Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New Nist Photo Shows Possible Evidence Of Thermatic Rection
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex > North Tower
Paul
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
SanderO
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!
Paul
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?
SanderO
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.
DoYouEverWonder
Oops.
DoYouEverWonder
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.

SanderO
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.
DoYouEverWonder
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

----------
SanderO
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.
talayo
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.
KP50
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.
DoYouEverWonder
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.
SanderO
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.
DoYouEverWonder
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?
SanderO
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.
talayo
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"
SanderO
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.
KP50
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.
SanderO
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".
DoYouEverWonder
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 ?
talayo
SanderO:

Thank you for your considered reply.

I think that maybe KP 50 is got a point. By now is evident that something sinister took place so the details, while interesting, do not alter the nefarious acts.

I read in a number of places that bringing the perpetrators to justice is the reason to continuo the work. I have a different view, possible because I am an old fashion person that believes that we will be judged at the end of our lives.

What I am concerned is more about the future. This is potentially a unique opportunity to slow down the forces of evil. If "they" completely get away with something as blatant as 9/11 that will be truly the beginning of the end. What exactly happened is not clear, but that the fable propagated by the Government is not obvious to a significant part of the population is difficult to understand.

Moreover, for the people that have tried very hard and spent many hours doing research (as some of the members here), if some significant occurs again, what would be the point of doing the work to demonstrate any thing.

In reality I do not think that a board of enquire is needed. Forcing some of the agencies to release information would be sufficient to demonstrate the point. However, who is going to force that?
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 21 2011, 12:28 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".

I don't really have the time to spend giving you evidence SanderO but just wander through these threads and look at some of the videos and photographs. The destruction wave is running ahead of the supposed crushing weight - hence being blown to shit not crushed to shit.

I could equally ask for evidence that the top of the WTC2 was not blown to shit - it seems to have disappeared which I consider to be very strong evidence. Maybe you can find it somewhere?

I don't have an explanation for exactly what happened, I don't have the expertise and those that do are struggling with it - but I am very sure that the super high temperatures below the rubble under all 3 towers had something to do with it - what say you?
SanderO
The high temps observed under the towers are likely associated with exothermic reaction which melted parts of the structure and lead to the initiation of the gravity driven collapse. I don't know much about fire engineering/science or chemistry and so I can't speculate what could have caused such abnormal temps from buildings which collapsed and which had extensive fires in them.

All three towers represent the first time such large structures collapsed so there is nothing to compare these to in the historical record.

What appears to be happening and which you refer to as a destruction wave is the crush zone or leading "edge" of the collapsing floor debris. It is not even uniform and careful observation shows that at times parts of it are 10 or more floors behind other parts of the collapse "front". And calling it a "wave of destruction" is not inappropriate, but it is not necessarily a "blast wave" from a sequential top down series of explosives.

The problem with the top to down sequence of explosives is that it requires that, assumes that every floors was attack over the entire acre and that gravity only brought down the exploded bits. While this is conceivable it is hardly likely that 100 floors had explosives placed at every single truss connection and under the floors to blast them to shit as you say.

In fact, many in the truth movement claim that the steel was "destroyed" somewhere and somehow... presumably so that the floors would collapse. This was likely for a portion of WTC 7 and it is precisely what the truth movement claims. And for WTC 7 I don't disagree. I am not certain about the mechanism that was used to destroy the 8 floors of core structure, but it was.

Ironically the twin towers were similar but it was up at the top at or above the plane crash zones and the collapsing floor debris just kept on going down to the ground at 60 MPH. Then the columns feel away absent lateral support.

You apparently don't have an engineering background and so you are having difficulty accepting that the floors were very vulnerable to overloading and progressive collapse. NIST doesn't discuss the collapse. They come up with hooey about what initiated it. And what initiated it was likely thermitic reactions and explosives. THAT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY.

KP50, What exactly is your background related to structural engineering and building design?
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 21 2011, 02:45 PM) *
The high temps observed under the towers are likely associated with exothermic reaction which melted parts of the structure and lead to the initiation of the gravity driven collapse. I don't know much about fire engineering/science or chemistry and so I can't speculate what could have caused such abnormal temps from buildings which collapsed and which had extensive fires in them.

All three towers represent the first time such large structures collapsed so there is nothing to compare these to in the historical record.

What appears to be happening and which you refer to as a destruction wave is the crush zone or leading "edge" of the collapsing floor debris. It is not even uniform and careful observation shows that at times parts of it are 10 or more floors behind other parts of the collapse "front". And calling it a "wave of destruction" is not inappropriate, but it is not necessarily a "blast wave" from a sequential top down series of explosives.

The problem with the top to down sequence of explosives is that it requires that, assumes that every floors was attack over the entire acre and that gravity only brought down the exploded bits. While this is conceivable it is hardly likely that 100 floors had explosives placed at every single truss connection and under the floors to blast them to shit as you say.

In fact, many in the truth movement claim that the steel was "destroyed" somewhere and somehow... presumably so that the floors would collapse. This was likely for a portion of WTC 7 and it is precisely what the truth movement claims. And for WTC 7 I don't disagree. I am not certain about the mechanism that was used to destroy the 8 floors of core structure, but it was.

Ironically the twin towers were similar but it was up at the top at or above the plane crash zones and the collapsing floor debris just kept on going down to the ground at 60 MPH. Then the columns feel away absent lateral support.

