Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Munkle
Reposted from DailyPaul.com

by James_Madison_Lives


An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific...tals-d_152.html

Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy


Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton <i>per worker</i> of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

Finally, one challenge which could be raised to this analysis is the assumption that such a scenario requires all the steel in the building to be heated to the same temperature in order to exhibit onset of failure characteristics. But if we discard the known fact that steel is an excellent heat conductor, and would wick the heat to all parts of the steel structure rapidly and evenly, and that the entire 96,000 tons was absorbing energy, and suppose that somehow all the heat was concentrated around the points of impact, which somehow melted or buckled only in these places, then we run across another problem. The problem with this hypothesis is that it leaves the 90% of the steel frames below the points of impact with all their strength intact, which would have made a free-fall collapse through the path of greatest resistance utterly impossible. We cannot hold that a free-fall collapse was possible because the steel in the towers was greatly weakened by the heat, then at the same time hold that the heat was focused in one place. One cannot have it both ways.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the <a href="http://dailypaul.com/node/151054">"momentum"</a> from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.

---------

Weight, length, temperature unit converter
http://www.metric-conversions.org/

Specific heat unit converter
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-co...cific-heat.html
SanderO
Fine and dandy. But this all ignores that MOST of the building was not subject to heat or fires but it ALL collapsed.

So the discussion this gentlemen engages in is to "falsify" the notion that heat from office fires could cause the initial (kick off) collapse/destruction event.

Everyone can see that the collapse part was not associated with heat or fires.

So a question to ask... and to answer.... is once whatever caused the top section to come apart... and we can agree it likely was not caused by office fires burning less than a hour... Some ELSE made the section BELOW busted up upper section collapse in about 10 seconds and it was ... all at room temperature.

The truth movement wants to believe that the room temperature floors from 1-96 were exploded in sequence... because someone has decided that a collapse defies the laws of physics... ergo it was an series of explosions which resembles a collapse.

But this is clearly no the case, as I have been arguing here and elsewhere that the POST initiation phase... phase II of the destruction WAS a gravity driven progressive collapse of the floors... phase IIa was the falling away and peeling off of the facade columns when they lost the lateral bracing the floors provided... and Phase III was the buckling of the core columns which were not pushed over by collapsing debris. They came down from "Euler buckling".

So James has shown that Phase I - initiation was not from office fires. Phase I is the collapse of the top 14 stories in tower 1 and a slightly more complex collapse sequence of the top 30 stories of tower 2... Both of which show a destruction from the bottom up or crush down... quite similar to a CD. So were there CD's at the tops which provided the mass to destroy the bottom? It's a possibility... much much much better than office fires.
talayo
sanderso:


Gravity collapse is always true. No matter what the "means" for the destruction were, what ever reached the ground was because of gravity, otherwise it would still be floating around.


I you look at Mt. Hellen's "collapse" the ash also reached the ground becase of gravitation.

If you look at images of the distribution of dust (pyroclastic cloud) there is a great amount of similarity between WT destruction and St. Helens explosion.

It is becoming subreal that the discussions (after 10 years of time to study the evidence) continue to revolve around normal natural events to explain the unexplainable.

We were witness to some extraordinary processes that cannot be explained either by conventional explosives, fuel fires, aircraft impacts, or natural forces.

Please, study carefully what the hundreds of first respondents reported as their earlier experiences. It is all available now. It gets a bit repetitive but for that very reason their extraordinary accounts gain credibility. If you continue to believe in traditional explanations, then you must believe that many of these respondents were smoking biological substances as opposed to dust from de buildings. Their claims are either the product of rather creative imaginations (delusions) or all the conventional descriptions that we continue to use are complete BS.

I do not believe that the responders manufacture BS!





Tamborine man


Good comments talayo ....

but think it's about time we should stop using the word "collapsed"

to describe the demise of the WTC towers. No such thing took place.

"Disintegrated" would be a much more truthful term to use, imho.

And as talayo said - how this was done, we still have to work out,

as it still belongs to the realm of the unexplainable ....yet, perhaps!











SanderO
I am not a proponent of the official explanation of the collapse of the twin towers. There IS no official explanation of the collapse phase. I challenge anyone to cite in the NIST, FEMA or 911 Commission Reports where they explain the collapse phase. You will not find this because they are silent on it.

NIST attempted to show that in the case of the twin towers that the CAUSE of the collapse was sagging trusses, from fires which pulled in the facade columns which meant that the floors above no longer hand support and then would come down. That was the extent of their explanation.

Perhaps because the engineering is settled science about what would happen if you had 30,000 tons of mass descend on the top or any level in a high rise building... it would crush and destroy it every time. They didn't bother with the collapse phase explanation of how this takes place.

The silence of the officials on the collapse phase has become fertile ground for speculation. Some, perhaps many simply assume they are covering up some sort of engineered mechanism. These people then go on to propose explosives set off in sequence from top to bottom, or even more exotic mechanisms such as directed energy weapon which turned the towers to dust.

We don't know what caused the 30,000 tons, in the case of tower 1 to be dissociated from the columns which supported it... to break apart and land MOSTLY on the undamaged room temperature structure below it. That is where investigators must look for CAUSE and that is where it is hardly credible that office fires could initiate such dissociation of 14 floors. It is in the initiation that it is likely that engineered intervention took place would essentially be a CD at the top.. perhaps involving the destruction of only 50-60% of the core columns at the plane strike zone. This would cause the top section to drop and deliver its mass onto the undamaged part of the structure which would be crushed by the gravity driven PE energy now kinetic energy.

Why people persist on saying that such a collapse is impossible is hard to understand because these statements reveal a lack of understanding of engineering, statics, physics, material science and so forth... not to mention that objective careful technically informed observations of the visual record supports that the COLLAPSED. Of course if you begin from a position that the were exploded that is what you see.

In fact the ECD advocates attempt to cast all the observations in support of their beliefs when those observations are not inconsistent with a gravity driven collapse.

Of course no buildings have ever come down like they did. No buildings ever had 30,000 tons of load imposed on their upper stories (even if it came from the stories from their very top). And no other towers have the same structural design. So the conclusion to be drawn is not that they were exploded to bits.. but that towers which have 30,000 (or some huge amount of weight) dropped on their floors will see the floors progressively destroyed from top to bottom.

The advocates of ECD, including Gage who SHOULD know what happened refuse to actually study the structure and the basic engineering and are making their "case" of ECD based on the fact that what they see LOOKS LIKE evidence of explosions or multiple explosions from top to bottom. It's a bit of twisted logic and unsupported by evidence and no engineers that I know of have falsified a collapse if 30,000 tons of mass are dropped on the top.

But it's quite possible that there was engineered destruction involved in creating the 30,000 tons of mass to destroy the rest of the tower (North). And it is here that investigators should look for mechanisms... not in the collapse phase. The prize here... the key to understanding the event... is how those 30,000 tons came to be made available to destroy the tower.

This may be splitting hairs to some because if it WAS an engineered "kick off" then it still could be called a CD and that is not a fire caused result of the plane strikes. I maintain this is an important distinction for several reasons.

1. It is a much less complex and hence more reasonable and credible scenario than placing thousands of explosives throughout the tower and timing them in precise sequence.

2. It causes research to focus on the CAUSE since an engineered "progression" (the collapse phase) couldn't possible have a natural cause or initiation... but a engineered cause could result in a natural "progression" or collapse... and as I am rather certain... it WAS a natural progressive failure..not a sequence of explosions down the towers.

3. By making claims of ECD for the entire event, it undermines the credibility of those making such claims, causes them to make false and supportable arguments which are not grounded in engineering and science.

4. It causes speculation and some bizarre explanations such as DEWs to "explain" the evidence which is explainable without such bizarre mechanisms. That too undermines the credibility of the entire movement which is trying to get to the bottom of the CAUSE of the collapse.

Research continues to get at the initiation of those collapses. And so all attention should be on the period before there is any perceived movement to the period when the destruction begins. It is in that period where the prize is to be found.... not the collapse phase.
Munkle
QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
No buildings ever had 30,000 tons of load imposed on their upper stories (even if it came from the stories from their very top).


Pardon me? It was imposed when the last 30 stories of the towers were built. The upward static resistance of the much heavier, massive lower box columns was equal to or greater than downward force at any horizontal plane in the structure, or it would not have been at static equilibrium, i.e. it wouldn't be standing. If you mean the additional load imposed by the momentum of collapsing floors, you would need to drop those floors from something like twenty miles up to generate the required energy to completely crush the lower 80 or 90 floors. The upward static resistance of 30,000 tons of vertical, cross-braced steel in the core alone is considerable, and then you have the perimeter columns.
amazed!
Talayo

Thanks for pointing out the obvious--on this planet the force of gravity is always present.

