happened rubbish. I have also said that there was engineering involved in initiating the collapse which was gravitational. None of the buildings were "blown to shit" and that is not supported by the debris or the videos. WTC 7 is clearly collapse down as a result of the structure being destroyed over multiple stories below thr 23rd floor.

Exactly what about my explanations are "the official story"?

The tilting top was not blown to shit either and that is also nonsense.

I am interested in the truth and accurately describing what happened. I have been studying the twin towers for several years and have been an architect for 40.

Exactly what are you basing your statement it was "blown to shit"? Let's here your explanation of what happened... aside from the buildings were "blown to shit".

No one is disputing the fact that you know a lot about these buildings. It's your attitude towards anyone you disagree with that's the problem. You don't want to discuss what happened and how it was done. You'd rather post the same condescending lectures, with your little insults and lies sprinkled in along the way. Yes, we know gravity was used to full advantage to take down these buildings. You don't have to keep telling us that over and over.

Instead of spending your life trying to debunk everyone that doesn't agree with you, what if you used your knowledge and time putting together rock solid proof that these buildings were intentionally destroyed and that people in our own government were the ones who planned and carried out their destruction? Otherwise, what's the difference between you and half the jerks on J R E F ?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jan 20 2011, 06:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th November 2014 - 05:51 PM