Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible, An explanation for the intelligent layman. Options

[KP50]

Here's my problem with SanderO :-

He has a theory about the towers came down - I have no problem with that.

He claims to have detailed knowledge about the construction of the towers - I have no problem with that.

He claims architectural knowledge greater than my own - I have no problem with that.

My problem is that he thinks that his theory (minimum explosives, gravity does the rest to simplify it) over-rides all the evidence that contradicts it. There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers. SanderO needs to educate himself if he believes it was all that jet fuel that did it - I cannot believe any long-term 9/11 researcher can believe that, he should do some real research. If I can be bothered I will find some old threads from the old Loose Change forums that analyses the eye-witness evidence of the explosions and proves absolutely that jet fuel cannot have done it - and also locates the explosions in key areas of the WTC to prevent easy evacuation of the towers by knocking out the communications and access systems. Having posted evidence to him in the past, I probably won't be bothered to do it again.

SanderO also seems to believe that the plotters would want to use the minumum of explosives when all the evidence points to the complete opposite - total and utter destruction of the towers and damage to the ground limited by no huge chunks of building landing intact. There is evidence of the ground shaking prior to the collapse commencing, indicating some extreme event in the basement levels. The incredible underground temperatures post-collapse support such an event.

I could detail many other places where SanderO glosses over the evidence that contradicts his theory, if you read this thread carefully you can find them yourselves.

[SanderO]

KP50,

Of course I never wrote that "jet fuel did it"... it being cause the towers to collapse.

What IS the evidence that "the ground shock" before the towers collapsed? Can you cite this evidence please...

We don't exactly what the story is with the jet fuel either. For example, there is debate about if the actual planes which hit the towers were the commercial liners claimed. This raises the possibility that they planes delivered a more destructive payload... perhaps they were tankers and there was much more fuel onboard... or other devices. We don't know.

But even so is it reasonable to assert that ALL the fuel was igniting on impact? I don't know much about plane crashes but I'm not familiar with seeing massive fire balls when a plane does crash. There seems to be fire... but does all the fuel burn INSTANTLY?

Again, I am not saying that the collapses were caused by jet fuel or the ensuing office fires. In fact, I am saying that this likely could not cause the steel weakening to initiate the collapse which followed. I have written that the it is completely consistent with the evidence I have seen that the collapses or kick off of them was caused by some sort of pre placed devices... put there by whomever wanted them to collapse and knew how to do it.

By the way, KP... I don't "claim" to have knowledge of the construction of the towers. I DO have knowledge of their construction and have studied this and know as much about them as anyone. Of course you couldn't know what I know... you haven't seen my research... only my narratives here in this forum.

The charge that there is not enough energy to collapse and destroy the integrity of the material is an assertion. I've seen no proof to the contrary. Any engineer know that floors collapse when they are over loaded. So the question is how much would it take to collapse / fracture a typical WTC floor? They were designed to support 58# per square foot imposed on top of them... aside from their own weight. The floors themselves weighed north of 110# per SF. But there is a safety factor for the floors so that it is likely that the composite floors could actually support perhaps 5 times their working load of 58# SF... and that would be in the order of 300# per SF. And then there's the superimposed live loads... which even if 25% would add another 15# per SF per collapsing floor. So a single collapsing floor is a load which is double the safe working load.

If the factor of safety were 5 for the composite floors it would take as few as 3 floors weighing 125# per SF (375#/SF) to overcome a floor with a FOS of 5 x 38 = 290#. And this does not consider that this superimposed load was DYNAMIC and this multiplies the forces.

This simple calculation does not account for the apparent total destruction of the floors and their contents. It does show that it takes LESS than 3 collapsing floors to fail one it falls on... even it it is falling as broken rubble. This is indisputable math... basic arithmetic.

This means, and every engineer know this and... and everyone other intelligent person should be able to grasp this. So even if some of those floors break apart into dust or bits and spill over the side... there will still be an adequate mass to destroy the floor... and this process repeats itself as a progression to the ground.

We DO have to account from crushing and pulverization of the floors and their contents... of as Judy Wood asks..."where did the towers go?" And this is a more sophisticated and complex calculation and obviously not intuitive to even most intelligent people... including the posters at PFT.