SandersO claim that is was gravity-driven is superfluous in that regard, but he likes to keep making it, as though it were profound information.
SanderO
QUOTE (Munkle @ May 19 2011, 06:59 PM) *
Pardon me? It was imposed when the last 30 stories of the towers were built. The upward static resistance of the much heavier, massive lower box columns was equal to or greater than downward force at any horizontal plane in the structure, or it would not have been at static equilibrium, i.e. it wouldn't be standing. If you mean the additional load imposed by the momentum of collapsing floors, you would need to drop those floors from something like twenty miles up to generate the required energy to completely crush the lower 80 or 90 floors. The upward static resistance of 30,000 tons of vertical, cross-braced steel in the core alone is considerable, and then you have the perimeter columns.


You are not reading or understanding what I wrote. The overall load did not change, the building mass did not change. It was just rearranged at the top so instead of those 30,000 tons of mass being supported as designed by columns... the 30,000 tons was imposed as a live dynamic load on the upper most floor of the undamaged lower section. And though the 96th floor columns could carry that load and then some, the 96th FLOOR slab could not and so the FLOOR slab collapsed and was fracture to bits.

If you place 30,000 tons on ANY office tower floor it will collapse. That is the imposed load I referred to.
onesliceshort
SanderO, is it your presumption that the "30000 tons" of the upper floors was a constant in your calculations?

I'm no engineer but if, as you seem to be saying, the disintegration (I like that description too TM) of the lower floors was caused by the upper floors, surely the latter would have been pulverized too particularly at the rate of descent? Where did this constant downward force come from?

The South Tower was actually "leaning" and was not, from what I can see, a "block" of weight by the time the first few floors had collapsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk...feature=related

Surely the rate of descent would have been affected by the uneven displacement of weight on each of the lower floors?

Pulverization had dispersed the debris away from the structure too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC0ZBSDBZCY...nel_video_title

Sorry man, doesn't add up.
SanderO
The destructive mass which came from the 14 floors in tower 1 was not instantly and completely pulverized... nor did it fall or was it toss over the side. The destruction of the upper floors which I call phase I is similar to that one would expect in a typical CD for example in a 14 story building if the column at its base were destroyed the the 14 stories dropped. One wouldn't expect those 14 stories to be pulverized to dust as they descend or the be largely thrust outside the foot print. Most of the 14 floors would be at this stage fairly large chunks of the buildings' floors, various beams and contents.. raining down on the lowest floor. Of course this would as it does in a CD have debris spread from the base... which in the case of tower 1 pushed some of it over the side and outside the footprint.. and the facade was likely forced away from the tower.

The 30,000 tons is a gross calculation of the weight of the top 14 floors including... the concrete and steel of the composite floors, the steel of the hat truss and mechanical floors, the heavy equipment and storage tanks, electrical sub station, motors and so forth on those floors, restaurant equipment, the antenna and transmitter equipment. Whatever destroyed those 14 floors including 2 mech floors, a transmitter equipment floor, 2 restaurant floors and 10 tenant floors did not pulverize the above into dust suspended in air or drifting outside the footprint. The vast majority of that mass became a destructive imposed 30,000 ton load... in about 4 seconds (the interval of tower 1 phase I) which hammered the 95th floor destroying it and this mass continued to grow, crush itself on the way down as it destroyed each floor in about 10-14 seconds. The constant downward force was gravity which was acting on that mass all the time. But before the top was destroyed the gravity force was resisted because the floors were connected to the columns and the columns resisted /supported the floors and their contents. Once the floors were no longer supported by the columns gravity then pulled this mass earthward as it would anything with nothing to counter act it under them. If you placed an ocean liner ON a suspension bridge gravity would pull the ocean liner downward and destroy the bridge span because it was not strong enough to resist the mass of the ocean liner.

Perhaps the most difficult concept to grasp is how this floor collapse was able to crush everything friable to such fine grain debris. One needs to consider that the grinding took place over 14 seconds or so overall... the total interval of collapse. It also involved as much as 450,000 tons of material - the contents and materials of the building itself. The forces of this mass as a falling load (dynamic) from heights as much as 1350 feet reached as much as 100,00 psi at the end and 50,000 psi at floor 50. And that will crush most anything friable to small grained size material. The mass did not turn to air which was carried aloft and floated away. That would be a neat trick to turn a 500,000 ton structure into s cloud of dust carried by the air... which no one actually was able to see. Have you observed the last moment of the collapse? Was there a tower of dust left suspended in the air above the foot print? Or was there a billowing cloud of dust propagating from the base where the collapsed debris fell? it FELL so it had energy - gravitational energy and in total it was sufficient to destroy each and every floor in about .1 seconds per floor.

Yes some crushing and pulverization did cause the growing falling debris mass to push laterally. This forced the facade panels away and some of the debris DID fall outside the footprint. But MOST of it and obviously a sufficient mass remained within the facade and footprint and was able to destroy each and every floor. The facade acted like a chute containing the avalanche of falling debris... but it was not strong enough to hold it in.. like pouring sand into a cardboard carton... the walls bulge and will break depending on their thickness and the mass of the sand poured in... and SOME of the sand will migrate outside the footprint of the carton... leaving a cone shaped debris pile.
onesliceshort
And the South Tower?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Look how quickly the floors below collapsed.

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

2)The floors immediately below started blowing out before the block of upper floors had gained momentum.

3) If the collapse were gravity induced, the majority of weight was to one side of the building.

4) If the collapse were gravity induced surely it would have been uneven and chaotic.

5) The block of upper floors including the inner core seem to have completely disintegrated well before the halfway point.

At 05:15mins particularly you can see the outer steel structure being pushed through the cloud of dust.
There is an obvious tilt.

How could the inner concrete within that block of floors have a downward force enough to collapse the building as you describe?

How could the opposite face of that block have almost the same destructive force and rate of descent?

Do you see what I'm trying to understand?
SanderO
1SS

Good questions/points raised. Let's try to examine them:

1) This tower initiated collapse away from the structure.

I am not sure what this statement is try to say. The observations of tower 2 show that at when phase II began the top 30 floors began to drop down and appear to tilt to the south and a bit east. This movement seems to align with the apparent desctruction of column support on the south and east side... the plane apparently crashed into the building. The apparent rotation was about a virtual hinge location which was in the NW corner of the core. But this virtual location was also DROPPING since it wasn't an ACTUAL structural hinge... but one described/derived by/from the motion of the top's movement.

Even with the tilt/rotation the center of mass never moved even outside the core of the footprint. Further the bottom part of the rotating top was move IN toward the core and this caused the lower floors and columns of rotating top to collide with the fixed floors at the top of the 80 story section below. The dropping and rotation caused a mutual destruction where they collided.

The collisions provided the initial driving mass which would destroy the remaining floors below those upper floors of the collision. The collisions also jilted the steel frame of the upper section and in short order the 30 stories went from a rigid structure to a dissociated one which then dropped mostly straight down inside / onto the top (footprint). Some of the material was already outside the foot print - the south and east corner of the upper floors of the rotating top - They continued over the side. But the vast amount of the remaining mass of those upper stories fractured apart and came pretty much straight down and delivered perhaps 50,000 tons of material onto the top floor (80) or what remained of it.

If you look closely you can see that the top section had a kink in it at the level of the more rigid hat truss which began at floor 107 indicating that the top's steel frame was breaking apart even at the earliest moments as it began to tilt. The shock/impact of the collisions broke it apart completely... though there are people who say that it was then exploded to dust before it could fall completely over the side. If you look at the geometry and the structure you can see it is impossible for these 30 stories to continue to fall over the side

2)The floors immediately below started blowing out before the block of upper floors had gained momentum.

The floors immediately below the tilting top were experiencing the debris from the floor collision. Consider each floor like a bellows and the material which came down on one floor HAD to force the air between that floor and the one it fell upon... (and not as a monolithic pancake, but as a dense (enough) mass of fracture building to displace the air. Each floor collapse took about .1 seconds and so all the air on each floor was moved out of the way in .1 seconds. The air was forced outward mostly, but it would seek the path of least resistance.. compressed air is like that. Some went down elevator shafts and risers in the core... but most blasted out the windows... much weaker than the steel columns and spandrels of the facade. Traveling distances of up to 60 feet from core to facade in .1 seconds means that the escaping compressed air driven by the collapse reached speeds of over 400 mph in that .1 seconds. That "wind" packs enormous destructive force and pressure.

"Air moving at 400 miles an hour exerts over 600 pounds per square inch of pressure (600psi). And that's enough to shatter the glass and carry and expel the contents. Anyone who has seen a tornado or a hurricane should know how powerful wind is at such speeds. Winds of 100 mph exert 27.5 psi. Basic physics explains the expulsions seen coming from the collapse front. Here is the destructive force of explosive overpressure from http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm:

GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE : 1-2 PSI
CINDER BLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE : 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE : 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99% FATALITIES: 99 PSI

One can see how destructive over pressure is and how this easily explains the observations.

