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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc 7 Leaning Against Verizon Building, cut column with molten slag

Paul
post Feb 26 2011, 01:47 PM
Post #1





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



Hi found this photo of the wall columns of wtc 7 leaning against the verizon building where it landed as wtc 7 fell at freefall speed and leaned
back just hitting the verizon building causing some structural damage to the other building as it fell now look at the cut column with the molten
metal iron slag covering part of the top of the building as it fell, i dont know whether this is demolition cut by as thermite demolition charge because
of the molten metal that was produced when it was cut ot whether it is part of a clean up cut, what kind of torch used for cutting steel would produce
so much heat that it would leave messy iron slag dripping down the top of the column where it was cut if it was done by a clean up crew?
The funny thing i dont understand about all of this is if you look at the column which have been cut by clean up crews at ground zero and even
the columns that where cut up after they where removed is that none of them except for one of them a core columsn at ground zero appear to have
and molten metal slag where they where cut during the clean up process, so what kind of torch would leave such a messy cut? And would they use such a torch to make this kind of cut? I am interested to hear what you all have to say about this piece.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://img710.imageshack.us/i/37debrisofwtc7againstve.jpg/

Cheers Paul S

dunno.gif dunno.gif salute.gif salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Feb 26 2011, 06:37 PM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



QUOTE (Paul @ Feb 24 2011, 04:47 PM) *

I'm more interested in the slice in the support column in the lower right hand corner of this image. Why would the cleanup crew cut that column if it was up against the wall? - unless the debris pile has shifted since the cut was made...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 26 2011, 07:36 PM
Post #3





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





Here's another shot of the truss assembly that blew across the street and landed on the Verizon Bldg.

With more context, it appears this picture was taken a few days after 9/11. There's a fire truck but no other heavy equipment working the pile yet. So it seems that the damage is from the collapse and before any workers started cutting it down.

You can see this is a massive section of steel that blew across the street to hit the next building. The only time the strongest part of a building fails like this is in a demolition.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Feb 26 2011, 07:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 26 2011, 11:02 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Feb 27 2011, 10:06 AM) *


Here's another shot of the truss assembly that blew across the street and landed on the Verizon Bldg.

With more context, it appears this picture was taken a few days after 9/11. There's a fire truck but no other heavy equipment working the pile yet. So it seems that the damage is from the collapse and before any workers started cutting it down.

You can see this is a massive section of steel that blew across the street to hit the next building. The only time the strongest part of a building fails like this is in a demolition.


We'll if there is no heavy equipment working at the site yet, and we have two possible cuts that could have been done in a CD of wtc 7
doesnt that mean that the probability that the building was bought down in a CD is much more likely now? But why would there be two completely different cuts?

So maybe it is time to bring out the handuffs for silverstein and crew if you know what i mean. I wish if only that would happen but the justice
sytem in the america is far too gone for that too happen now.

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Mar 3 2011, 05:39 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (Paul @ Feb 26 2011, 01:47 PM) *
Hi found this photo of the wall columns of wtc 7 leaning against the verizon building where it landed as wtc 7 fell at freefall speed and leaned
back just hitting the verizon building causing some structural damage to the other building as it fell now look at the cut column with the molten
metal iron slag covering part of the top of the building as it fell, i dont know whether this is demolition cut by as thermite demolition charge because
of the molten metal that was produced when it was cut ot whether it is part of a clean up cut, what kind of torch used for cutting steel would produce
so much heat that it would leave messy iron slag dripping down the top of the column where it was cut if it was done by a clean up crew?
The funny thing i dont understand about all of this is if you look at the column which have been cut by clean up crews at ground zero and even
the columns that where cut up after they where removed is that none of them except for one of them a core columsn at ground zero appear to have
and molten metal slag where they where cut during the clean up process, so what kind of torch would leave such a messy cut? And would they use such a torch to make this kind of cut? I am interested to hear what you all have to say about this piece.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://img710.imageshack.us/i/37debrisofwtc7againstve.jpg/

Cheers Paul S

dunno.gif dunno.gif salute.gif salute.gif



Paul S.