I have tried to see what happened as a crushing and grinding of 10's of thousands of tons of material colliding with itself and the floors is destroys confined within a "chute" (the facade walls). I certainly don't expect the materials to be "taken apart" into recognizable components ONLY. Some materials take less force to destroy their integrity than others. Gypsum wall board crushes to dust and powder with very little force... much less that wood.... and certain less than light weight no stone aggregate concrete. But those slabs would not take all that much force to crush the "concrete" to fine powder and sand size particles... and there was lots of that on the ground. Friction can be very destructive... collisions between objects breaks them. Collisions with more force destroys them more... and there were 10-15 seconds of very energetic collisions taking place. Again, I have not done the math to explain this level of destruction and dissociation of materials in such an energetic environment. But it does not seem unreasonable. Yet others actually expect to see telephones and computers in the rubble pile. That seems rather an odd expectation to me.

What IS the evidence cited which falsifies that a 30,000 ton mass dropped on a twin tower floor ... spread out over the entire floor would not fail it? Where is the evidence that 90 of these floors collapsing and colliding as rubble would not crush themselves and their contents to fine grained dust? We DID see many mangled steel truss parts in the debris... perhaps not all of them. But heck... the trusses were made from 1/4" thk 2x2 angles and it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would be ripped to shreds. And a marble wall panel tumbling down 1000 feet would see itself turned into marble dust.

If the floor collapses only required 3 floors dropping on a single floor (and likely LESS considering the dynamic energy at play)... it seems that there was lots of PE left to crush the contents. I say SEEMS because I have not done the math. But others here, have no done it to show this WOULDN'T happen.

And so let me understand what the "explosive controlled demolition" is actually "attacking. Is it breaking the columns so that the floors they support collapse? If so what would happen to those floors? Would drop in a neat stack of slabs? Or was the attack to blast the floor slabs into pulverized dust? .... And also to fracture the steel frame so it fell apart? How do you fracture 10,000 all those joints and leave no evidence that they were exploded apart?

My so called "theory" makes more sense and is based on engineering AND the observations and allows for and posits as likely that "devices" were used to kick this collapse off. This is hardly the NIST or the official line. And of course who would expect the collapse of 110 story building to fall neatly inside its foot print. WTC 3,4,5,6 and even 7 to a lesser extent were with 100 feet and less of these towers. Their collapse HAD to destroy adjacent buildings... especially with the facade weighing 15,000 tons each falling away up to a few hundred feet. What building can survive an assault of this magnitude? Do people realize how weak the structures of typical building are compared to these forces?

I have shown with simple math that the 18,000 cubic yards of air between each floor has to be displaced in what was about .1 seconds which is the average speed of collapse. Air at the center of the 60' wide floor would have to travel 30' to reach the facade and would do so in .1 seconds which is 300 feet per second which is over 200 mph. This is a wind more powerful than most tornadoes... and if the air in center move 60' in .1 seconds it was traveling over 400 mph! This alone is an enormous destructive force... and would account for lots of pulverization and destruction of the integrity of the building contents.

So shouldn't we ask...Where did the air inside the towers go?... 18,000 cu yrds x 110 - 1,980,000 cu yards of it in 10 or so seconds. It was pushed out and down and drove the enormous billowing clouds of dust and debris which propagated from the base of the collapse.

Before we assert that everything or most of it is explained by explosions ... we need to account for the actual mechanics, physics, engineering and material performance under the forces we KNOW were present. And those forces seem to be sufficient... for the most part... without having to resort to massive amounts of explosions. This is not the NIST hooey... this is basic science. The NIST hooey is about sagging trusses. That didn't cause the collapse.

Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 14 2011, 08:31 AM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Of course you couldn't know what I know... you haven't seen my research... only my narratives here in this forum.

Has anyone seen your research? The only way to see it is to give up our email addresses to you. Sure makes it hard to discuss your 'research' in open forum. Why don't you post it here or start your own site or blog where you can post your work? Instead it seems, you'd rather post lengthy narratives on assorted forums and blogs that suck up lot's of time and energy and do little to bring light to the subject.

[Tamborine man]

Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?

It is your silly so-called "pancake theory" that was ridiculed many years ago. It's nothing personal.

Try to blink your eyelids as fast as you can 100 times and just for fun check out how many seconds it will take you!

[KP50]

SanderO, for someone who writes inordinately long posts, you are remarkably poor at reading short posts.

I wrote

There is huge evidence, some of which has been posted on this thread, about explosions in the towers. SanderO needs to educate himself if he believes it was all that jet fuel that did it

He wrote

Of course I never wrote that "jet fuel did it"... it being cause the towers to collapse.

Pretty clear "it" is the explosions (OK, not great English I'll admit) but his misunderstanding gives him the chance to waffle some more.