Calculate the pressure of an explosion:

That initial pressure will decrement as the volume expands adiabatically from V0 to V; where V = 1/2 4/3 pi r^3 (The 1/2 accounts for a hemisphere.) So, the pressure upon expanding becomes P = nRT0/V; where T0 remains the same as this is an adiabatic expansion. (In a non-ideal case, aka reality, this would not be the case, but the P derived would serve as an upper bound with the expectation the real P would be somewhat less.)

Therefore P/P0 = nRT0/V//nRT0/V0 = V0/V and P = P0 (V0/V) = P0 (V0/[2/3 pi r^3]); where r = 10 meters. If you measure P0 at ground zero, say, r0 = 1 meter, you can write P = P0 (r0/r)^3 = P0 (1/r^3) when r0 = 1 meter where P0 was measured."


Bottom line, ideally, pressure decrements inversely with the cube of the distance from ground zero.

Explosive advocates can calculate the explosive force and location of the explosives based on the measured cloud and ejection speed. Be my guest.


3) If the collapse were gravity induced, the majority of weight was to one side of the building.


The majority of the weight of the Center of Mass hardly moved more than a few feet to the south when the top began to rotate. Do the math. What actually moved outside the foot print was the top corner which displaced was 27% of the volume of the top and 16% of the core. Remember that the volume was 96+% air by volume so that volume which was moved outside the foot print was mostly air! But YES there was steel, glass, concrete which did make it over the side. But 73% of the tilting top remained within the footprint and did not displace laterally significantly. As such when it fractured from the impact it deliver 73% of its mass on top of the lower section and this was sufficient to caused the runaway floor destruction of the lower 80 floors.

4) If the collapse were gravity induced surely it would have been uneven and chaotic.

It was chaotic and extremely energetic and the force was mostly straight down supplied by gravity. it was uneven as well as parts moved down faster than others by small fractions of a second... the same way stones fall over a time interval when a hopper is open at the bottom of a chute containing them.. bottom stone lead the way down... all come down with a similar path... not identical. When you have a phenomena which is made up of millions of smaller interactions you can see an average.. or some emerging trend on the macro level which is driven by events at the micro level. There is addition and subtraction or cancellation and we get to see a gross phenomena which is a collapse because the dominant force by far was gravity exerting a downward pull. See the discussion of lighter material forced laterally by escaping air ahead of the druch front.

5) The block of upper floors including the inner core seem to have completely disintegrated well before the halfway point.

I am not sure what -halfway point- refers to... halfway in time from some start point to some end point? Or halfway ijn the height of the top section... or the bottom section. Please clarify and I will attempt an explanation.
onesliceshort
Maybe an image can explain it better than I can SanderO.



Those shots were within a less than 4 second period.
The tilt was considerably more than a "few feet" and I can't see how the centre of gravity was "straight down" through the structure.

According to the images, the centre of gravity was completely over to one side. The entire block - steel, concrete, etc.

So how did this alleged massive downward force come down in equal measure?

I'm honestly trying to take in what you're saying btw. A lot of the jargon goes over my head but I've tried to envisage your thesis with the above observations and they don't "fit" IMHO.

Peace

OSS

ETA:



What is causing the massive expulsion on the opposite face of the tilt??
SanderO
It's not an explosion... it the pressurized air forced out from the collapsing floors carrying the lighter debris with it.

The tower tilting at 20% without the hinge moving laterally would have the top section's corner 113' outside the foot print. But the bottom of that tilting section is completely within the footprint and so at a point 15 stories up about 65 feet of the top is outside the footprint... and at that height 143 feet is within or over the foot print.

If you don't understand the geometry I can't explain it to you. The center of mass did NOT move outside the foot print. SOME of the mass did bit MOST of it didn't.

Unfortunately this forum makes it difficult to impossible to post my PDF graphics about the collapse... my research. If you would like to see it, PM me with an email address and I can send it to you.
amazed!
Yeah, it's not an explosion, and Hani Hanjour was a helluva pilot! laughing1.gif
SanderO
Here is a video of explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4WuFU6XV_o

does this resemble one of them?

Here's a small building collapse: observe the dust plume... observe the dust on surrounding area

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUodIOAmBk&feature=fvst
onesliceshort
QUOTE (SanderO @ May 22 2011, 07:46 PM) *
It's not an explosion... it the pressurized air forced out from the collapsing floors carrying the lighter debris with it.


You've misread my post. I said "expulsion".

At the same time you made the definitive statement about it being "pressurized air forced out".

Maybe I jumped the gun in a conversation I should never have entered in the first place regarding the physics of the collapses/disintegrations.

I found these images:







Although I stand by what I said about the disintegration of the upper floors.

We're in agreement about the initiation of collapse defying physics and was that it had to have been "aided".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg...player_embedded

But the lower floors too:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...squibWtc2_1.jpg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images..._ejectiong.jpeg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...ster/squibs.jpg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images.../MERnorth2.jpeg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-CYVnYbcjA

Pressurized air may explain some of the squibs but not those on the lower floors way below the collapse zones.

I found ths link very useful:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....osition=463:463

An alleged intact floor slab can be seen in this image:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...3/flooring.jpeg

Hi-res:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/WTCdemo...w_004SQ_RAW.jpg

Do you really believe that the perps carried out this operation relying on gravity alone? Does it not make more sense to make sure that the evidence - the structures themselves - and any possible survivors were obliterated?

My personal opinion is that the upper floors were weakened at the impact points (whether thermitic or hi explosive) as seen through the molten metal spilling out, the mechanical floors were rigged and that gravity did play a part but explosives were necessary.



QUOTE
Unfortunately this forum makes it difficult to impossible to post my PDF graphics about the collapse... my research. If you would like to see it, PM me with an email address and I can send it to you.


Why not upload it to the internet and link to it?

Peace

OSS
SanderO
Those who were tasked to destroy the towers were engineers who knew exactly what they were doing and exactly how to release the stored gravity PE and have the towers collapse... which of course would be blamed on fires from the planes... the faulty story NIST tried to peddle with the help of popular mechanics.

Once an engineer studies the structure and determines the threshold driving mass for a gravity driven collapse... which I believe to be as few as 4 or 5 floor masses... all one had to do is "destroy" 4 floors, or the axial support of the floors above the plane strikes. In fact it is conceivable that the engineered destructive material was delivered by the planes... and it wasn't the fires but the cargo they contained. Or perhaps there were charges pre placed which would simply "go off" from the fires the plane strikes would ignite. This made precision of the strike not critical. But the key here is that once the threshold mass was allowed to drop on an intact floor.. the game was over. They know this and HAD to know it. And it was so simple (and these towers so vulnerable) that perhaps NIST is covering this up. They avoid discussion of the collapse phase because it would reveal it was failure of the FLOORS and not the columns which brought them down. Recall how they had the saggin trusses pulling in the facade COLUMNS so that the top was unsupported... but they don't even explain the actual collapse... It WASN'T columns be crushed...and it wasn't columns being exploded out of the way as Gage claims... but the collapsing floors which unzipped the entire structure as I have described in numerous posts.

More complexity would not be used because it could expose the plot. I believe it's possible to load the required explosives in THIS building in a few evenings of work by a small crew of 5 or six loaders. That's a guess, but I sense it was not that extensive.
SanderO
OSS,

I've seen all those vids and images and the last images are archived on a fellow member at the 911 Free Forums personal web site.

Many people are perplexed by the material ejected well below of the crush front. These ejections are hard to explain for sure and more so for the explosive controlled demolition scenario. Why THOSE floors? Why THOSE locations? Why so FEW squibs to take down such a massive structure?

My guess explanation is as follows:

When the top section broke apart and began to drop and pushed the air from each floor which "exploded" out through the windows at each floor some of the air also was forced DOWN into the elevator shafts and HVAC risers. The shafts offered a low pressure release path for the pressurized air. The collapse front was like a piston pushing the air out of its way.

The pressurized air went down the elevator shafts and likely could not penetrate the elevator pits. At that point it blew out the elevator doors.... through the elevator lobbies on outward directed by the core corridors which were on the long core axis dead center... and the short axis between row 600 and 700.. slightly off center. Note the location of these ejections... centered on the long axis of the core and slightly off center on the short axis.

The counter argument is that the STRONGEST columns to destroy were the ones at the corners of the core... 501, 508. 1001, and 1008 and these ejections do not correspond to their plan positions. If the ejections were the signs of explosions undermining the structure... their location needs to correlate TO the structure... and those locations do not as far as I can determine. And no one has offered to explain what they were actually exploding... or why.

All of those vids look like collapses to me, not explosions. But I haven't seen any buildings being exploded sequentially... have you? Of course I can CONCEIVE of exploding them sequentially... but that is not what I observe.

I upload some of my work to the 911 Free Forums occassionally. I am not interested in publishing on 911. I am engaged in a personal quest to understand what happened and to share my findings informally with others... such as in this forum. Further I have only discovered the structure which is nothing worthy of publication. That and the engineering is public record and "settled science".
onesliceshort
Don't forget the multiple witnessed and audible explosions precollapse.
We can go round in circles all day with this (as everybody has for 10 years) but what it boils down to for me is the risk involved in solely relying on geometry and physics to carry out with 100% success, the demolition of these two structures.