I had considerable experience with handheld oxy-acetylene torches in my "past-life" as a metal fabricator. I also owned a couple of "flame-cutters". These were a type of pantograph machine, where a magnetic rotating tip would trace around a sheet metal pattern that you had designed. The torch is mounted vertically to the steel plate to be cut and is adjustable for height. The skill of the operator involved the setting of the pressure of the gases, the adjustment of the flame shape directly at the tip, the speed of the motor which turned the follower, and the height of the flame over the steel plate. It may be counter intuitive, but the thicker the steel, the more perfect "kerf" would result. I cut up to 1 1/2" thick steel. The parts wold look like you had cut them on a bandsaw. No roll-over at the top. straight lines through the steel and very minimal, or no slag at the bottom edge. When you have a handheld torch, even the most skilled can't achieve the consistent movement necessary to produce perfect cuts.

Most of the cuts in the photos that you posted, and photos of WTC1 and WTC2 that I have, show lots of excessive slag formation. This is a result of the operator setting the torch "too hot". He sets it that way in order to increase the heat zone and maintain a continuous cut which is difficut to do since he may have nothing to guide the tip in a straight line. All the cuts look to me as obvious handheld torch cuts and not very well done either; but who is worried about neatness? We cannot say for certain when these cuts were made.

I certainly need to research the common cutting charges used by Building Demolition Cos., and to analyze the kerf that results from those cuts and also cuts made with themite and thermate explosive charges, which we know were used in the demolition of these buildings. At the present time, I would expect that they might not look as irregular as these shown.

Photos of WTC7 show an apparently conventional office building, but inside was a giant cavity that took up most of the first five floors. (Painful Questions-Hufschmid 2002 page9). It is my view that the handheld-torch cuts shown were PREPARATORY , weakening the structure for the explosive demolition. The extent of such PREPARATORY WEAKENING has perhaps been overlooked and more attention placed on the setting of explosive charges. One has to weaken the structure first or it won't fall with the speed that it did collapse.

I have a book titled , AFTERMATH-Unseen 9/11 photos by a NYC cop John Botte Published by Harper-Collins Copyright 2006. In it I find evidence of PREPARATORY WEAKENING of the outer pre-fab units which made up the 236 exterior columns of WTC1 and WTC2. I can give more information on that subject if you are interested.
Thank You for posting the photos. Dan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IslandPilot
post Mar 4 2011, 12:16 AM
Post #6





Group: Core Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 16-June 10
From: Western Lake Erie, Ohio, Michigan, Canada
Member No.: 5,099



DANDPT;
I tend to agree that those cuts were made with a handheld torch. The pictures with the fire truck show much longer pieces of steel, curved away from the building. The ones with the "torch" cuts seem to be less than half as long, and "lean" into the building... and you can also see where some of the other connecting plates that were originally fastened with bolts and nuts, were also cut apart.

If you had to make those cuts from a "bucket" at the end of a long arm; or swinging from a line hoisted by a crane, you aren't going to be able to "steady" your "cutting arm" very well. And since one of the pieces you are trying to cut apart is attached to another crane, with an unknown amount of tension, you have NO IDEA what's gonna happen when the pieces SEPARATE, so you are gonna want to be as far away from the "cut" as you can get, with a fully outstreached arm... and that would make a pretty "sloppy" cut like that.

Your comments about PREPRATORY WEAKENING were interesting. In the case of the Twin Towers, the WHOLE steel framework was BOLTED together. There were only 4 bolts attaching the top of one exterior column to the bottom of the next one, accessible from the interior of the building through "hand holes" in the columns. And, each floor truss was attached with only TWO bolts at each end, between the Core and Exterior columns.

Some floors of the towers were known to be VACANT and/or being REMODELED prior to 9/11. There is a good possibility that many ceiling panels were already removed in these areas, making access to these bolts pretty easy. Just think how many of those bolts two guys with a couple of impact wrenchs could "loosen" in a couple of hours worth of PREPRATORY WEAKENING.