Why the resistance to facing some apparently "inconvenient truths"... and why ridicule someone who is asking that these be considered?

Sensitive soul aren't you? It isn't ridicule, it is just correctly identifying you as a Truth-Lite time-waster.

[talayo]

If the floors offer so little resistence, what force cause enormous steel cullumns at the central core to fracture?

To "breake" very large steel columns requires very significant amount of the floors attached to the columns.

This is one of the many examples of incongruent thinking!

Sanderso: I gess you are saying "mine is bigger than yours" with your comment about research. I have argue with your reasoning and respected your research.

I have no idea of who you are, so I have concentrated on what I consider lapses of logic withing your postings.

In my case, you have even less idea of who I am. A least I know you are an architect.

Why your absolute insistence that there were no explosives after the initial ones that caused the initiation of the collapse?

You have no real explanation for that claim. It may have been possible that the collapse would happened with the initial charges.

How does it preclude some further explosives?

There are lots of evidence of possible further explossions. In your case you have to prove a negative which in logical arguments is an impossibility.

[SanderO]

I am not waffling and I have no interest in "publishing" my findings in a formal way... nor put it up on a web site and spend even more hours with people who don't want to look at the engineering issues.

I've posted some of my charts, drawings and diagrams which is what I term research findings on other sites which allow uploads from my computer. I am not hosting them on a website. And make them available to those who email a request. But I would appreciate comments when I do send them. Further, the more I get into the structure and "fact checking"... the more I refine my understanding... so my work is not ready for publication... Whatever....

The after the initiation phase, the collapse phase saw no columns crushed or fractured from axial load or damaged from explosives as far as I can see in the debris photos. The massive columns broke at their rather fragile splices when they experienced internal instability or were jostled and levered the joints opened. For example the 36' section of cc501 weighed as much as 55 tons .. floor 1-3 decrementing in wall thickness / cross sectional area by .125" per 3 floors.

from floor 1 to 110 in tons in 36' lengths (3 floors)

55.29
49.14
49.14
44.05
40.84
39.60
45.26
43.68
42.88
40.61
39.60
37.91
37.06
34.79
30.62
38.83
29.23
32.67
29.25
28.51
25.25
23.92
22.82
21.35
21.35
19.85
16.52
19.16 - top of Spire (total weight 977.6 tons)
14.34
13.92
13.27
12.10
10.12
9.06
7.73
6.18
4.54
0.39
1.11
1.98
1.28
0.44

The columns were "held in place" by the bracing and of course in erection before the bracing was in place by splices - plates welded to the webs and flanges of the columns. But the cross sectional area and strength of those welds.. could not prevent them from breaking apart if there was a moment created from some applied lateral load. And some of them which toppled over broke into 36' lengths when they hit the ground.

What I describe may seem to some like a pancake theory of collapse. The resemblance is that they both progress from top to bottom, driven by gravity. What I am proposing is not the COLLAPSE of each floor, but the destruction of each floor by superimposed live loads. It's conceivable I suppose that the initial superimposed loads might be large sections of floor slabs. But the idea of an entire floor slab dropping intact onto the one below is nonsense and could not possibly happen as this would involve the simultaneous destruction of several hundred truss seats. The floor destruction was caused by an "avalanche" of descending rubble. raining down on each floor consecutively.... not collapsing pancakes.

Finally I don't insist there were no explosives post initiation... I argue that they were not needed and what was collapsing were the floors (fracturing). The columns were not involved in this part of the destruction.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 15 2011, 12:53 AM

[Tamborine man]

I am not waffling and I have no interest in "publishing" my findings in a formal way... nor put it up on a web site and spend even more hours with people who don't want to look at the engineering issues.


What I describe may seem to some like a pancake theory of collapse. The resemblance is that they both progress from top to bottom, driven by gravity. What I am proposed in not the COLLAPSE of each floor, but the destruction of each floor by superimposed live loads. It's conceivable I suppose that the initial superimposed loads might be large sections of floor slabs. But the idea of an entire floor slab dropping intact onto the one below is nonsense and could possibly happen as this would involve the simultaneous destruction of several hundred truss seats. The floor destruction was caused by an "avalanche" of descending rubble. raining down on each floor consecutively.... not collapsing pancakes.

Finally I don't insist there were no explosives post initiation... I argue that they were not needed and what was collapsing were the floors (fracturing). The columns were not involved in this part of the destruction.