How was WTC7 brought down given that there was no downward force? We didn't see any squibs (AFAIK) but we know it had to be a controlled demolition, no?

I'm not trying to bust your balls SanderO. Just trying to think this through logically.
Tamborine man
SanderO,
hope that you're not getting your ideas from this bloke Ryan Mackey!!

We see an enormous amount of dust and debris of all sorts, including very large wall sections,
being ejected out in all directions. In the main around 200 feet away from the perimeter of the
towers, while some wall sections are being ejected even further away than that.
We see the block of floors above the alleged impact holes also disintegrate into dust and debries.

All this dust and debris must by natural necessity consist of a certain amount of 'weight'.

The totality of this calculated weight, even if only approximate, should then be subtracted from
the calculated weight that subsequently and proportionally would continue to exert downward
pressure on the underlying floors.

I find it therefore exceedingly puzzling that you as an 'engineer' (iirc) never in all your writings
have included these calculations as basis for your hypothesis and musings.

Is it therefore not about time you take this into consideration?





PS!
Please skip the first part of this video with Mackey, and go to the second part.
onesliceshort
QUOTE ™
PS!
Please skip the first part of this video with Mackey, and go to the second part.


Lol, thank God you wrote that in TM!

The second "engineer"...wow.

I found this video (probably old news, I'm so out of touch with the Towers now, I'm embarrassed..)


http://youtu.be/1iT7mmmc-YY

Look how quick the face of the structure is being ripped. It's keeping up with the falling debris.
What could cut through this face like a hot knife through butter?
SanderO
Tamborine,

Yes material did go outside the footprint... but this was the result of the gravity driven collapse. The facade panels were not exploded off the towers, but fell away... pushed by the rubble from the collapsed floor debris.

Think of the motion of water from a spout or a hose aimed at the earth. The water is disbersed away... outward from were it strikes the ground. It is directed outward as a result of the collision dynamics when it strikes the ground and the water raining down. Something similar happened with the rain of debris coming down on each floor.

And think of the lateral force that gravel would exert on a thin walled cardboard container. At the container fills the sides bulge outward. If the sides are breached material .. some of it will pour out of the container... but the work it does pushing DOWN is not lost.

And further, the threshold mass to crush a single floor is probably only about 4 floor masses worth of falling debris. The destructive amount kept growing as it worked its way down EVEN as material spilled over the side.

This collapse was very energetic and involved tens of thousands of tons of rubble plunging through the towers colliding with one floor after the next. It was very violent and energetic. Imagine tens of thousands of tons of falling debris on ANY office floor. it pretty much will turn it to pretty fine dust and after a few seconds.
DoYouEverWonder
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 22 2011, 08:22 AM) *
Maybe an image can explain it better than I can SanderO.



ETA:



What is causing the massive expulsion on the opposite face of the tilt??



Image of WTC 2 at the start of the collapse from the SE side of the building.



It is clear that the entire east perimeter wall peeled away from the building in one piece.

You can also see the top floor of the mechanical section getting blown out all, the was across the east face, at the same time. This had nothing to do with fire and everything to do with timed explosives. However, since most of the explosives were concentrated in the cores and elevator shafts, all the debris getting blown out in the process would have muffled the sound and covered up the fire balls.

You wouldn't need a lot of explosives for any of the floors above if you destroyed the mechanical floors for each section. Kill the hat trusses at the top. Fill the elevator shafts with a fuel/air combo and these buildings had no where else to go but down. If you pushed from inside out with enough force, the buildings would peel like bananas.
Tamborine man
QUOTE (SanderO @ May 21 2011, 06:21 PM) *
Tamborine,

Yes material did go outside the footprint... but this was the result of the gravity driven collapse. The facade panels were not exploded off the towers, but fell away... pushed by the rubble from the collapsed floor debris.

Think of the motion of water from a spout or a hose aimed at the earth. The water is disbersed away... outward from were it strikes the ground. It is directed outward as a result of the collision dynamics when it strikes the ground and the water raining down. Something similar happened with the rain of debris coming down on each floor.

And think of the lateral force that gravel would exert on a thin walled cardboard container. At the container fills the sides bulge outward. If the sides are breached material .. some of it will pour out of the container... but the work it does pushing DOWN is not lost.

And further, the threshold mass to crush a single floor is probably only about 4 floor masses worth of falling debris. The destructive amount kept growing as it worked its way down EVEN as material spilled over the side.

This collapse was very energetic and involved tens of thousands of tons of rubble plunging through the towers colliding with one floor after the next. It was very violent and energetic. Imagine tens of thousands of tons of falling debris on ANY office floor. it pretty much will turn it to pretty fine dust and after a few seconds.



SanderO,

you mightn't know this, but if you buy a 20kg bag of cement, this bag would put

a 20kg downward pressure on something. You would sort of know this when you

carry the 20kg bag of cement on your shoulder from the hardware shop to your

car.

If you then slit the bag open and let the cement disperse in all directions, to the

whim of the four winds, the cement would still weigh nearly 20kg's, but if you

should now place yourself in the middle of all this dispersed cement, you'll find

that the cement landing on you would weigh next to nothing.


The same would apply if you now travel to Island and place yourself in the middle

of the big ash cloud up there. Again you'll find that the ash would weigh virtually

nothing on your shoulders, but after all the ash has descended to the ground and

you gather it all together and put it into bags, you'll discover that the total sum

of all the weight of the bags would again amount to a considerable weight of

downward pressure; that is, if you could be bothered to carry them all on your

shoulders.

Hope this will help you to understand what it is i'm really trying to tell you.

Otherwise, you could take a look at the photo's DYEW shows us!

Cheers




onesliceshort
Delete double post. (Sorry guys)
onesliceshort
I don't think air pressure is responsible for the downward "rip" we see in this video.



It's travelling almost as fast as the debris and is centralized.

ETA: That was an excellent description TM (and DYEW). Cheers.
paranoia
MOD NOTE: i was trying to erase oss's double post and accidentally erased SanderO's post instead - im unsure of how to move it back to this thread (fellow mods plz help if u can), but for now here is the body of sanderO's (erased) post:

QUOTE
Tamborine,

You are correct in the downward force of a disbursed mass of fine grained material would not exert the same loads as were it concentrated.

But we need to understand when and how the dust was created and where and how it was disbursed.

The dust was created by the destruction of friable materials... concrete, gypsum board, glass, ceiling tiles, carpet and so forth. If this huge mass of material were turned to dust by explosion... it would have to represent hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of explosives placed throughout the entire building which went off... without noticeable or identifiable explosive sounds. The explosions would also have to leave behind material which collapsed down creating a thunderous roar as it collided with the bits and pieces which made up the remaining unexploded mass. How do you explain the roar during the collapse.... explosions or that of a collapse building weighing several hundred thousand tons?

When the towers came down the collapse did produce a dust cloud... before it hit the ground the dust cloud propagated and billowed up and outward was about 200 feet at most from the towers. And this cloud not only contained fine dust, but heavier than air material forced out by the enormous air pressure created at the collapse front. Each floor destruction by the crush front of falling debris produced a blast of air moving at 300-400mph. The volume of air on each floor was about 18,000 cubic yards and it was forced out of the 236 windows which were 20" wide x about 7'- 8" high. That's an awful lot of air to move through those broken window openings in .1 seconds. It wasn't a steady wind of course. It was very similar to an explosion... or a single squeeze of a huge bellows... one blast of high speed air... a blast which destroyed and carried with it virtually everything on the floor.

I am not an engineer who can provide the analysis and equations for the behavior of interacting gases... the pressurized air shooting out of the window openings and the relatively still air surrounding them. But I suspect that the pressurized air pulse would have its energy absorbed by the still air... and lots of it was absorbed by breaking the glass to begin with... such that it would "lose steam" and not travel more than the few hundred feet of the debris and dust cloud.

What we DO see is the heavier than air ejected material which HAD reached up to the distance limit the pressurized air could carry it descending down at free fall acceleration less wind resistance. The lighter material remained suspended a bit longer... the 60+ mph collapse had long passed it... and a negative pressure created behind the falling debris of the crush front pulled most of the lighter material inward.... sorting "cleaning" the air above the collapse.

And then the final bit was the dispersal of the dust when the collapse material had hit terra firma and billowed up and out from the base. Take your bag of cement and pour it out from the 3rd story and see how the dust cloud created disperses.

So the driving energy was not the dispersed dust... but the compacted fractured floors and contents... this CREATED the dust by the millions of energetic collisions. There could be particles of all size in that compacted grinding descending pile of rubble... and it likely made the avalanche have the properties of a fluid.... like the energy of a massive water fall for example.