A "Gas Wrench" might be as "effective" and less noisy than an electric or air powered impact wrench; but it would set off fire and smoke alarms on other floors of the building, unless they were disabled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2011, 07:11 AM
Post #7





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



Pre weakening is often part of a commercial CD. It basically begins the process of load transfer by disabling some structural connections of leaving that close to the breaking point (yield point) so it takes much less stress to fail that connection. If the there was significant pre weakening we should see lots of clear evidence of this in the debris field. In the case of the facade columns this would mean neatly removed column to column bolts. This would look like as if there was no cutting or blasting of the column ends. But if they facade panels bent at the joints as they fell away from the towers this might cause the bolt heads to shear off and this would look the same in the debris as unbolted connections. So while they MIGHT have unbolted thousands and thousands of facade column to column bolts if they buckled at the joints and sheared the bolts it would look the same... can't tell from the debris.

On the other hand lots of deformed column ends or beam studs connecting bracing or as shown in the photo lots of evidence of cuts from cutter devices or incendiaries in the debris, this would be pretty damning evidence of pre weakening before collapse.

There are some very peculiar pieces of steel in the debris. The wasted away thin webs and flanges attributed to "eutectic" burning and a few collapse box column ends which appear to be from blasts and some extreme bent columns such as the horse shoe columns which are evidence of heat weakend steel and enormous eccentric loading (buckling?) while the ends were restrained.

It appears that the virtually all the debris steel looks like a came apart in the collapse, broken cleanly at the connections. But this is not true of all the steel and so some very energetic actions appears to have caused at least some steel failures. I haven't seen evidence of this sort on weakening in the heavy lower core columns.

However, all the steel was not examined and almost all of it was hauled away and sold as scrap so we don't have much to work with evidence wise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Mar 4 2011, 09:40 AM
Post #8





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2011, 08:41 PM) *
There are some very peculiar pieces of steel in the debris. The wasted away thin webs and flanges attributed to "eutectic" burning and a few collapse box column ends which appear to be from blasts and some extreme bent columns such as the horse shoe columns which are evidence of heat weakend steel and enormous eccentric loading (buckling?) while the ends were restrained.


Can you please show me these pictures where the ends of the columns appear to have been blasted? Can you provide any links plz?
And what do you mean by blasted? Do you mean explosively blasted? Also there was a picture on 911freeforums and i rember someone
pasted and showed me a picture back when i was a no planer dolt on 911movement.org run by killtown of a column where the ends of sort of box column where pointing outwards and i also saw a picture off a column on 911freeforums whick looked similar to the picture i had been show on 911movement.org and someone said even on 911freeforums as though it looks like the end of the columns has been blasted apart by explosives
kind of split apart i found these photo's very interesting and quiet compelling too bad the columns have been since recycled and sold for scrap
otherwise we would be able to test the suspect columns for explosive residue, if anyone knows these pictures i am talking about can please post
a link to pictures in question.

Cheers take care Paul S

salute.gif salute.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Mar 4 2011, 09:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2011, 01:49 PM
Post #9





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



Paul...

YES that is the "blasted" I was referring to ... the odd shape of a box column end. I got some interesting information from an architect who was designing high rise steel buildings at the time and was in contact with Yamasaki the designer of the twin towers. According to him, he heard from Yamasaki that the fabricator of the huge box columns was having difficulty with the welding of the huge plates which make up those box columns and many welds were rejected. I assume they were all fixed to spec.

But if some slipped through it might explain the plates coming apart at the ends from asymmetric loading.

It wouldn't be the first time that testing and failed materials were used in construction.

It's an interesting tidbit and may mean nothing and may not even be true.... but it's from the horses mouth!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Mar 4 2011, 04:00 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (Paul @ Mar 4 2011, 09:40 AM) *
Can you please show me these pictures where the ends of the columns appear to have been blasted? Can you provide any links plz?
And what do you mean by blasted? Do you mean explosively blasted? Also there was a picture on 911freeforums and i rember someone
pasted and showed me a picture back when i was a no planer dolt on 911movement.org run by killtown of a column where the ends of sort of box column where pointing outwards and i also saw a picture off a column on 911freeforums whick looked similar to the picture i had been show on 911movement.org and someone said even on 911freeforums as though it looks like the end of the columns has been blasted apart by explosives
kind of split apart i found these photo's very interesting and quiet compelling too bad the columns have been since recycled and sold for scrap
otherwise we would be able to test the suspect columns for explosive residue, if anyone knows these pictures i am talking about can please post
a link to pictures in question.