So according to you, it's actually 'descending rubble raining down on each floor', which again simply forces the air between the floors
to be displaced laterally as powerful winds traveling more than 200 mph or 400 mph; and it is these powerful winds that 'account for
lots of the pulverization and destruction of the building contents'!! And furthermore, this would all take place faster than the blinking
of an eyelid, consecutively downwards from floor to floor, or as you say, in about .1 second intervals!!
Do you seriously believe that 'descending rubble' can course 'winds more powerful than most tornadoes', or are you trying to make
fun of us? Are you having us on?

Or if not, would you rather suggest that we all, including your good self, better completely ignore and forget about these paragraphs
of yours from the previous post, as we all would know well that neither descending rubble nor debris nor dust clouds can course winds
of any relevance?:


"I have shown with simple math that the 18,000 cubic yards of air between each floor has to be displaced in what was about .1 seconds which is the average speed of collapse.
Air at the center of the 60' wide floor would have to travel 30' to reach the facade and would do so in .1 seconds which is 300 feet per second which is over 200 mph. This is a
wind more powerful than most tornadoes... and if the air in center move 60' in .1 seconds it was traveling over 400 mph! This alone is an enormous destructive force...
and would account for lots of pulverization and destruction of the integrity of the building contents.

So shouldn't we ask...Where did the air inside the towers go?... 18,000 cu yrds x 110 - 1,980,000 cu yards of it in 10 or so seconds. It was pushed out and down and drove the
enormous billowing clouds of dust and debris which propagated from the base of the collapse."

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Jun 15 2011, 01:28 AM

[talayo]

Any architect that designs a massive building where the collapse of three floors would cause the whole 110 floors to collapse should have his license revoked and put him in jail or a mental institution.

Over the life of a building like the WTC towers the possibility of the collapse of three floors must be taken into account.


A factor of 3 to cover eventualities for floor strength would not be approved in any sane world.

If I were to believe that I will probably avoid any very large building.

By the way with winds of the magnitude considered in the previous comments you would not see squibs, you will see an explosion of all the windows in all directions.

I believe that before an “apocalyptic” hurricane is created air will be compressed.

The building was design to withstand winds of 100 + miles per hour, in addition to that there had to be a safety margin, so it probably could withstand winds of 200 miles per hour.

So a significant amount of compression would occur. How will this affects the rate of descend?

Not considering air resistance is one thing, completely ignoring air compression is another.

[SanderO]

OK Gents...

No engineer expects to have superimposed live loads of for example 350# /ft for a typical office occupancy. The loads dynamically applied to any high rise floor anywhere collapse those floors. That is a fact and an economic reality which drives these design decisions.

The collapse front and the "body of the avalanche" are different animals. Envision that a huge sack of rubble... of all different sized pieces weighing 30,000 tons dropping on an intact floor. When it does it fractures that floor and as it continues down it forces the air below it on the floor below outward... and this is pushed out of the way at speeds of up to 400 mph... and we see it as ejections coming from an entire row of windows. This is just ahead of the "crush front".

"Squibs" way down are another phenomena.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 15 2011, 12:44 PM

[Tamborine man]

OK Gents...

No engineer expects to have superimposed live loads of for example 350# /ft for a typical office occupancy. The loads dynamically applied to any high rise floor anywhere collapse those floors. That is a fact and an economic reality which drives these design decisions.

The collapse front and the "body of the avalanche" are different animals. Envision that a huge sack of rubble... of all different sized pieces weight 30,000 tons drops on an intact floor. When it does it fractures that floor and as it continues down it forces the are below it on the floor below outward... and this is pushed out of the way at speeds of up to 400 mph... and we see it as ejections coming from an entire row of windows. This is just ahead of the "crush front".

"Squibs" way down are another phenomena.

You're making absolutely no sense, SandersO.

The initial rubble or debris were not contained in a sack, but were spread out, and therefore would have hit the floor

as individual pieces weighing very little in comparison to your rather silly and idiotic 30,000 tons.

You're still refusing to address the objections that have been put forward to you, so it's now good-bye from me.

Wish you well with your future 'endeavours'.

Cheers

[talayo]

Amen!

[SanderO]

Gents,

You are showing no imagination. I am using an analogy. Why is this concept so difficult to get across?