The collapse dynamic is not something we've seen before. But it can be explained by physics, fluid dynamics, and of course understanding the materials and the structure which collapsed. That it happened twice and appears to be the first two times of such collapse occurred does not mean that it wasn't a collapse and that it HAD to have had explosive assistance. Everything has a first time!

When one looks closely at the event and the science it can be explained.

But we don't know how it all started and we do know that NIST's explanation is incorrect.
9/11 Justice Now
Sander O maybe you can help answer this question wtc 7 had 28 sheers studs on the critical floor beam attached to
column no 79 so how is the floor beam seated on column no 79 supposed to expand laterally and walk of it's seating
breaking the bolts that attach the floor beam to column 79? Wouldnt the sheer studs restrain the floor beam from being able
to move laterally in any direction like NIST said it did? I guess this is why they had to lie about the sheers studs could i
be right?
SanderO
The shear stud "explanation" attempts to use the composite action of the concrete membrane as it were linked by the shear studs to move the girder under it off the beam seat. I think this is a bogus argument, though I have not studied it carefully.

We have to falsify rubbish science and then stand up sound science. it's more likely that the girders were "dropped" because the seats failed... mmmmmmmmmmm and how did that happen? The pushing argument is really pushing it.

I'll drill into that when I am done with the twin towers.

However the key, I believe is that we DID see progressive failures with some engineered initiations. To me this makes the destruction of the towers not as complex and relies on the idea that failures progress slowly as columns are uploaded with redistribution or loads as some columns are "failed". When the load redistribution exceeds the yield strength there is an extremely rapid phase of over stressing and progressive column failure and the collapse is on!
9/11 Justice Now
QUOTE (SanderO @ May 27 2011, 10:23 PM) *
The shear stud "explanation" attempts to use the composite action of the concrete membrane as it were linked by the shear studs to move the girder under it off the beam seat. I think this is a bogus argument, though I have not studied it carefully.

We have to falsify rubbish science and then stand up sound science. it's more likely that the girders were "dropped" because the seats failed... mmmmmmmmmmm and how did that happen? The pushing argument is really pushing it.

I'll drill into that when I am done with the twin towers.

However the key, I believe is that we DID see progressive failures with some engineered initiations. To me this makes the destruction of the towers not as complex and relies on the idea that failures progress slowly as columns are uploaded with redistribution or loads as some columns are "failed". When the load redistribution exceeds the yield strength there is an extremely rapid phase of over stressing and progressive column failure and the collapse is on!


And i think with wtc 7 they imploded the penthouse first for a very good and simple reason which makes a lot of sense when you watch the
video's of the collapse of wtc 7 the east penthouse implodes like 10 seconds before the building itself begins to fall. This was done for a very
simple reason it was to prevent the building from suddenly tipping over and falling sideways once the columns where weakened and they
where ready to implode the building, so the penthouse was imploded first since it was a mechanical penthouse as i have heard i can only
guess it may have housed some large and heavy generators maybe they had back up generators for the building ontop of it inside the mechanical
penthouse i dont know exactly what was housed in their but i assume the penthouse was home to some very heavy mechanical equipment
theirfore the perps had to implode the mechanical penthouse and bring it down safely into the centre of the building before the rest of the building
was imploded to prevent the weight of the mechanical penthouse on the top causing the building to tip over to one side on it's way down
rather than having the building fall straight down virtually into it's own footprint, in any building when you deliberatly implode it the last thing
you want it to have the building tipping over falling over onto it's side so you would move any structure part of the building that may cause the
building to tip over first so that's exactly what the perps did they imploded the east side of the penthouse first by removing blowing column no 79
first causing the east side of the penthouse to implode.

Idiots who defend the OCT can argue that column no 79 just simply buckled and this casued the east penthouse to implode but no this
is simply not the case as this video proves.

NIST Lies EXPOSED: WTC-7 FOIA Footage Captures Blast Sound Seconds BEFORE "Collapse"

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

What you hear in this video is two distinct explosion, two cutting charge i believe placed on column no 79
one placed higher on the column and one placed lower somewhere on the column at what floor where the
charges placed along column no 79 i dont know i have no idea that it what is not important it's the evidence the
video shows us what's really going on.

People can argue that the blast sound isnt loud enough, that it isnt as loud as sounds when compared to video's
of know controlled demolitions, people can say oh look you dont see a bright flash at the time of the explosion
as with video's of normal controlled demolitions.

People can use bulls**t strawman arguments but i am not interested in bs conversations, i am not interested
in using simple tactics to side step the truth and advoid looking at the bigger picture, i am not interested in making
up excuses for the governments absurd theory that fire bought this building down, i am not interested in defending
guilty people such as NIST who did no actual physical real testing to confirm their column walk of theory who ignored
the physical evidence, who instead used computer models video's and pictures to conduct their investigation this
is not what you do in a real investiagtion you do not ignore the most important evidence the physical evidence
and you do not take side step measures in a real investiagtion by not doing actual physical testing to confirm your
findings.

Even police when they conduct a real investigation they use actual real world physical tests to confirm their findings,
the investigators detectives in charge of an investigation in any criminal matter collect and carefully document the evidence.

Let me ask you and anybody else who may be reading this, do the police simply ignore and throw away half of the physical
evidence when they conduct a murder investigation? No they do not, if they did this in a real police investigation there would be
outrage the police any the investigators would probably be fired and charged with incopitence staright away.

We'll folks this is exactly what NIST has done and got away with it, what an absolutle outrage it is, i dont understand
why their are not more people coming forward and demanding that we have real and proper investigation of all people
structural engineers fire fighters should be coming forward and saying their is something very wrong here NIST did not
conduct a real and proper investigation they did not do the things they should have done.

The real truth is they needed to use computer models they needed to manipulate the results and only by using computer
models could they get the results and acomplish what they needed to do, they needed to ignore the physical evidence
because it would show what really happened to the building, it would prove what really happened to the building and what
was done to it this is why they needed to destroy the physical evidence to get ride of it and hide the real truth about what really
happened to wtc building 7.

Now concerning the video above you cant find a resonable explantion to explain away the explosion sounds you cant deny
the video proves a controlled demolition because that is what it proves, what is observed in the video actually fits the CD model
because first you heard the explosions followed by the buildings collapse which is what happens in a real building implosion
first the charges are detonated then the building begins to fall once the supporting columns are cut and removed and the video
shows us part of that happening.

But what most poeple dont realise is that first responder Kevin Pv Padden heard those two explosions, he heard the charges
that went off that destroyed column no 79 and caused the east penthouse to implode followed by the buildings complete
and utter total demolition to the ground, he heard the count down which i dont think he was supposed to hear, what Kevin Pc
Padden says he heard very closely matches the explosion sound in this video and that is the most important part it is called
corroborating evidence.

here is a link to the video listen tohis testimony where he described the explosion and how it closely matches the explosion heard
in the video i posted above.

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho
SanderO
There's very little chance that a building of that size would tip over. That could only happen if the columns on one side ONLY were destroyed at the bottom... like chopping a large tree.

Regardless of how the collapse was started... and some explosions and or incendiaries are good possibilities... the sequence seemed to be that the core was destroyed from wast to west... and the east penthouse then dropped straight through the building. This might have been the cause of the destruction of the west side of the core. Seems to me that the "attach was on or about the eighth floor (elevation +104') The building then has a hollowed core with the floors "drooping" or left hanging on (to) the perimeter columns just inside the curtain wall. The floors likely then yanked the perimeter columns inward where the hollow core was. This pulled in the middle of the curtain wall un the upper floors as the curtain wall came down. What we saw collapsing was a pretty much hollowed out building of just the curtain wall and some of the roof. I think the curtain wall slipped past "itself" on the 8th floor... and there was little to no resistance and hence the free fall until the facade dropped the 8 floors and hit the street, met resistance... slowed down and crushed itself. That's my guess... Building 7 attacked on floor 8.
9/11 Justice Now
QUOTE (SanderO @ May 28 2011, 12:59 PM) *
There's very little chance that a building of that size would tip over. That could only happen if the columns on one side ONLY were destroyed at the bottom... like chopping a large tree.

Regardless of how the collapse was started... and some explosions and or incendiaries are good possibilities... the sequence seemed to be that the core was destroyed from wast to west... and the east penthouse then dropped straight through the building. This might have been the cause of the destruction of the west side of the core. Seems to me that the "attach was on or about the eighth floor (elevation +104') The building then has a hollowed core with the floors "drooping" or left hanging on (to) the perimeter columns just inside the curtain wall. The floors likely then yanked the perimeter columns inward where the hollow core was. This pulled in the middle of the curtain wall un the upper floors as the curtain wall came down. What we saw collapsing was a pretty much hollowed out building of just the curtain wall and some of the roof. I think the curtain wall slipped past "itself" on the 8th floor... and there was little to no resistance and hence the free fall until the facade dropped the 8 floors and hit the street, met resistance... slowed down and crushed itself. That's my guess... Building 7 attacked on floor 8.