Cheers take care Paul S

salute.gif salute.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif


These are all good questions on the PREPARATORY WEAKENING at WTC1 and WTC2.
I can't give you any links. I just have these three books.

The Hufstead book," Painful Questions" shows in Chapter 3, excellent drawings of the exterior column prefab construction and connections.
The John Botte book, "Aftermath, Unseen 9/11 photos by a NYC Cop", is essential with many photos of the exterior column ends in question.
FEMA "World Trade Center-Building Performance Study" FEMA 403 September 2002

In the WTC1 and WTC2 buildings, the 47 core column construction would be a free-standing building if there were no floor joists and no exterior columns. Similarly, the 236 column exterior frame constitutes a separate structure, free-standing, if there were no floor joists and no core structure. So the demolition is perhaps best understood by approaching it as the collapse of two separate structures in one building. Preparation is different for each structure and the detonation placement and sequence is different for each structure, with the perimeter collapse hiding the interior collapse.

My view is that there is evidence of unbolting of some of the end connections on the exterior prefab column sections. (For Island Pilot) There is no necessity to remove any ceiling panels to access these 6 bolt (lower floors) or 4 bolt (upper floor) connections. They are easy access at about 60 inches off the floor. Two-thirds of the staggered columns were continuous at each floor. Punch a hole in the 5/8" drywall and there you are. Easy access to the bolts as there are cutouts in the column wall facing the inside of the building.

From an examination of the photos in "Aftermath" with a magnifying glass, I don't see any "witness marks" of explosive charges or any slag which might adhere to the end plates if an oxy-acetylene cutting torch was used to cut the head off a bolt. My main point here is that if these joints had all the bolts in place at the time of collapse, we should see distortion in the end plates as the tension on the bolts tries to pull the head of the bolt and the hexnut through the plate. The bolts were 7/8"diameter and 120 thousand PSI tensile strength and the thickness of the endplates varied from the bottom to the top of the Tower. These connections should fail at the weld of the plate to the column if all 4 bolts are intact. In fact, a picture in "Aftermath" shows one such separation.

This topic is addressed in the FEMA " World Trade Center-Building Performance Study" Appendix B Structural Steel and Steel Connections. Page B-8. It is essential reading for those seriously interested in the subject. The analysis there does not stand up to close scrutiny along with so many other things in the Study. (I can give further infomation on this.)

I'll close with an anectdote. In one of the early 9/11 DVDs, Paul Rodriquez, the Stairwell Maintenance Supervisor, reported hearing what sounded like a jackhammer on a floor which he knew was unoccupied by tenants and he had the key but was afraid to go in; and he did not enter. The sound of a large air rachet wrench might be what he heard. He reported hearing something heavy rolling across the floor. Air compressor?

Thanks, DAN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Mar 4 2011, 05:28 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2011, 12:49 PM) *
I assume they were all fixed to spec.

In NYC? laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

There ain't nothing a hundred dollar bill can't fix in that town. rolleyes.gif

Especially, since the Port Authority was in charge and beholden to no one.

Bolting buildings together that are designed to sway in salt air. Oh yeah, who's the engineering genius who came up with that one?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Mar 4 2011, 07:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 4 2011, 06:47 PM
Post #12





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



DanDPT

You are correct that the cores of WTC 1 and 2 could stand without the outside floors or the facade. The facade structure however was part of the wind shear strategy so the core might stand with no walls just a bare frame. If there was no floors outside and no facade AND the core was clad with "walls" it would not be able to resist wind shear.

Also the facade could NOT stand alone without the floors. The facade, strong as it may have been required lateral bracing which was provided by the floor system. And the floor system transferred wind loads through it to the stiff core. If it were possible to erect the facade only as a huge tube it would not survive a minute after the scaffold was removed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Mar 4 2011, 09:45 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 4 2011, 05:47 PM) *
DanDPT

You are correct that the cores of WTC 1 and 2 could stand without the outside floors or the facade. The facade structure however was part of the wind shear strategy so the core might stand with no walls just a bare frame. If there was no floors outside and no facade AND the core was clad with "walls" it would not be able to resist wind shear.