You apparently don't have an engineering background and so you are having difficulty accepting that the floors were very vulnerable to overloading and progressive collapse. NIST doesn't discuss the collapse. They come up with hooey about what initiated it. And what initiated it was likely thermitic reactions and explosives. THAT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY.

KP50, What exactly is your background related to structural engineering and building design?

I have no background in structural engineering and building design nor have I ever claimed that I do.

I find you answer to the "high temperatures" question beyond weak and somewhat similar to debunkerdom. "All three towers represent the first time such large structures collapsed so there is nothing to compare these to in the historical record." does not mean we throw common sense out of the window and pretend that the reactions 80 stories up that you state could have triggered the collapses somehow managed to burrow under all the rubble of the 80 stories below and create metal hot enough to be molten.

So where are the top stories of WTC2? That is a question I have been asking on and off for a few years and nobody has found them yet. I know I have seen flashes in the dust cloud in the position where the top stories should be - do you have strong evidence that they weren't blown up on the way down?
SanderO
Yes if this was in a liquid form and was associated with attacks in the core which contained numerous vertical shafts... why not?

On the other hand the towers came down top to bottom and many of the core columns survived the collapse for a few seconds including all 16 core columns in rows 500 and 600. Those alone are more than 1/3 of the core columns.

They weren't melted or blasted below grade so what are you saying was attacked and left these high heat signatures?

You need to connect that to something and explain how it could be there and why it might be there. You haven't done it. Sorry.

Can you cite the videos where you see flashes from explosions in the collapsing top section?

It was already coming down, why would it be exploded? What was the point of that?
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 21 2011, 02:50 PM) *
Yes if this was in a liquid form and was associated with attacks in the core which contained numerous vertical shafts... why not?

On the other hand the towers came down top to bottom and many of the core columns survived the collapse for a few seconds including all 16 core columns in rows 500 and 600. Those alone are more than 1/3 of the core columns.

They weren't melted or blasted below grade so what are you saying was attacked and left these high heat signatures?

You need to connect that to something and explain how it could be there and why it might be there. You haven't done it. Sorry.

I cannot account for it, but then I am not trying to state that I know what happened - you seem to want to do this and so I am asking you to include all the evidence in your explanations.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 21 2011, 02:50 PM) *
Can you cite the videos where you see flashes from explosions in the collapsing top section?

It was already coming down, why would it be exploded? What was the point of that?

I can't be bothered to be honest, I saw the video ages ago amongst the many I have seen over the years - I'm sure you could find it if you really tried.

Your second line was straight from Debunking 101. If you don't like the evidence, ask for a reason why they would do it as if that somehow negates the evidence. I'll ask you a question - what would have been the effect of the whole 25 stories coming to ground at the same time in the same place having fallen from that height? Now that is unprecendented, somebody literally dropping a 25 story tower block from the sky ......
IslandPilot
I find the contributions from BOTH of you (SO & DYEW) to be very valuable. I don't mind the enthusiastic discussions... really.... just try to "chill out" a little, OK? I'd hate to lose either one of you.
(end of lecture)

Getting back to business... SanderO says:
QUOTE
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.

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've been a Pilot/Mechanic for 40 years; not an architect. What's a "beam stub outlooker... supported by a cantilevered belt channel, off the perimeter core columns" look like??
I think this has something to do with how the floor trusses are connected to the core columns??
When you use the term "facade", I assume you are referring to the exterior column/spandrel assemblies. Is that correct?
And, you also said:
QUOTE
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.

Let me emphasize: I believe there were as few as 12 bolts per spandrel connection. (I figured out what a "spandrel" was a few days ago.)

As for DYEW... and the photo started this thread...
I believe this represents a closer view of what I've seen in a video, which to me, looks like a big oxy/acetelene "cutting torch"... slowly "burning" through a very big piece of steel.
A cutting torch, or "cutting charges" operate in a similar manner... by heating a small corner (portion) of a steel beam close to its melting point; and then ADDING or "blowing in" a pressurized source of OXYGEN... literally BURNING the steel beam apart.

IMO, it sure looks like that's what's happening in that initial photo. It doesn't look like anything resulting from an "aircraft" impact to me. It doesn't "look RIGHT".

I still don't know what to believe. I've seen stuff about "Directed Energy Weapons"; "Nano-Thermite, "mini-NUKES" embedded in the rock below the foundations; UFOs; "progressive controlled demolition"; as well as "gravitational collapse".... initiated by aircraft impact and the resulting fires.

I DO NOT BELIEVE: "allegded aircraft impact and resulting fires"... or anything about Muslim Terrorists.

I will say this:
"It appears the "global collapse" of WTC 1,2, &7 were the end result of pre-planned "sabotage" by unknown persons, for unknown reasons. The first "public phase", involving aircraft, (possibly), explosions and fires; was near the end of a chain of events, specifically designed to make a "Spectacular Statement", to achieve certain goals of the perpetrtators.

The initial phases of SABOTAGE involved access to WTC buildings to strategically place a number of explosive devices, and/or make modifications to "weaken" structural members within the building... to ensure the "initiation" of a "continuous global gravitational collapse" at WTC1,2,&7.