Dear sander O i got this idea that they imploded the mechanical penthouse ontop of wtc 7 to prevent the building from tipping over
from mechanical engineer Tony Tzamboti he made a breif mention of this somewhere between 1/2 or 1/3 of the way through i cant exactly
rememeber where he mentions it.

Structural Aspects of Building 7's Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A

See his new talk here he absolutely tears NIST and the OCT a new asshole i have got most of my idea's from him including the idea
that i have mentioned above, i got the idea that NIST column walk off theory regarding column no 79 came from a certified mechanical
engineer with 20 years experience Tony Tzamboti who we all know who he is anyways thats funny that he mentions that NIST could only
get three inches of thermal expansion in their models when they where testing their column walk off theory they only had room temperatures
of 400 to 600c but Tony says they needed 6 inches of thermal expansion in order for that column to walk off it's seat and do what NIST said
it did he also mentions that there is no way NIST could realistically get their 6 inches of thermal expansion needed to fail the floor beam
attached to column no 79 and get it to walk off it's seat leaving column no 79 unsupported for a hight of 8 floors through a localised
collapse.

Ask yourself why did NIST never conduct any real world physical tests to try and confirm their theory that column no 79 simply walked of it's seat
NIST never conducted any of these test which you would do in a real investigation, NIST never did any of these tests to confirm their findings,
NIST did not look at the physical evidence which is what they should have done if they where really trying to conduct an honest investigation
into the collapse of wtc building 7, but they didnt follow any standard investiagtion protocols and for the two reasons i have stated above i can
only conclude that the NIST investigation into wtc 7 was unscientific and false and did not follow stand very basic and simple investigation procedures
and i can only say that NIST ignored the physical evidence and did not do any real world physical testing and relied upon using computer models
to manipulate and produce unsupported results and conclusions.
mrmitosis
SanderO -

I'm not sure if you'll read this post, or even notice it, but I have a few questions I would like to ask you.

The gravity driven collapse phase hypothesis raises a number of issues and implications for me which I find difficult to reconcile. I wonder if I can summarise a few of the relevant "facts" about the twin towers and their destruction as I understand them, and you can respond if you have time and/or are inclined. I put quotation marks around the word "facts" because I stand correctable on any and all of them.

I gather that you have divided the tower collapses into discrete temporal phases to reflect your belief that these events occured sequentially and not simultaneously. In other words, phase I precedes phase II, which is followed by phase IIa and so forth. A simple point, perhaps, but I think it's worth clarifying.

You seem satisfied, for the time being, to accept that only the perpetrators themselves are able to offer any proper explanation for what initiated the collapse of either of the twin towers. I respect your right not to speculate on this so let's leave that question to one side.

What confuses me most is the curious state in which (part of) the structural steel was left, during and post-collapse. I realise that it's difficult to comment on this very precisely, simply because most of that evidence was removed and never made available for investigation. However, it seems clear to me that at least a proportion of the steel was sliced and diced into rather short, even chunks. I base this conclusion on the zoomed and close-up footage of the collapse as it happened and also the photographs I've seen of the debris pile.

I understand that I have over-simplified the situation, but is this a fair assessment to make, as far as it goes? Do you have any comment on the extent to which the impacts from falling debris from above could have caused the the LOWER floors to "buckle" in this fashion, or do you believe they were left in chunks which were appreciably larger? I've seen the remains of the core columns left standing in the wake of the collapse, some of which appear to snap at the bottom as the dust settles. But again, how does this happen without some other localised, focussed destructive mechanism?

It seems to me that vertical columns (with a relatively small top-surface area) which are dissected into neat, largely uniform segments is not consistent with the idea that they were weakened and buckled by virtue of a kinetic force being applied from above. I'm in no position to quantify the energy supplied by 30,000 tonnes of falling steel and concrete, but I appreciate that it must have been very large. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem intuitive that this alone could result in such a rapid destruction of the lower floors, and specifically the structural steel. To me the only way I can imagine the facade columns, let alone the core columns, being broken up into so many thousands of little pieces so quickly is for them to have been attacked from the SIDE, and not just from above.

For example, if I were to conduct an experiment on a much smaller scale, even (for example) deliberately arranging a collection of very weak components such as vertical toothpicks, then smashed down on them (again, as an extreme example) using a very big, heavy rock, I wouldn't expect them all to snap in multiple places. Two or three different failure points for each standing toothpick (and then crushed, certainly) - but no more than that. Surely?

As a layman in physics, architecture, engineering, and every other discipline, I hope you'll forgive the technical shortcomings in my post. But I wonder if you'd be able to shed some light on the situation for me because I think your analysis is interesting.

Thanks!

mr m.
DoYouEverWonder
mrmitosis

The WTC Towers were bolted together, not welded. That's why most of the steel broke apart so nice and neatly, once the collapses were initiated. Image what would happen to the curtain walls after years of swaying in the wind and being exposed to salt air if they were only bolted together instead of welded?

The Citicorp Building was constructed the same way and over time the building became so dangerous, they almost had to shut it down. In this case, they decided to mitigate the problem, instead of trying to take the building down.

THE FIFTY-NINE-STORY CRISIS / The Citicorp Building and the Twin Towers
SanderO
Mr M,

I have produced many "slides" explaining my findings and research. I can send them to you if you provide an email address in a PM. But I will try to answer your questions with a narrative.

DYEW makes one valid point about the columns connections one to another. Certainly the very thick walled box columns of the core had rather weak connections which were only holding them "in place" until the bracing - wide flange beams were attached and turned the core into a 3D lattice. The bracing for the 36 foot tall core columns was at 9' from the bottom, 21' feet and 33'. Perhaps you have seen some construction photo from up top where the top of the core columns seems to project about 3' above the floor level... that the upper location of the bracing.

The collapse of the core involved 2 forces. The floor collapse destroyed the bracing... it was ripped off as it was attacked by the enormous dynamic loads of falling debris... steel columns and beams and to a lesser extent chunks of concrete. Unbraced columns are very unstable. And very tall ones actually can buckle from their own weight. In the case of the twins' core the unbraced length grew and so the stacked columns... 36' segments was left with only those "'weak" splices used to "temporarily" keep them aligned until the WF bracing was installed. So when they buckled those joint broke very easily. CC501 survived to flr 78 and weighed 1,037 tons and had 26 - 36' segments. The lowest 36' segment weighed 54 tons! You don't think some 1/2" splice plates welded to the side could resist that tipping over? So when CC501 did buckled its segments popped out below mid height from what's called "Euler Buckling" and the top half dropped like an icicle weighing 400 tons! When it hit the ground its segments also failed and you find core column pick up sticks! Of course some of the welds holding the thick plates together failed as they were not full penetration welds. It's impossible to do 3" wide pull penetration welds so the connections were rather weak... but there was little to no lateral forces on the columns expected.

Virtually NONE of the columns failed from AXIAL loads...except at the initiation Phase I. All columns failed from either Euler buckling or from lateral forces created by the growing rapidly falling rubble from the floor destruction. That mass was pushing out on the wall of a square donut shaped container like one would expect if on poured gravel into a carton which had a smaller carton inside of it. The center carton would see its wall collapse press/deform inward and the out carton would see it walls collapse/press or deform outward.

It was the collapsing rubble with pushed the facade off the tower (they too lost their lateral bracing from the floors)... and contributed to the core bracing destuction and provided the lateral force to jostle and topple the unbraced core columns.

The floor collapse likely involved the mass of 3 to 6 floors as the "driver". Since all the tenant floors were identical, it wouldn't matter where this mass was "introduced"... all floors below would collapse. In the case of the twins it was above floor 96 and floor 80. But this collapse (let's forget about phase I for now) would leave the facade unbraced and the core (partially) below the collapse. Unbraced columns ARE weaker than the same one braced and so if the collapse destroyed enough bracing to sufficiently "weaken" the columns... they would buckle and the top would come down.

In the twins the "idea" was to have it "appear" that the collapse was caused by the planes and then the fires so the engineered intervention in Phase I was above the plane damage zone... with the plane and the fires providing cover for the real cause (speculation).

Your toothpick thought experiment raises some interesting points. First in the twins there was NOTHING analogous to the heavy rock smashing down on them. What caused them to fail was internal instability because unbraced they are too tall and thin to stand.

Steel columns can only be 150x the height of their shortest dimension. If longer they buckle from their own weight.. sort of how a leg buckles at the knee... the joint between the thigh and the shin bones. If there is some lateral force applied the relatively weak joints between column segments will lever them "open" and their integrity will be lost and they will drop like pick up sticks.

However this breaking into segments is related to the lateral forces. Note that some of the spire core columns tipped over as one tall assembly but broke apart on impact with the ground. Several bucked from self bucking under their own weight once the bracing was stripped off.
talayo
It is becoming rather frustrating to read some of the explanations about what happened in the WTC.

Sanderso seems to have taken upon himself to continuously argued that besides the initial collapse of the buildings, the rest is totally normal and can be explained by the "forces of gravity". He will concede that the initial collapse was likely caused by some type of explosives but that there is nothing unusual about the rest.