Also the facade could NOT stand alone without the floors. The facade, strong as it may have been required lateral bracing which was provided by the floor system. And the floor system transferred wind loads through it to the stiff core. If it were possible to erect the facade only as a huge tube it would not survive a minute after the scaffold was removed.

SanderO
I understand what you are saying. I was trying to indicate that the outer perimeter column structure was a separate type of construction and that the demolition of this huge tube was approached differently and separately from the much more robust inner column structure. However, I don't think that the perimeter structure would collapse in a minute, if conceived as standing on it's own. It would stand like a tall straw until overcome by wind shear or other forces. Conceived on it's own, it's a pretty rigid, and very tall , square tube. This point is kind of tangential to the main issues that I was trying to raise about the method of demolition of these perimeter columns. Please reread my post.
Thanks,
DAN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 5 2011, 06:39 AM
Post #14





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



Dan,

The twin towers structure was unique for sure and this is the reason it came down as it did. The tube design concept of the core did not make it self supporting. It simply could not be constructed that all without the floors for bracing. It would literally buckle from its own weight without the bracing.

This is easily tested in a scale model or a mathematical model. If you build a 1/100 scale model it would be 13' -6" tall. The tube would be 24"x24" at its base and the facade panels would be about 1/8" thick... with the column connections being 1/8" x 1/8" spaced 1/4" apart and each one being 4 3/8" high. Now stack those up and see if your can get it to 13'6" tall and see if it will stand on its own. It will not last but an instant if you managed to get it to stand at all.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason that the facade was destroyed was that the floors collapsed first and they were not able to stand without bracing AND there was some horizontal impulse from the lateral pressure of the collapsing floors. You can think of this as pouring sand and gravel into a thin cardboard container. You see the sides bulge out from the horizontal forces of the gravel. This is what pushed the facade away. Without that the facade would probably buckle and drop straight down were the floors to instantly be made to disappear.

Both the core...most of it... and the facade... most of it... succumbed to instability from the absence of lateral bracing... not excessive loading or load redistribution beyond its yield strength. The core "spire" is clearly seen collapsing from "Euler" buckling. So once the floor mass up top was "freed" and dissociated from the axial support the columns provided it began a runaway collapse which created the instability in the remaining core columns by stripping its bracing and they then collapsed.

I don't think there was any specific attack of the facade, perhaps some weakening at some points to initiate the gravity driven collapse which would leave the facade unable to stand. Why would they have to attack it if it was going to fall anyway without the floor bracing it?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Mar 5 2011, 06:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Mar 26 2011, 10:10 AM
Post #15





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 5 2011, 08:09 PM) *
Dan,

The twin towers structure was unique for sure and this is the reason it came down as it did. The tube design concept of the core did not make it self supporting. It simply could not be constructed that all without the floors for bracing. It would literally buckle from its own weight without the bracing.

This is easily tested in a scale model or a mathematical model. If you build a 1/100 scale model it would be 13' -6" tall. The tube would be 24"x24" at its base and the facade panels would be about 1/8" thick... with the column connections being 1/8" x 1/8" spaced 1/4" apart and each one being 4 3/8" high. Now stack those up and see if your can get it to 13'6" tall and see if it will stand on its own. It will not last but an instant if you managed to get it to stand at all.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason that the facade was destroyed was that the floors collapsed first and they were not able to stand without bracing AND there was some horizontal impulse from the lateral pressure of the collapsing floors. You can think of this as pouring sand and gravel into a thin cardboard container. You see the sides bulge out from the horizontal forces of the gravel. This is what pushed the facade away. Without that the facade would probably buckle and drop straight down were the floors to instantly be made to disappear.

Both the core...most of it... and the facade... most of it... succumbed to instability from the absence of lateral bracing... not excessive loading or load redistribution beyond its yield strength. The core "spire" is clearly seen collapsing from "Euler" buckling. So once the floor mass up top was "freed" and dissociated from the axial support the columns provided it began a runaway collapse which created the instability in the remaining core columns by stripping its bracing and they then collapsed.