The use of "aircraft" in all 911 attacks, whether they were real or not, was to "enhance" the "dramatic" effect of the "operation". The "aircraft smokescreen" worked like a charm, to cover the tracks of the perpetrators; and to preclude a proper "investigation" into any single "Airplane Crash" or the destruction of a single building.

Phase I: An inital "Muslim Terrorist event"... "something" starts an explosion and fires in the upper floors of the Twin Towers. The first "public phase" of Sabotage 911 is complete.

Public Phase Number III, "Global Collapse of the World's Tallest Buildings", will commence AFTER the Whole World is "tuned in and watching" on TV.

Watch Phase II, in the interim: "full continuous replays of "impacts" and "fires" to introduce, enhance, and embed, a pre-planned "Terrorist SPIN" into the "minds" of hapless "viewers"; with "excitement" added by "first responders"; "mass pandemonium"; "molten steel showers"; "flare-ups" of fire, and sounds of explosions; and people jumping from buildings...

The "Global Building Collapse" of Phase III is the Coup d'etat!

Going back to SanderO's "gravitational collapse scenerio"... AFTER certain "initiating" events have been accomplished... (fires, explosions, etc.);

What SO seems to be pointing out, is "The Rest of the Story" concerning WTC global building collapses, that are COMPLETELY ABSENT in the NIST Reports.
NIST uses every "worst case scenerio", in their Multi-Million dollar report, to "postulate" the unlikely "buckling" of of steel columns, due to "fires" burning hotter than "Jet A Fuel" can burn, over one or two floors... to "initiate" the REST of a "global collapse", they conveniently avoid describing.

Sander, at first, seems to be feeding us some recycled "pancaking floor theory" from the "Original OCT". I didn't like that. But, I studied his comments carefully.... and I think he is saying:

The floor pan truss connections to the inner core columns, as well as the connections to the outer facade columns are very "critical" to the structural integrity of the entire building. These connections are more than adequate for any possible "gravitational" loads, yet, they are ACCESSABLE and vunerable, making them "very weak" links "laterally" - to maintain the NECESSARY VERTICAL ALIGNMENT of core and facade columns, for them to support their heavy gravitational loads.

A "crooked column" isn't going to support as much weight as a "straight" one, that's for sure. The relatively "thin lightweight" floor "diaphrams" throughout most of the building, are responsible for maintaining the precise alignment of all the vertical columns which support the entire weight of everything above them.

If most of the inner floor truss connections are removed from their core columns, on a single floor.... the floor structure would still maintain some "integrity" between individual trusses....meaning that the "floor diaphram" would fall down to the next floor in a "cone" or "funnel" shape around the inner core structure. This, of course, would tend to "pull" all of the exterior columns out of alignment, toward the center of the building, simutaneously, around the entire exterior perimeter of the building. If this could be accomplished for two or three consecutive floors.... then the "weight" of just a few floors and their contents would ensure the sucessive destruction of all core/floor truss attachments below them, "in rapid progressive sequence", without additional explosives, due entirely to the force of gravity.

Is this what you are saying SO?
Also, please realize this:
The entire structure of the Twin Towers is fastened together with BOLTS!

BOLTS! NO RIVETS! NO REINFORCED CONCRETE!

BOLTS! BOLTED FROM THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING!

BOLTS! NOT VERY MANY BOLTS EITHER!
BOLTS! IN ELONGATED SLOTS... AT FLOOR TRUSS CONNECTIONS!
Is this correct?

BOLTS! BOLTED THROUGH HANDHOLES IN THE COLUMNS, FROM INSIDE THE BUILDING!

BOLTS! EVERY ONE OF THEM ACCESSABLE FROM INSIDE THE BUILDING, ON KNOWN VACANT FLOORS!

If I had a WRENCH, how many BOLTS could I LOOSEN on a spare SATURDAY AFTERNOON?

If I had a WRENCH, how much money could I save on C4 and THERMITE??
(Even if I loosened every other one?)

BOLTS! What if I had some of NASA's EXPLOSIVE SPACECRAFT BOLTS??

BOLTS! I wouldn't want to be inside the building, while loosening

ONE TOO MANY OF THOSE BOLTS! whistle.gif whistle.gif
SanderO
I think Island Pilot has an excellent analysis of the big picture. I see nothing I would disagree with there. Well stated!

Your understanding of what I have been trying to convey about the destruction of the towers is quite good those a but off in some details... but 98% there. I have prepared slides which help to explain my concept of the destruction and understanding of the structure and why and how it could be made to fail and how i BELIEVE it was. Unfortunately this forum makes it impossible for me to post the slides directly from my hard drive and I don't want to host them online.

I would be happy to convey them to others in email. Send me a PM with your email and I can provide the slides as PDF attachments. Bear with me in a brief explanation of steel frames and the key to the "take down".

Steel Frames

A steel building is erected by connecting pre fabricated manufactures steel "sections" to each other. Most of the sections are rolled or extruded such as I beams, angles, channels, plates and wide flange beams. A steel beam has two parts - a web and flange. A simply supported beam spans between two beam points. When loaded the top flange is in compression and the bottom flange is in tension. Compression "squeezes" the material and tension pulls it apart. Some materials are "strong" in compression but can do tension - that's concrete. To use concrete as a beam... it needs steel reinforcing to deal with the tension. Steel is excellent for both tension and compression. Steel and concrete are both used for columns since both are strong in compression meaning they can carry loads without deformation and failure. A steel column which fails from over loads buckles and concrete one shatters.