He provides lengthy technical explanations for his point. These explanations consistently ignore many of the unusual circumstances that even a superficial observation of videos indicate that the patterns are difficult to comprehend being caused by natural forces, or known demolition explosives.

sanderso is probably very knowledgeable about the architecture and engineering of buildings, but unless he can provide additional sources of expertise, I doubt he knows or has any practical expertise on explosives, behavior of buildings when they collapse or turn into micron size dust in front of our eyes. Normally it is not taught in schools and general work on those fields does not provide much of an opportunity to gain experience

It appears he has taken upon himself to convince people that nothing unusual happened that day. A few explosive charges at a high level of the buildings and the rest is normal gravitational forces. So let's stop any speculation about what happened and be satisfied with a sophomoric explanation that does not address many of the testimony of first responders or our own eyes.

This should be my last incursion into this territory because we all seem to have become frozen in our positions. Of course, I think that I have good reasons (as every body else does) to keep my position. What are the reasons? Well, with all the prolific writing that sanderso has done, it has not addressed any of my observations of unusual events. The explanations are all based on the poor nature of the architectural choices that the architects did that with only a modicum of explosives led to the total collapse, and that is that.

1) Many experts do no agree with the no strength argument. Videos of the construction do not seem to support that idea. However, let us grant that point to sanderso.

2) If the perpetrators intended to destroy the buildings, is it logic to assume that their knowledge of the structure of the buildings was so deep? You have to be very sure of your knowledge to determine that a few charges at the top will cause a complete disintegration of the buildings. This is not knowledge; this is arrogance if your objective was to cause what actually happened. I do not believe that experts, who indulge in such criminal acts, where you have only one chance, will act that way. More over, if the buildings would not have been totally destroyed, but only partially there may have been evidence left behind pointing to a crime (besides the planes hitting the buildings).

3) Any calculation, with very conservative assumptions, gives you a minimum rubble pile of a height of 10 floors or more. The pile did not exceed 4 to 5 floors in height. Attempts have been made to explain that away by claiming that most of the rubble was below level at the underground levels. Videos and photographic evidence show that claim to be totally wrong. I hope that the nonsense of below the ground claims is not resurrected by any one again. THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DEBRIS AT THE UNDERGROUND LEVELS, PERIOD. Where did the buildings go?

4) As the buildings started to collapse, large clouds of dust were evident. During the early part of the collapse, where did de kinetic energy come from to “dustify” concrete to the micron level? If it came from explosives, then there must have been a massive amount of explosives to cause such a pulverization. This is contrary to sanderso explanation of a limited number of explosive changes. Moreover, traditional explosives will turn concrete into powder nearby to the location of the explosives; further areas will break into distinguishable (even if small) blocks of concrete. That did not happen; otherwise there would have been many of these blocks in the ground. I have not seen any video or photograph supporting that view. DUST, DUST, AND MORE DUST!

5) We seem to attribute to "gravity" an incredible level of force. It brought the buildings down, at a very high rate of descend and provided sufficient kinetic force to pulverize all the concrete from the impact of the collapsing floors from above. There are two problems, in my view. First, we are attributing to gravity enough pull to pulverize and to continue the collapse at almost free fall speed. That is remarkable. But that is not all. As the concrete and some of the contents were pulverize, clearly, that will reduce significantly the weight of the collapsing floors. That did not seem to influence any thing.This is another of "I do not understand, please explain" that I have not read a satisfactory explanation.

6) There was the equivalent of about an 8-line highway of at least 3 kilometers length of glass in each building. There should have been glass everywhere. Where was it? If some large steel pieces ended up away from the buildings so should have happened with glass. Please find me some videos or photographs because I have not been able to find any.

7) Now, let us turn to the filing cabinets, personal computers, metal ducts, the enormous cooling and transformers present in the mechanical floors (3 sections were dedicated to that function.) Also the corporate computer centers located in these buildings. As a remainder, both planes hit the floors were computer facilities were located. This type of computing centers have uninterrupted power supply facilities. That requires large, very heavy batteries that are not easily destroyed.

What happened to all of that?

Well, they seem to be missing in action! How can that be? Only if they were vaporized they would truly not be found. A filing cabinet can be compressed into a 3 square feet of metal about 1 1/2 inches thick. The number of filing cabinets that were indicated to exist in each building was at least 30,000. That is a lot of metal! I do not believe that anyone will claim that they were vaporized. So they could possible have melted, but that will result in at least 30,000 amorphous solidified metal to be present in the pile of rubble. All indications are that that was not the case.

The same reasoning applies to all the other items listed above. Where did they go?

8) The current line of thinking is that they (?) got rid of the evidence as soon as possible so it could not be investigated and tested for explosives. In my opinion that is a distraction from the main reason. At least 60% of the building materials were missing. Have the rubble be left so it could be investigated, this (if I am right) would have been a shock of enormous proportions, because no currently known forces can produce such a result.

Point 8 is what convinces me that there are a number of operatives working hard to make sure that we (the conspiracy theorists with tin foil hats) do not wander afield into forbidden territory.

With this, I conclude my direct participation in any discussion about what happened that tragic day in American history. These discussions are starting to feel like a NASCAR race, around and around in circles!

SanderO
Talayo,

Thank you for your comment. Let me address the points raised... at least some of them.

First, my initial impression having been in the building scores of times and being an architect in NYC was that the collapse was very unusual and made no sense to me. Then the official narrative came and I was completely in disbelief waiting for a proper investigation to explain it all. I joined AE911T and accepted their evidence which on the face made sense to me. I even served on their board of directors for a brief people. However, I left AE911T and decided to do my own fact checking on "the evidence" because I found that the evidence was of questionable provenance and was not independently confirmed. My first "fact check" was about the "ejected debris"... distance, weight and speed. What I found, was that the AE911T claims often repeated ad nauseam by the truth movement was INCORRECT.

I then decided to learn about the structure of the twin towers and study all the available images and videos I could fine about the towers.

After 2 years of study... and it is ongoing. I have come to the conclusion... one supported by many members who are physicists and scientists at the 911 Free Forums that what we saw was a gravity driven collapse of the floors. The driving force of the floor collapse I believe was as little as 3 floors, though probably more. The collapsing rubble became an avalanche of building contents, which ground itself up through thousands of collisions as each floor was impacted. The concrete was very weak... only 4.5" thick and with no stone aggregate. There was enormous amount of dust created in the grinding of the avalanche. Some of the contents easily turned to dust - ceiling tiles, gypsum wall board,l particle board, vinyl tile, carpet.... even stone and glass. I don't know the mechanics /science of how such an avalanche of tens of thousands... as much as a few hundred thousand tons of rubble pulverizes almost everything friable to dust, but if the pressures were as much as 50-100,00 psi, I suspect this IS plausible... though hard to comprehend how such pressures can build.

The glass was deigned to shatter into tiny fragments... like auto glass. But the collapse produced winds of over 200 mph pushing at the exterior walls which shattered the glass and took thousands and thousands of tons of light weight material and blasted it out those missing windows.

The size of the piles seem odd, but some calculations show that it is what is to be expected. If you stacked ALL the contents of the towers compactly in/on the foot print it would be less than 3 stories high!. But we know that hundreds of tons of materials were blasted out by the 200+ mph pressure wave to several hundred feet from the tower... and lots of heavy dusts billowed away at the end of the collapse. And the pile was perhaps 2+ stories high and some material DID crush though and land in the 7 basements. There were some voids of course, but there was a lot of rubble down there. And the debris WOULD form a cone shaped pile extended outside the footprint. We do know that the facade virtually ALL fell outside the foot print... and many of the core columns did as well. The facade was only 35 or 60 feet from the core and the core stood 1362 feet tall.

The building was a no brainer, it turns out... for a progressive runaway floor collapse. One needn't be a rocket scientist or first in the glass in engineering school to understand this. All one had to do is figure out how to get that threshold mass collapsing on a typical tenant floor. You could explode 4 or 5 floors and likely enough would be there to drive the collapse. You could fail a set of core columns carrying 3 floors or 2 sets and that would deliver the requisite destructive mass. All engineers know that very tall unbraced columns will topple by themselves... no explosives needed. The floor collapse destroyed the braces - Voila!

The speed of the collapse is not remarkable either considering the driving mass and the strength of each of the tenant floors to resist it. And each tenant floor was of the same strength and the collapsing rubble mass was not decreasing but increasing as it went along. And gravity as potential energy turned into kinetic energy was enormous and COULD do that sort of destruction. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of tons of material dropping from as much as a almost a quarter mile. The destructive energy is incomparable to most events we are familiar with in terms of the SCALE of energy involved.

As far as not being able to recognize "anything" the same answer applies... What would be recognizable after being ground with a few hundred thousand tons of material confined to the relatively small "chute" of the donut shaped foot print for as much as 15 seconds? Do you really expect to see a file cabinet come out of that such that it can be identified?