I don't think there was any specific attack of the facade, perhaps some weakening at some points to initiate the gravity driven collapse which would leave the facade unable to stand. Why would they have to attack it if it was going to fall anyway without the floor bracing it?


Apparently the us secret service had a stinger missile kept secretly hidden away inside of wtc 7 seven interesting nether the less.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...ay_of_9/11=aa77

In New York, the Secret Service has a Stinger missile secretly stored in the World Trade Center, to be used to protect the president if the city were attacked when he visits it. Presumably it keeps this is in WTC Building 7, where its field office is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Apr 2 2011, 10:02 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (SanderO @ Mar 5 2011, 06:39 AM) *
Dan,

The twin towers structure was unique for sure and this is the reason it came down as it did. The tube design concept of the core did not make it self supporting. It simply could not be constructed that all without the floors for bracing. It would literally buckle from its own weight without the bracing.

This is easily tested in a scale model or a mathematical model. If you build a 1/100 scale model it would be 13' -6" tall. The tube would be 24"x24" at its base and the facade panels would be about 1/8" thick... with the column connections being 1/8" x 1/8" spaced 1/4" apart and each one being 4 3/8" high. Now stack those up and see if your can get it to 13'6" tall and see if it will stand on its own. It will not last but an instant if you managed to get it to stand at all.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason that the facade was destroyed was that the floors collapsed first and they were not able to stand without bracing AND there was some horizontal impulse from the lateral pressure of the collapsing floors. You can think of this as pouring sand and gravel into a thin cardboard container. You see the sides bulge out from the horizontal forces of the gravel. This is what pushed the facade away. Without that the facade would probably buckle and drop straight down were the floors to instantly be made to disappear.

Both the core...most of it... and the facade... most of it... succumbed to instability from the absence of lateral bracing... not excessive loading or load redistribution beyond its yield strength. The core "spire" is clearly seen collapsing from "Euler" buckling. So once the floor mass up top was "freed" and dissociated from the axial support the columns provided it began a runaway collapse which created the instability in the remaining core columns by stripping its bracing and they then collapsed.

I don't think there was any specific attack of the facade, perhaps some weakening at some points to initiate the gravity driven collapse which would leave the facade unable to stand. Why would they have to attack it if it was going to fall anyway without the floor bracing it?



SanderO-

Sorry to be so long in responding to your analysis here. Personal issues interrupt. I like the interesting statements that you have made here.

I have had personal connection with people over at AE911Truth.org and I am trying to get some input on this question before preparing a full reasoned response to share with you.

Is its not obvious that there was a ring of explosions above the 79th floor Sky Lobby where there was very strong lateral bracing which supported all the heavy elevator equipment in order to initiate the collapse?

Molten metal pouring out at the corner of the building and the speed of the collapse are notable observations which must be accounted for.

I think that the Tower cores were built like a" brick-shithouse", not prone to instant collapse, having lost lateral support, and I don't like the photos of the debris that is left on the Plaza. It just does not fit your analysis. See "AFTERMATH Unseen 9/11 Photos by a NYC Cop"Harper Collins 2006
I am not a degreed engineer, but neither as I am as corrupt as many of the engineers who were paid to wtite the FEMA : World Trade Center Building Performance Study. Good Lord, What a Fiction!
Dan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 3 2011, 06:04 AM
Post #17





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



Dan,

The twin towers were not especially well built nor exceptionally strong for their size. Their erection was a novel approach to off site factory assembly using pre fab floor assemblies. The columns of course going so high and the amount of load they supported at the bottom were very heavy and large in plan area. But the colulmss were made progressively thinner and lighter the higher up they were. At the top they were not particularly strong, thick or heavy. All tall structure share this aspect in their columns. The tenant floors all were of the same design spec - 58# / SF. The tenant floors all had the same type, design and strength of connection to the sides of the columns at spandrels on the perimeter and to a channel attached to the 24 outside core columns. Floor to collumn connections were identical regardless of what floor or height in the building they were.