The columns of a structure support the loads. The loads are the weight of the structure itself and the contents - furniture, equipment, snow, and people etc. These loads are "transferred" to the columns and then to the foundations which support them. Each element of a structure needs to support the loads without deformation or failure. So you can't built a strong building on "weak" foundations or soil etc.

Strength of structural elements is directly link to cross sectional area of a material. That is it has strength characteristics per unit area. Wood is weaker per unit cross sectional area than steel. And each type of wood and type of steel and type of concrete has different strength characteristics. This gets very complicated.

The twin towers used steel of varying strengths. This was to achieve a few things:
reduce weight (and cost)
create sufficient area for structural connections
architectural design considerations


All the high strength steel was at the top - to reduce building weight without reducing strength of increasing profiles.

By reducing weight you reduce cost. You also reduce the size of the columns which have to support all the loads. Of your design in constrained by column size you might be forced to used stronger steel to fit the constraints. Same applies to beams. If a beam must span 20 feet and carry X load it is designed to carry those loads within a specified amount of deflection mid span. In you increase the load requirement you would have to increase the depth of the beam or decrease the spacing of the beams... or use stronger steel or a combination of these solutions.

Steel frames are "erected". This means that the structural members are connected on to the other in various configurations using various methods to transfer the loads.

Bearing is the simplest means of support. You place the load on top of the structural element. A wall of bricks used bearing of one brick on another to transfer the load. You might not know that you can't have a brick bearing wall of over 8 stories or so because more than that the weight will crush the bricks at the bottom and the wall will fail. Taller brick buildings have steel supports which transfer the weight of the masonry to steel columns via support angles and so forth.

Floor loads bear upon the floor system which consists of the floor (slab) which is bearing on a series of spaced joists or beams

Rigidity is provided by use of connectors which prevent the structural elements from moving. In wood we use nails, screws and bolts. Each of these has its own strength characteristics concerning how much load they can transfer. In addition the friction of two surfaces pressed together makes them perform as a "composite". So nailing two beams side by side creates a wider and stronger beam.

Twin Towers' System

The floor system of the twin towers were a composite system. The concept was to have a prefabricated inexpensive and lightweight system which was easy to assemble.

It consisted of:
deep double (side by side) bar trusses spaced at 80" apart
a light gauge corrugated metal decking
concrete slab with wire mesh reinforcing


The bar trusses were made so the zig zag web bars extended above the two angles which formed the top chord of the truss. These extensions functions as "shear studs" to lock the truss into the concrete as a composite using the compressive strength of the slab to "stiffen" the entire floor and cause less deflection per unit load.

The trusses were connected to the columns and were spanning from facade columns to core columns. However there's a hitch here.

The facade columns were prefab assemblies which had the columns at 40" on center so only every other columns was "in line" with a truss. To engage the other columns in load carrying the columns were connected by 52" high steel plates. In fact, the facade assemblies were actually constructed as follows:

a single 10' x 36' steel plate was cut out to form 3 - 14" wide web parts and 3 - 52" wide spandrel parts. The looked like a tick tack doe shape sort of.

The flanges were then welded to the huge plates and the the outside web was welded 1" back between the pairs of webs forming the 3 box columns. Then plates were wended into the ends of the box columns and drilled for connections. The 52" high horizontal "spandrels" were drilled for connecting one to the other with a splice plate welded to the ends.

Then spacer blocks were welded to the inside facade of the spandrel and angles to that to which the trusses would be bolted with 2 5/8" bolts.

The spacer blocks were required for assembly because you could not fit and maneuver the 10' wide pre fab floor assemblies if there was no "clearance" This meant that the truss did not touch the facade spandrels and that the forces would transfer as follows.

bearing of the top chord on the support angle (held fast by 2 bolts.
support angle welded to the spacer block
spacer block welded to the spandrel
spandrel plates welded to the flanges to form box columns

Each of these connections - welds had to support the full loads of the floor assembly. Each 20' wide assembly had two double trusses in the center and single one at the long edges. Facade side had 8 bolts core side the same.

The top and bottom truss chords were angle sections perhaps as thin as 3/8" of less. As part of a deep truss this was all that was required to support the floor loads. But this was terrible thin and subject to ripping from shear if over loaded. YIKES

Truss Connections to the Core

The floor assemblies were all manufactured to the same dimensions. They were 59'-6" long.

The core columns which supported the trusses were spaced around the perimeter of the core. There were 24 of them - 8 along the long side and 6 along the short side with the "corner" ones doing work on both "sides". The core was 137' x 87'. However the columns were not "aligned" with the edges of the core. They were slightly in from these dimensions and more so on the long axis of the core.

The perimeter core columns at the base and up to the 50th floor or so were 52x22 - 52 in the 87' side and 22 in the 137' side. Above this floor the columns were smaller in plan and by the upper floors were rolled wide flange sections as small as 18x18. The columns were set one atop the other with splice plates welded to hold them. They were aligned on the center lines so at the top floors the column outer faces were effectively further from the facade. It was like a "layer cake" which
steps in as it goes up.