Do you agree that any floor... a WTC twin tower floor... is designed to support a specific load. We call that the Safe Working Load

Do you agree that the Safe Working load is based on an allowable deflection. If you apply MORE than the safe working load the floor... or the beam will deflect MORE than the design deflection limit. Deflection is defined as a fraction - 1/360 or 1/720 meaning the deflection is 1/360th of the span. So for a 60 foot span with a 1/360 deflection requirement it will deflect 1/360 x 60' at mid span. And that's 60'/360 = 2" If it was 1/720 it would deflect 1". If you add more load it will deflect MORE, but not fail. There is a limit to how much you can load the floor or the beam... and that is called the YIELD STRENGTH.

"The yield strength or yield point of a material is defined in engineering and materials science as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically. Prior to the yield point the material will deform elastically and will return to its original shape when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed some fraction of the deformation will be permanent and non-reversible.
In the three-dimensional space of the principal stresses (σ1,σ2,σ3), an infinite number of yield points form together a yield surface.

Knowledge of the yield point is vital when designing a component since it generally represents an upper limit to the load that can be applied. It is also important for the control of many materials production techniques such as forging, rolling, or pressing. In structural engineering, this is a soft failure mode which does not normally cause catastrophic failure or ultimate failure unless it accelerates buckling."

Then there ULTIMATE STRENGTH

"Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often shortened to tensile strength (TS) or ultimate strength,[1][2] is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before necking, which is when the specimen's cross-section starts to significantly contract. Tensile strength is the opposite of compressive strength and the values can be quite different.

The UTS is usually found by performing a tensile test and recording the stress versus strain; the highest point of the stress-strain curve is the UTS. It is an intensive property; therefore its value does not depend on the size of the test specimen. However, it is dependent on other factors, such as the preparation of the specimen, the presence or otherwise of surface defects, and the temperature of the test environment and material.

Tensile strengths are rarely used in the design of ductile members, but they are important in brittle members. They are tabulated for common materials such as alloys, composite materials, ceramics, plastics, and wood.

Tensile strength is defined as a stress, which is measured as force per unit area. For some non-homogeneous materials (or for assembled components) it can be reported just as a force or as a force per unit width. In the SI system, the unit is pascal (Pa) or, equivalently, newtons per square metre (N/m²). The customary unit is pounds-force per square inch (lbf/in² or psi), or kilo-pounds per square inch (ksi), which is equal to 1000 psi; kilo-pounds per square inch are commonly used for convenience when measuring tensile strengths....

Brittle materials

Brittle materials, such as concrete and carbon fiber, are characterized by failure at small strains. They often fail while still behaving in a linear elastic manner, and thus do not have a defined yield point. Because strains are low, there is negligible difference between the engineering stress and the true stress. Testing of several identical specimens will result in different failure stresses, this is due to the Weibull Modulus of the brittle material.

The UTS is a common engineering parameter when design brittle members, because there is no yield point.[3"

THERE ARE LIMITS to what a structural element can support. And this applies to composite floors (slabs) and all their components.

My point is that if dynamic loads exceeding the limits of the floor slabs are applied .. the floors MUST shatter. This is not MY theory... this is settled engineering. I believe that for the twins floors... the mass of 3-6 floors descending on a single floor will exceed that limit... and it doesn't matter if it is applied as thick "pancake" or a collection of marbles... or sand for that matter. It can be a collection of building parts and building contents... even liquid! A cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. And there were huge water storage tanks up at the Mech floors.

Why would anyone dispute this?

You can dispute that the mass to overload the floors was present... that it was more than 3 - 6 floor masses but you can't dispute the basic engineering. That is voodoo science.

This is NOT an attack of the truss seats enabling the slab to drop as a single "pancake"... It is the shattering and crushing of the floors into a destructive rubble which becomes the over load. Yes some of this mass is pushed out the windows.. and some of it is pushed into the core shafts... But MOST of it go DOWN... straight DOWN and destroys the next floor.

You can ask how the materials end up so crushed and into such small sized rubble. Good question. But that, I believe is explained by the energetic collisions of the avalanche and can be somewhat calculated (I can't do those calcs.)

Nuff said for today... study up on some structural engineering and materials performance.

[Tamborine man]

Gents,

You are showing no imagination. I am using an analogy. Why is this concept so difficult to get across?

You can ask how the materials end up so crushed and into such small sized rubble. Good question. But that, I believe is explained by the energetic collisions of the avalanche and can be somewhat calculated (I can't do those calcs.)

Nuff said for today... study up on some structural engineering and materials performance.

Ok. Please allow me to do a kind of 'Colombo' gig - who, just before leaving, stopped at the door and with a finger to the
forehead turned around and said: "Oh, just one more thing"!