Most of the core survived the straight down collapse of the floors to a height of about 50 floors and then buckled because the remaining core columns has inadequate bracing which had been stripped away by the collapsing floors. Very tall slender columns buckle from their own weight. The floors provided the bracing. No floors left the columns too slender and so they buckled. No explosives or diagonal cuts were necessary. Could you "undermine" a column with a diagonal cut, or weakening it by cutting into it and removing steel? YES.. and that's what a standard CD might do... pre weaken a structure. But a if all the bracing were somehow removed the column being way too too would buckle on its own.

If the destruction was engineered, getting the floors to collapse was a much simpler operation then taking out columns at the bottom of the structure. It would also cause the structure (floors) to come straight down as that's what happens to unsupported mass - it drops. And as explained previously, the facade would peel away from the building because it too would not stand on its own especially with the floors mass aggregating and collapsing inside and pushing outward as the facade.

The collapsing floors would essentially create an unstable facade and core and in the end nothing would be left standing which could not stand on its own unbraced. The mystery is what got the floor collapse going up top and fires are unlikely culprits.

The collapse was also more chaotic in the upper section and more organized as it proceeded down through the lower section.

The speed of destruction might seem too fast, but considering that the towers were 96% air and the floors were so thin being only 4" light weight no-stone aggregate they offered very little resistance to the enormous driving mass of tens of thousands of ton of debris "rubble missiles" assaulting them and breaking them apart in less than a .1 of a second.

I would recommend that you read some of the discussions at the 911 Free Forums where research is ongoing to describe what actually took place... unlike at AE911T which has already concluded that the towers were destroyed top to bottom in explosive controlled demolition with their last research citation being the discovery of nano thermite in 2008 by Jones and Haritt. Research marches on and leave AE911T in the dust.

I believe the mechanics of the gravity driven collapse and the facade peed and core collapse were now well explained by science and engineering. NIST got it wrong, Bazant got it wrong. Jones and AE911T got it wrong. Not so for the initiation of that collapse. This we don't know.... yet.

The 911FF has recently presented findings which seem to support a very energetic lateral force discovered in the South tower which forced the 75, 76, 77 mech floor's facade panels outward with the thicker floor slab(s) attached. This is a very different mechanism than the gravity driven floor collapse seen at the tenant floors above and below it. Obviously if the mech floor slabs at 75 and 76 and perhaps (77) remained attached to the facade and were thrown away from the building, their floors did not collapse! Was the energy to force these outward from explosives placed at the core or from the core columns buckling and kicking the floors and attached facades outward????

The mechanical floor region including both the core and facade columns were much thicker and stronger than the floors above and below them. The ejection of these mechanical floors with attached floors may be indicative that there were explosives placed inside their core areas as part of a destruction plan. This doesn't falsify the gravity driven collapse of the tenant floors above and below, but if an explanation cannot be provided for the horizontal impulse from a buckling or spring action of the core explaining the mech floor kick out, the only conclusion is that explosives caused the kick out of the mechanical floor facade panels with their floors attached something clearly not seen in the tenant floor facade panels.

The findings about WTC 2's mechanical floors in recent and revelatory. I urge you to read the discussion at 911 FF. I believe some new summary graphic presentations are in the works. Stay tuned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 3 2011, 10:44 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, the only conclusion is that explosives were SOMEHOW involved, which leads to the more important conclusion that these were planned, and thus controlled, demolitions.

And the obvious conclusion that the official story is utter fraud. And that the subsequent coverup is assisted and prolonged by humans with an agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 3 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #19





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



I don't know about your precise language. What is your "attachment" to the term - controlled demolition-? If explosives or devices were planted with the intent to destroy the buildings the term planned destruction or engineered destruction is more appropriate. A controlled demolition is actually a very specific process and result and the twin towers show none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition... expect that the final result is a destroyed structure.

The official account is hardly credible and the coverup seems to be a fig leaf over a series of deceptions.

We don't know who was protected by the cover up, how it was done and even what actually was done. We still only know we've been "officially" deceived. Everything else is speculation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 21st October 2014 - 04:44 AM