There were only 8 columns on the 137' side of the core which had to connect to the trusses at 80" OC. There were 30 trusses with 20 opposite the 137' side and only 8 columns. Each corner core column supported 10 trusses in the corner of each floor. Those trusses were connected to a "transfer truss" or transfer girder which spanned from the facade to the corner. It carried the loads from the 10 trusses and transferred them to the corner of the perimeter.

The other 20 trusses were connected to a channel section which was 60 feet from the inside of the facade on the long span side and 35' on the short span side.

The channel was connected to the perimeter core columns by BEAM STUB OUTLOOKERS.

The columns were 3 stories tall. The perimeter columns were fabricated with short wide flange beams welded at the level of each floor on the outside of them. The BEAM STUBS would span from the face of the column to the web of the channel which would carry the 20 trusses. Attached to the channel were the identical angles as were attached to the spacer blocks on the facade side. Same two bolts were used to connect the core side of the trusses.

The assembly was as follows. The 26' tall core columns were dropped in place and welded to the column below. The floors were set at 9', 21' and 33' above the base of each column. That's the elevation of the BEAM STUB OUTLOOKERS. Beam studs for the lateral steel INSIDE the core was welded at the same heights - 9', 21' and 33' from the bottom. Lateral beams were then connected to the short projecting beam stubs with splice plates and bolted and welded. On the outside or the core, the inside face of the channel web was connected to the BEAM STUB OUTLOOKERS with a short wide flange section. The two beam stubs - one on the channel and one on each perimeter core column (8 for the long side and 6 for the short side 28 in all) we connected with plates bolting the two beam stubs together and then welded (perhaps).

So load connections on the core side of the trusses were as follows:

trusses rest on angles bolted with 2 bolts
angles welded to channels
channels welded to beam stubs
beam stub bolted and welded to beam stubs using two splice plates either side of their webs
beam stub welded to core columns with angles bolted through the webs


5 trusses in the corner of the floors were connected to transfer trusses or girders
Transfer trusses or girders were connected to beam stubs - bolted and welded to beam stubs on the face of the core column
20 trusses on the long side (137') and 15 on the short side (87') were attached via the BEAM STUB OUTLOOKERS to the core columns.

Beam Stub Outlookers

The BEAM STUB OUTLOOKERS were as short as 12" and as long as 36" from core column to channel girder.

The bolts used to connect the beam stubs were 3/4" Ø A36 steel likely.

Lots of places to attack the floor to column connection path of the loads. And placing thermite or similar ON TOP of the BEAM STUB OUTLOOKER will destroy the top flange and the stub will fail. When the BEAM STUB fails, the floor truss has no support and it drops. When it drops it either pulls the facade in at the other end or shears the bolts connecting the truss to the beam seat (more likely) or the thin steel of the truss core.

Sorry for the long explanation. A picture is worth 1000 words and one needs some understanding of structure and static loads.

A steel frame is bolted (and welded in some areas) together. These connections are, in fact the weakest link. They are strong enough to hold the structure together ABSENT dynamic loads or "attack".

Why cut through 2 1/2" or thicker (5" at the base) steel plates of the columns when you can "drop the floors" by cutting through 3/4" Ø bolts or plates of the BEAM STUB connections to the support channels?

Why cut through all the facade columns when you can let the falling floors shear their connection to those very columns?

Why make this a complex task when it can be a much simpler one?

Why not use gravity to take the structure down by breaking the connections that hold the frame together?

Why not use the principles of statics which hold a structure together to take it apart?
SanderO
QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 20 2011, 06:41 PM) *
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 ?


To solve the crime we need to know what it actually was. This leads to understand of how it was done, what resources were required and who could have done it.

The government is certainly complicit in covering this up and blocking the investigators who are trying to answer the above questions.

Perhaps it wasn't carried out by the US government but the entire government was gamed by a few zionists, for example, who were able to pull this off. And the US government, rather than admit that its "allies" did this, used the AQ excuse which conveniently made the MIC very pleased with the outcome - WAR. This would be despicable and people in the government should be held accountable, but it's a different scenario than the government did it. Yet they MAY have done it, or rogue elements in positions of power and control inside the government. Rogue elements INSIDE the government is not THE government. Let's not paint with a broad brush here.

The government lied and covered up, they have denied access to evidence to solve the crime. We can't conclusively connect the dots to anyone yet despite how incriminating the evidence appears to be connecting Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others to 9/11.

The crime needs to be solved. I am trying to solve a part of the crime. Others are saying that the buildings were blown to shit by high tech government manufactured explosives - case closed. I don't see the case made as much as conjecture.

I continue to "lecture" others because they show little understanding of structural failure which is key to understanding how these buildings were possibly and likely intentionally taken down (and not by planes or office fires).
trimble
QUOTE
So where are the top stories of WTC2? That is a question I have been asking on and off for a few years and nobody has found them yet.


When it is suggested that the upper floors crushed the concrete and shredded the steel pans of the lower floors, one needs to remember good old Newton. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you smash a concrete block with a concrete hammer, expect both to shatter. If the top floor at its freefall speed managed to drop to the top of the collapse front before this top floor material reached the ground, then the top floors would be part of that hammer. If you look at initiation where the top starts to disappear into the lower floors, this is definitely suggested. Further, what is on top at the start does not have to remain right at the top at the end, as we are dealing with an uneven collapse (within a compressed timescale), rather than discrete pancakes.