There's nothing more sad than watching somebody dressing themselves up with borrowed feathers. It is as sad as watching
a stuffed up self-important person prancing and strutting around with a badly fitted and badly matched hairpiece, or 'wig', on
his head!

Most of us, both in this forum and on similar forums, have over the years probably studied with great attention to detail all
the various video clips available showing from all angles the destruction and disintegration of the two towers and building 7.

It is the contention by some of us that the destruction of the towers has absolutely nothing to do with load bearings of floors,
nor tensile strengths, nor truss seats, nor heated or melting steel, nor jet fuel, etc. etc.. - That talking about this, would be a
completely waste of time and energy.

We think that the forces at play on the towers far far exceed what one would observe normally acting on a collapsing building.
We think that those responsible for the demise of the towers are laughing with mild amusement at any structural engineering-
or materials performance reports!

We would like to find out what they had up their 'sleeves' ....what they had as 'catalyst' to finally decide to go ahead with this
rather 'dangerous' project, that apparently was able to deceive more than half the world.
We would like to know whether rumsfelds "known unknowns" was "inspired slip-of-the-tongue" stuff, or just plain dumb drivel!!
Etc. etc.!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Jun 16 2011, 02:46 AM

[SanderO]

Colombo,

I suppose that is the fundamental stumbling block... is there is enough energy locked up in the structure to destroy it? I believe there is. I believe that to get it going it DOES need some energy inputs to fracture the upper part to get that stored PE in those floors to turn to KE and do the job.

But this becomes some sort of "theoretical" reductionist physics problem on a macro level. The problem however is that the destruction of the frame and the "pulverization" or rubblie-ization are taking place at the micro level and this becomes a huge computational problem.

An analogy to what this sort of problem / analysis might be is consider the way the Amazon rain forest works... the weather or the oceans. These are vast complex structures which produce macro observable outputs... but those outputs are the result of millions of micro processes. And there are layers of the processes /interactions feeding back and forward to produce the observed macro result.

Scientists who study the huge complex system know for example, that small changes on the micro level can work there way up into larger changes in the performance of a complex system.

Please read this to get an understanding of what a complex system is and how modeling them is so difficult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

What I have done essentially is to look a bit under the surface of the even at the structure and discovered where some of the weaknesses and vulnerabilities are (part of the complex system). Not only is what I found "true" and simple settled engineering, but it PRECISELY the kind of information that ANYONE would use and need to destroy the towers.

The truther approach essentially is some like this... WOW look at how energetic these destruction was. Look they came down top to bottom... never seen that ever ever. Look the planes did no knock them over so they "blew them up"... Look fire cannot melt steel (we didn't see all that much "melted steel" by the way)... most was cold and hauled away a bit mangled from the collapse)... WOW look at massive steel which was flying out at 70mph and landing in a radius of 1400 feet from each tower (Gage) This is false (draw the circle and look for yourself) , however. WOW Look it came down too fast and too symmetrically... All this and other WOWs which leads to the SIMPLE explanation.... explosives destroyed the towers.

There are researchers who are continuing to carefully study and analyze the ACCURATE observation on those hundreds of videos and thousands of still images. You can study and view some of this work at:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/
http://femr2.ucoz.com

But then again the truth movement has already concluded... we were lied to and therefore the towers were taken down with explosive controlled demolition and according to Gage speaking for AE911T and presumably all signers of his petition there is no need to drill into and study the structure of the twin towers.... or these signers think AE911 did has already done that - they haven't. In fact, Gage has a "litmus" test of "beliefs" one must have to work in and be on their board. Literally.

The truth movement has devolved into a "you are with us, or against us" approach. Lovely.

I don't give a damn and continue to study the mechanisms for structural failure and disintegration of the materials. This has NOTHING to do with NIST's positions or the OCT... it is basic research providing understanding and let the chips fall where they may... something AE911T claims it wants but clearly doesn't in some cases (because it would make him/them look like they don't know what they were talking about in some cases... and they don't).

At first I when I discovered some of the errors in the factual "evidence" statements I naively believed that these were simple errors, oversights and would be corrected and explained as to how the error was made. But NO!... their approach is to IGNORE and in some cases to RIDICULE those who point out that your "research findings", positions and "science" are shaky. This reaction has now led me to believe that there may be INTENT in this peddling of the "shock and awe" case they make That's another level of discussion). But perhaps there is ego and self delusion in play and they would face embarrassment. Who likes to be wrong? And since these are the most published and most prolific and most referenced and most "respected" "scientists" in the truth movement... facing the fact that you are wrong is pretty humbling at least (remember Jones and his "smoking gun evidence of the "diagonal cut" column?). Not so easy to stand on the shoulders of 1,500 architects who TRUST your underlying work (but most have never studied it) and misrepresent... or IGNORE basic engineering.