That being said, I do find it peculiar that none of the hardier office equipment (rather than the floor structures themselves, which are rigid and prone to shatter) from the uppermost floors survived in a recognisable state. But I also think we can be quite sure that this is by accident rather than design! ie. If we have no recognisable filing cabinets, then that, clearly, is what must happen to filing cabinets in such a collapse event. It is in no way useful to try to analyse or justify clearly inconsequential elements, even if we don't understand them.
SanderO
I think Trimble is correct in that the collapse of the top of WTC 2 resulted in the crushable parts being crushed and pulverized in the collisions with the floors and structure below. Same as in WTC 1. The top mass crashed on to and into and crushed what it crashed on and itself was broken apart. These collisions repeated all the way to the bottom as a vertical avalanche of gathering mass with more kinetic energy as it fell and more ability to crush and pulverize the chunks in avalanche and the floors it came in contact with.

I suspect all light gauge metal was shredded in the crushing avalanche process and this includes, metal studs, ducts, file cabinets, conduits, metal frames, pipes, metal pans and even wires. Only material of a threshold thickness and hardness survived in a recognizable form such as steel beams, columns, plates and so forth.
trimble
I have just come across a wonderfully long and entertainingly crackpot thread at http://letsrollforums.com/wtc-pre-demolished-and-t21572.html that, nevertheless, contains quite a lot of good photos and links to info about the rubble and floor configurations (ignore the OP, though), as well as food for thought about the rather odd fate of the tower contents. I don't rate the theory at all as it is simply unbelievable for so many reasons, but you may find it, and some of its associated source material, interesting.

QUOTE
I suspect all light gauge metal was shredded in the crushing avalanche process

*nod* But having read that thread, I am left wondering about the fate of the carpets.

Ah mysteries .. smile.gif
SanderO
They flew away to arabia!
trimble
*groan* biggrin.gif

The problem with the "localised collapse" theory is that it requires multiple collapsed floors to overcome floor safety. You will be aware of the account at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html which describes some conditions on South 84 and 81. Wrecked, but mentions no universal (or even local) floor collapse on two sides. But then torsion effects are mentioned - and indeed they must have been significant (off-centre hit), and must have sheared an awful lot of floor connections to allow for the movement that must have occurred to cause the reported state around the impact zone. ie. a lowered effective safety factor, and thus less initiation required for universal collapse.
SanderO
I have tried to distinguish the destruction of the floors from the idiotic pancake collapse nonsense by calling their individual break up compressed local events which in short order encompassed the entire floor and nothing was left. Think of machine gun spray of bullet at a paper target. Each bullet makes local destruction of the target - one bullet hole... but the aggregate of all the bullets rips the entire target to shreds.

The collapsing "floor" assault was random, chaotic but destroyed an entire floor, but in a very short span of time and this sort of assault increased. Imagine pouring a stream of very heavy bolders onto those floors, steel beams, equipment, furniture and so forth. YES it requires sufficient punch to overcome the safety factor which was a static load of 400 pounds per square foot. But multiple floors dropping as a dynamic load would do that without a problem. Those floors were mostly 2.5" thick concrete with about 20% 4" thick.
IslandPilot
WOW SO! You are right, a few pictures might be worth a thousand words...

QUOTE
Send me a PM with your email and I can provide the slides as PDF attachments. Bear with me in a brief explanation of steel frames and the key to the "take down".

So I will send a PM for your slides.
Your "brief explanation" is just as "brief" as mine tend to be... but, now that I've "digested" most of it.... I am Amazed at your "precise", literal description of how the Twin Towers were put together.
The first few paragraphs were EXCELLENT and easy to understand.... ie the "how and why" for the use of steel with "variable strengths" in certain areas. I was aware of decreasing "cross-sections" of columns between the ground and upper levels, but I hadn't considered the upper floors had to "span" a greater distance between the facade and core columns; and the "weddng cake" explanation was helpful.

An Airplane is put together in a similar fashion, with vertical "frames" and "ribs", lateral "stringers" and "spars" (beams & trusses sometimes)... with various methods of attachment between the structural elements and the outer "facade" or skin. Wing spars are heavier and stronger next to the fuselage, than they are at the wingtips. The outer aircraft "skin" is also a significant structural element, even though it may be only 0.020 inches thick, in some places, on some airplanes.

The airplane structure must "maintain" its shape, in order to carry some very heavy loads. A building must withstand a "gravity" loading of 1 "G", (with a "safety factor" of 2 or 3 additional "Gs".) A "normal" airplane has to be designed FOR at least 3.3 "Gs" of variable loading within the "elastic" limit of its materials...day after day... year after year... and millions of cycles...

The wing of a 225,000 pound airplane is designed to carry a "normal" load of 742,000 pounds, and to have a minimum "safety factor" beyond that. An airplane in a level turn, with a 60 degree bank angle, will have a loading of 2 "Gs"... and "gust" loads can add to that.
pilot.gif

When all the rivets are in good shape, and all the structural members attached to them are sound, they will maintain their STRENGTH as long as certain "limits", and specific loadings are not exceded.

But, if you "walk" on the wrong part of a wing... or if it hits a bird... or maybe some Hail... you can put a big hole in it.

Or if a wing spar has a crack or dent, or if its skin has some deep scratches and loose rivets.... it wouldn't take too much "adverse" loading after that to cause a complete STRUCTURAL failure of the aircraft. "Adverse Loading" = too much speed or bank angle too steep or too many "Gs".

Like an airplane, a building is more than strong enough to withstand the "loads" it was Conservativly Designed for throughout its Life Span. The Enormous Gravity loads, as well as Earthquakes, Hurricane force winds, Fire Damage, and Collisions with LARGE AIRCRAFT, were DESIGNED INTO the Twin Towers... long before they started digging the foundations.
handsdown.gif
For KP50;
I understand where you are coming from. When I saw that "object" fly into the second tower, in "real" time, I thought it was a "Hollywood" special effect. Hours later, when I saw the first Tower "EXPLODE".... I KNEW IT WAS a HOLLYWOOD STUNT! varoom.gif

But time passed, life went on, things got "worse" for all of us. I heard the BS story about the "intensive" fires from the Jet Fuel.... and the "floors PANCAKING" down on top of each other... and I "just let it go"...

Until a couple of years ago... a 911 truther was on my "short wave radio"... arguing with some DOPE... Challenging him to JUST GO TO HER WEBSITE! LOOK AT THE PICTURES! LOOK AT THEM! and then TELL ME, what you are trying to tell me now.

WELL, I went to that website and I LOOKED at the pictures, and I said WTF! What the hell is THAT? And THAT? AND WTF.... AND.... bullshit.gif

Then I went to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.... Richard Gage gave a professional, calm, reasonable, factual presentation, about HOW it was IMPOSSIBLE for the TWIN TOWERS to have collapsed due to the AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS (if so), and the resulting fires!

Like SanderO, Mr. Gage is a Professional Architect. He is an EXPERT when it comes to BUILDING DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION. He doesn't try to tell us anything about Terrorists, Airplanes, Mini Nukes, etc., He STAYS within HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE,... BUILDING CONSTRUCTION and DESIGN... to EFFECTIVELY describe the ZERO percent CHANCE, that a Boeing Airplane impact and its Jet Fueled Fires CAUSED ANY WTC Building to be destroyed on 911.

If a real airplane would have MISSED a DIRECT HIT into the tower BULLSEYE; (instead of "disappearing into it) and then "bounced away" thus scattering Airplane parts all over Manhattan...while the "assymetrical fire" it caused by "a near miss"... burned for a while before the tower LEANED OVER SIDEWAYS and COLLAPSED into several other buildings... That I MIGHT BELIEVE!

Richard Gage WOKE ME UP. He proved that an airplane crash and Jet Fuel DID NOT DESTROY those buildings. I do not necessarily subscribe to his "controlled demolition" theory.

But he DOES explain how PROFESSIONAL Demolitions are accomplished. "Normally" explosives are used to "remove supporting columns" in a sequence over a few LOWER floors of the building....

Mr. Gage explains that GRAVITY does MOST of the WORK, in the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of a building, after explosives are used to INITIATE a GRAVITATIONAL Destruction. He goes on to explain that, once enough building MASS is allowed to FALL DOWN (accelerate by GRAVITY); over a certain DISTANCE... it will reach a certain SPEED (velocity)... and GATHER ENOUGH MOMENTUM... that when it encounters the RESISTANCE of whatever is UNDER it... will have enough FORCE to release the ENERGY to do the WORK of DESTROYING BOTH PARTS OF THE BUILDING. And I think Sir Issac Newton, would agree with Mr. Gage, (but maybe not with me?). teach.gif

The "Critical Building Mass" to destroy a building by GRAVITY, after FALLING for a specific time or distance.... doesn't necessarily have to involve MOST, or ALL of the upper building mass to "ASSURE a PROGRESSIVE GRAVITATIONAL collapse, initiated near the ground floors.

If there is enough BUILDING MASS ABOVE the point where building SUPPORT COLUMNS are removed, a PROGRESSIVE GRAVITATIONAL Collapse is still possible, and quite likely.

It would be PREFERABLE to initiate the Collapse as high up in the building as possible, that will ASSURE A GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE. WHY, you may ask?

The MASS and STRENGTH of all the building support columns DECREASES PROGRESSIVELY as you go up from the bottom of the building.

Nanothermite, C4, and FERTILIZER, aren't easy to "get", nor are they "CHEAP", for your "average "Terrorist". He wouldn't want to WASTE ALL of his EXPLOSIVES on one JOB... He'd want to "save" some for another Job "later on".

It would take a HELL of a lot of "POW POWER" to take out ONE of those TRIDENT columns near the ground floors... I'll bet you could start the collapse over THREE WHOLE floors.... below the upper THIRD of the building... and use about the SAME AMOUNT of "NANO-NITRO" you'd need to TAKE OUT a single TRIDENT COLUMN at the base of the building. Maybe? So much for being "brief", eh?
Lunch TIME! pilotfly.gif
BarryWilliamsmb
From Brian Clark on the 84th floor of 2 World Trade Center- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

"I continued on to the west side near my office. I was fairly near the windows talking with two or three people, including especially Bobby Coll. I was looking him in the eye having a conversation with him when at apparently 9:03—I didn't check my watch—the second plane hit the south side of our building at approximately the 78th, 79th, and 80th floors. Our room fell apart at that moment, a complete destruction without an explosion—very strange things. The lights went out, but we were near the window so there was daylight. Again, there was this sort of thump, this explosion without fire and flame, a very strange sensation."