We've seen now how some "truthers" have been discredited by trashing the sound work of CIT. Do we now need to revisit their "other work" findings, evidence, conclusions and statements in light of this? I think so!

Where is a single study from AE911T about failure of the composite floors? Where is a single study from AE911T about the factor of safety? Where is a single study from AE911T comparing the buildings destroyed by (CDs) they show on video as bench marks for comparison? There are no such studies.

As I began my personal quest to understand what happened, I used the little bit of understanding I have as an architect about structure and discovered that the destruction was a very complex event. But I was able to drill deeper into this than most are capable, willing to or care to. And my findings fly in the face of the main stream 911 Truth movement AND the OCT.

Ironically not being a supporter of the OCT I would have hoped that the truth movement would reconsider some of its claims... (the collapse phase) and focus on the phase where there was most likely "energetic" engineered assistance which initiated the Phase II gravity driven collapse. This "energetic" engineered assistance in Phase I flies in the face of the OCT/NIST findings narrative and aligns with the Truth movement's conceptual position. It's impossible to have a natural event lead to an "energetic" engineered assistance in Phase II. Yet instead, I see endless debate and ad hominem attacks all related to the science of Phase II that I have presented. And this is a further distraction from solving Phase I.

PFT is actually not the place to discuss these matters as one presumes the members are mostly pilots and discussions of structure is a bit out of their comfort zone. This is understood. But importantly anyone with any (or no) qualifications or experience is welcome to engage in discussion in this forum... And thanks for that. I appreciate that PFT allows these discussions which are not aviation issues. We learn from reading and exchange of ideas!

But of course 9/11 itself was a very complex event and all four 9/11 sites involve aviation issues and so the planes or no planes.. fuel or no fuel are all part of the discussion... which then DOES involve engineering, physics, materials science. Perhaps this is analogous to designing an aircraft which requires the cooperation and coordination of multiple disciplines... (complexity).

I certainly DON'T have all the answers about how those towers were destroyed as they were. There are many questions which the observations raise which MUST be answered. But I have shown that the FOS is about 1.65 for the steel for example much less than the number presented constantly by 9/11 Truth advocates., I have explained the collapse of the "Spire" with settled engineering and likely not "explosives". I have demonstrated a plausible explanation for the ejections streaming from the windows ahead of the collapse front from pressurized air. I have shown that the furthest heavy steel material landed less than 450 feet from the North Tower.. (not 600)... and likely peeled off and toppled over and was not exploded at 70 mph. These have now become "inconvenient" truths for the "9/11 Truth Movement's" leaders, main researchers and most vocal proponents.

It's understandable that these "revelations" are being treated much the way the ones any "whistle blower" presents. Going against the grain is never easy. But in this case it feels like the right and ethical thing to do. When I am proven wrong, as I have been on many points... I accept, revise and carry on.

Understanding is achieved from careful informed accurate technical observations and thorough knowledge of the applicable science and engineering to explain them.

This paradigm makes it difficult for most of us... but it doesn't remove our outrage and belittle our understanding and belief in our own observations. But as (the jerk) Rumsfeld said:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

And the (creepy) St. Ronny said:

"Trust but verify."

This post has been edited by SanderO: Jun 16 2011, 09:00 AM

[SanderO]

Would anyone like to take a stab at the following which I sent to Richard Gage this morning:

1. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that massive steel was observed at 70 MPH landing 600 feet from the towers and that the steel and debris was spread in a 1400' diameter.. or does he say radius of the each tower? I will have to transcribe his words from the recent interview on Irish TV... but this statement or variation of it has been made repeatedly.

2. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that a gravitation collapse (whether or not one believes this took place) of the towers... post it being initiated by ANY mechanism/cause would be other than "symmetrical" as we observed.

3. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the dust around the WTC site was 4-12 inches thick for up to a mile.

4. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the dust cloud which propagated away from the collapse/destruction of the three towers was a "pyroclastic (like) flow and any different from what is seen in any collapse/destruction of any massive structure.

5. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that a structural failure would not progress though a period of stress redistribution showing relatively small deformation to the naked eye progressing to the point exceeding the residual strength (factor of safety) of the remaining structural members and then display a rapid "onset" of collapse or "global failure".

6. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the "Spire" collapsed from explosions and would not collapse on its own from "Euler Buckling". (Why explode a column 936' tall which would fall on its own?)

7. Provide the provenance and the support for the implied position that we should NOT expect to hear explosions in a building which had been struck by a jet liner and had fuel enter and start multiple fires, and destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

8. Provide the provenance and the support for the statement that the Factor of Safety of the steel was 3 - 5 and not approximately 1.65 (I have a detailed FOS study which demonstrates that the FOS was 1.65)

[amazed!]

Would you provide provenance and support for your innuendo that raw jet fuel did whatever it is that you think it did, or that it existed at all?

There are others too, but I'm in a hurry.

[onesliceshort]

7. Provide the provenance and the support for the implied position that we should NOT expect to hear explosions in a building which had been struck by a jet liner and had fuel enter and start multiple fires, and destroy critical building mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.

Wasn't this discussed before (well, the jet fuel loads/spread)?
That's a nice strawman S!

NCSTAR1-5 E.8.2
Most of the jet fuel in the fire zones was consumed in the first few minutes after impact, although there may have been unburned pockets of jet fuel that led to flare-ups late in the morning

A reminder on the explosions witnessed and felt in the basement of WTC1 among other posts on the initial damage/experiences..

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=18745&st=0

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790091

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790108

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYhLLUXc-9I

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790123

This image was also posted showing the lay-out of the elevators:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/319414002.png

It does show how over simplistic my image was but the problem remains that there are only 3 shafts leading to the basement. The main one being the central freight elevator 50. And that one had a survivor in it.

Another poster repeats my question in that how could the fuel, travelling laterally, suddenly come to fall straight down the shafts, especially in "droplet" form? Within seconds?

A very good post is also made on the ignition properties of jet fuel.

Sorry, doesn't add up.

Your reply was a bit wishy-washy:

My expertise is not fire, explosives, chemistry and so forth, so I am venturing into territory that I have only a layman's understanding. The plane strike deliver a massive blow, the building swayed back and forth, thousands of pounds of jet fuel which has enormous energy crashed into and got inside the building and likely much of the interior where the plane struck was destroyed including the elevator and HVAC shaft enclosures. I think it is reasonable to "believe" that some of this fuel made it down the shafts and did explode and cause fires.

Yet there may have been other secondary explosions of unknown cause. And certainly one occurring before the plane hit could not be caused by the plane and if this is true it had enormous implication for a different story that the official one

I'm very much a layman like yourself S, but I actually read the links posted in any debate. Maybe you could do the same?

Later.

[SanderO]

I don't know how much fuel entered the building and the damage it did. Apparently NIST claims it burned for several minutes... What is the basis for that statement? And regardless, even if true, I am not proposing the fuel as the cause of anything other than igniting other fires or perhaps causing things to explode such as transformers.

I don't think and fires burning for a few minutes would cause the columns to buckle.. and it didn't... nothing buckled or failed for an hour!

We did see some extensive fires move through the towers after the plane strike. When the top of WTC "collapses" (or whatever word you want to use.. there was a huge "bubble" of flames coming out (don't know the word).. indicating that there were fires at that level at the time.

I've speculated that there could have been and likely was some sort of engineered attack .. not the plane cause fires which initiated the collapse. But it is conceivable to me... though I don't know the technology that pre planted incendiaries would have been set off by the fires from the planes... timing being not critical. What was critical is that if this "works" eventually those incendiaries would cut through the steel leading to a progressive column failure, buckling and collapse of the top section down onto the lower one.

If also conceivable that the plane was not the ones we were told they were and could have delivered a payload we don't know about.

But the collapse appears to careful observers to be the floors being destroyed not the columns being destroyed. And to destroy the entire floors would seem to require extensive and massive explosives place throughout the foot print and going off at about .1 second intervals. I suppose that would be a possibility... but it seems rather hard to believe that sophisticated demo planners would attempt this.

And why did the top of WTC 2 tilt over? Was that instead an attack of the columns which went bad?

[DoYouEverWonder]

And why did the top of WTC 2 tilt over? Was that instead an attack of the columns which went bad?

Because the planners wanted to drop the Towers toward the Plaza ie east side of the complex, where they had the most empty space (never mind those little buildings down there) and avoided blocking the roads around the perimeter of the complex as much as possible.