I wonder what Mr. Clark is describing here? Is this a special kind of noiseless explosion?
KP50
QUOTE (KP50 @ Jan 21 2011, 03:46 PM) *
I can't be bothered to be honest, I saw the video ages ago amongst the many I have seen over the years - I'm sure you could find it if you really tried.

Your second line was straight from Debunking 101. If you don't like the evidence, ask for a reason why they would do it as if that somehow negates the evidence. I'll ask you a question - what would have been the effect of the whole 25 stories coming to ground at the same time in the same place having fallen from that height? Now that is unprecendented, somebody literally dropping a 25 story tower block from the sky ......

If you want to see flashes in the tower prior to collapse then this thread from 2008 is a good place to start

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10640

This video has a close-up of the South Tower as it starts to fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8yy9zmI4Vc

Enjoy.
SanderO
The corner was actually weaker than the facade panels. The facade panels had columns on 40" oc with 3 per 120" of length. The corner was also 120" (it was on a diagonal) and it has 2 columns... 1/3 less axial support. But the corners were not carrying much axial load.. not as much as the panels.

What he sees as odd is the corner being kicked out as the top begins to drop. It's called buckling from a eccentric load... no axial.

The flash is hard to explain. Who knows what could have exploded which was not an explosive... But heck it could be an explosive. One small explosive took the whole top down? Why don't we see more?

Armchair detective needs to study statics and engineering of steel frames.
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 2 2011, 02:03 PM) *
One small explosive took the whole top down? Why don't we see more?

You missed the point as I was sure you would. The point was the video, not the comments made by the maker of the video. He is just guessing, much like you do. From that video, you can link to many more - from the thread I pointed you to, there are also more links.

This is the attitude that always annoys me SanderO. You have enormous amounts of time to type out long detailed replies when you could actually spend looking at some videos of the towers, there are literally hundreds out there as you well know. Then you can factor this knowledge into your responses.

And your reaction when shown just a single video is to criticise the video-maker and ask why there aren't more flashes? Why do you keep defaulting back to the official story when there is so much evidence to cast doubt on it? Did you even watch the video of the flashes pre-collapse in the other P4T thread? There is no possible "natural cause" for them to happen so low down on the tower.

I'm pretty much done with you - if all you want to do is defend the OCT on a 9/11 truth site then I hope it makes you happy. To save you the trouble, I'll even type your next response about the pre-collapse video.

QUOTE
Why would they be setting off explosives before the towers came down? That makes no sense at all.
SanderO
KP,

Crazy response. I have been looking at hundreds of videos for hundreds of hours and producing drawings, calcs, spread sheets.

I emailed some to Island Pilot but can't and don't think I'd post them in this site. I don't just offer opinions and long winded responses. I've done a lot of basic independent research... and I try to share it here. I am not parroting any one else... I am verifying what others say... and applying my limited understanding of structure and statics.. which is obviously more than most. I do not engage in technical discussions about things I am not qualified or trained in... such as avionics and aviation issues. Here are some interesting videos... what do you see of interest?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28T0I4jEYsg&NR=1
bobcat46
In the first video, I am just Amazed at how much horizontal energy a lot of the material had as the building fell. It also seems to appear that some of the debris material also had energy that propelled them upward as well as outward. Many pieces are propelled outward in the very beginning of the collapse, long before the upper material had gained downward energy. This could not happen with a gravity fall.

In the second video, it appears that the core just turned to dust as it fell. I can only assume that what we see are the steel tube core beams that survived the initial fall. Any insulation on those beams would have been stripped off as all the other material fell past those remaining beams, so what created all the dust as they fell? I have never seen steel beams just turn to dust like that.
SanderO
Bobcat,

Steel can and does spring horizontally from buckling.

Your powers of observation are informed by both the limits of your knowledge and in this case what you WANT to see.
The core didn't turn to dust... because the columns of the core are seen in the debris after the collapse.

How 'bout that!
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 2 2011, 04:01 PM) *
KP,

Crazy response. I have been looking at hundreds of videos for hundreds of hours and producing drawings, calcs, spread sheets.

Crazy? Right ....

Did you actually watch the video on this thread?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10640

What are the flashes?
SanderO
Most of the flashes I saw in one video were all above the plane crash...

I have a question about the dripping metal. Assuming it was caused by thermite attacking part of the structure on floor 78.. what was all that melted steel from? Even if it melted a column for three or 4 feet or two of them for that amount... the volume of that steel would only yield 1/10 of a cubic foot and weigh a few hundred pounds at most.

That looks like a "stream" of metal so what was melting. Not the trusses... even less volume.

Any thoughts?
KP50
QUOTE (SanderO @ Feb 3 2011, 12:36 PM) *
Most of the flashes I saw in one video were all above the plane crash...

The other video, the one in the thread I just linked to - below the plane crash, pre-collapse.
aerohead
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 18 2011, 08:53 PM)
Once you understand the structure, you can understand how it was, or might have been done.



This guy "understood" pretty well.........he designed the Twin Towers.
The towers fell due to something other than an aircraft impact.




And as far as the molten metal goes.........................6 weeks later, still molten





Jet fuel cant melt steel bro..........




Once you understand the structure, the laws of physics and eyewitness testimony,
you can understand how it was.....................
aerohead
Dr Jones found the evidence years ago.




This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.