My sense is that most people simply (and I am no exception) have no frame of reference for such massive grinding forces. We see structures of a few stories collapse or car crashes and those are infinitesimal in comparison to the forces involved here.

There is material to be investigated and some of us are going to survey some of the steel very shortly. But the tell tale material all came from the areas above the plane strikes. The rest of the material failed from the collapse and the enormous gravitational forces and the thousands of collisions.

My thinking continues to evolve about the technical matter related to the building collapses. I still believe that the story we were told was BS and the official coverup was also BS. I don't believe it was 19 hijackers who did that. But I think too many people have swing so far to the other side that they refuse to accept the basic engineering and science... and believe that there HAD to have been HUGE energy inputs when this is simply NOT the case. Energy input YES... but that was to unlock the PE.
amazed!
After all these months SanderO, it still seems you would like to have your cake and eat it too--you want it both ways.

Looking at ALL the events of the day, and the subsequent and relentless media coverup, what is obvious that these were staged events.

That means just what common sense requires--the destruction of the towers was planned and executed by men with access to all sorts of special devices and weapons.

Talayo's questions and observations are relevant and good.

It was an inside job and gravity is always at work.
SanderO
Amazed,

My research has not falsified the notion that the destruction was MIHOP. What it seems to indicate and this IS significant is that the take down was likely not as complex, did not require massive amounts of devices and secrecy / stealth to plant them and therefore could have been a rather limited conspiracy not involving scores of mechanics, planners and so forth.

It's also important to look at why the conspirators felt it necessary to not only scare the sh*t out of people with multiple hijackings of commercial air flights (even if faked)... but collapse those 3 towers to the ground.

Bldg 7 raises an interesting question... why make that tower fall? This, of course, raises more questions about motive. If the destruction of the twins was as I believe a simple as opposed to a complex operation... one that did not require miles of det chord, wiring and remote controlled or complex sequencing... then the idea that the EMC located on the 23rd floor of bldg 7 was the center of operations for the destruction makes less sense... or to me... no sense.

So some other motives were at play if bldg 7 was part of the master plan of 9/11. I think the evidence is very speculative, but it may relate to financial transactions... investigations and so forth. Yet I can't tie all these motives together to a group with a single purpose for the event.

In the most general way it seems that 9/11 was a turning point for the gradual "evolution" of our democracy into what is becoming a fascist corporatocracy (unmasked... unashamed) and justified as being necessary for our "national security" interests. While this process has been underway for a long time, this was a catalyzing event which smoothed the way for some rapid advance on the road to fascism. Do we have a democracy and representative government in name only and we're really living under a proto military coup which control the pawns we call politicians and government "officials"... elected and appointed? We've certainly seen no diminution of the calls for more empire and our imperial lust appears unquenchable.
amazed!
SanderO

I can readily agree with your first point, that the takedown may not have been all that complicated to do. From my personal perspective, it was extremely complicated, but that is because I know precious little about demolition and such.

Actually, several years ago I became persuaded that INDEED, the towers might have been built in such a way that their eventual destruction would be relatively simple. Again, that is a layman's view, but it seems likely.

Why they wanted to scare hell out of ordinary folks? That's easy--because they wanted to, because when the mob is fearful all sorts of shenanigans can be accomplished by government. Such as, 2 new wars and the attendant spending for industry. Such as, from the perverse perspective, an unbridled and successful attack upon the rule of law and the US Constitution and its restraints upon government.

On a very primitive level, fear is a tremendous motivator and tool.

Building 7? In my opinion the reason for that was to get rid of the various SEC records regarding Enron and other politically connected entities. Plus, something as simple perhaps as the insurance claim that Silverstein eventually made.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.



mrmitosis
Thanks to everyone for their continued input on this subject. Testiness aside, the discussion has broadened my own perspective on what may have happened to the twin towers and how.

SanderO, I think I might take you up on your offer to e-mail privately whatever attachments you consider relevant to your hypothesis. I'll send you my details shortly.

In the meantime there is one other question (actually several, but I only have time to type this one) which springs to mind...

If I were appointed to lead either the NIST, FEMA or 9/11 Commission investigations, and part of my responsibility was to deceive the public and convince them that the towers might collapse as they did on 9/11 - without the use of explosives, incendiaries, nukes, DEWs, etc etc - then I imagine the gravity driven collapse scenario as you describe it would be a sensible place to start.

I suspect it would then be only a small stretch to convince the layman that such a natural demolition could be set in motion by virtue of commercial airline impacts and the ensuing fires. (Of course, we all now realise that this is nonsense, but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for a minute).

Yet, NIST et al have all released official reports which mention no such thing and in fact almost goad the public into questioning their authenticity and credibility. If - as you say - the perpetrators MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE of how the entire structure could and would fail after the upper floors had become disassociated, then why not capitalise on this convenient fact when writing up the official reports?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Any ideas?
DoYouEverWonder
mrmitosis

Maybe someone should ask NIST why they never tested for explosives at the WTC? I guess they were afraid of the answer.
SanderO
I am a bit confused by MrM's question.

I think the idea was that the investigation was intended to link the tower's destruction to the plane strikes and fires they caused. After all we were told that the attack was a terrorist hijacking(s). Looking for the kind of evidence that would indicate pre planning and a breach of security starts to sound like a AQ plot no one is going to believe. It seems like whether they were told to not look under every rock or just went along with the program that the planes did it and look for some connection to the planes we can't tell.

Even if the collapse WAS gravity driven as I suspect it was after a few years of studying this, the driving mass was not the plane itself, but the top part of the towers. And to get that mass moving and capable of driving a gravity driven collapse it would take more that office fires burning for less than 2 hrs... even with the fire proofing stripped off. The official explanations tried to come up with some means that fire could lead to the structure up there collapsing. I don't find that credible.

It's interesting that their avoidance of the collapse mechanism has led to all the truth movement speculation of explosives during the collapse phase and claims that the speed was too fast and so forth. Their silence on the collapse mechanism has fueled and focused the discussion on the collapse phase and NOT on the initiation phase... or even making a distinction between the two. The real prize is how they kicked it off... after the planes and the fires... which only provided a small amount of what was necessary to destroy the tops and create the driving mass from the structure itself. I have been trying to more the discussion away from the collapse to the initiation, but I've been "debating" truthers who simply won't accept some of the engineering and physics of the collapse of THOSE particular structures. It feels like we being side tracked and distracted from the initiation of the collapse.

If you accept the gravity driven collapse.... you need to find how the mass WAS created to drive that collapse. It was there in the top of the towers... but it needed to be "freed" from the structure so to speak which supported it. When viewed from this perspective investigators would have looked at all sorts of scenarios to bust up the top.... because once that was done... down they towers came.

mrmitosis
SanderO -

Sorry, I didn't explain my question very clearly. It's actually a very simple question, but difficult to put into words.

Earlier in this thread, you stated that:

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
There IS no official explanation of the collapse phase. I challenge anyone to cite in the NIST, FEMA or 911 Commission Reports where they explain the collapse phase. You will not find this because they are silent on it.

NIST attempted to show that in the case of the twin towers that the CAUSE of the collapse was sagging trusses, from fires which pulled in the facade columns which meant that the floors above no longer hand support and then would come down. That was the extent of their explanation.


However, you also said that:

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 19 2011, 06:16 AM) *
...once the threshold mass was allowed to drop on an intact floor.. the game was over. They know this and HAD to know it.


So, according to you, NIST et al should have been able to ANTICIPATE that the buildings would be destroyed by falling debris once the upper block was released. And yet they failed to use this as a means of explanation for the collapse, in spite of the fact that this would have helped them to produce a more plausible (albeit still flawed) hypothesis. In any case, I imagine it's preferable to being "silent" on the issue.

Of course, I'm brushing aside the INITIATION PHASE and what caused it - clearly, these were critically important events in themselves, and were not adequately addressed or accounted for in the official reports. At least, nobody HERE is convinced by the Planes + Fires = Collapse formula - not even you!

However, it still strikes me that you've arrived at a theory which - if correct - sets the stage for a POST initiation phase that did not require explosives or anything more exotic than the forces of nature.

Which is why I'm still curious as to why NIST, FEMA and the 911C didn't exploit a POST initiation theory similar to yours in their final report, instead of simply ignoring the gargantuan wrinkly grey skinned mammal eating peanuts in the corner.
mrmitosis
QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 6 2011, 04:38 AM) *
mrmitosis

Maybe someone should ask NIST why they never tested for explosives at the WTC? I guess they were afraid of the answer.


Well, I'm sure we'd all appreciate an answer to that question.
SanderO
QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Jun 7 2011, 12:16 AM) *
Well, I'm sure we'd all appreciate an answer to that question.



I can only guess here. NIST tried to come up with explanation which involved the weaked elements-- the trusses... to fail from fire, pull in the facade (much stronger) which was the azial support and so everything above had no support and to them game over...50-60,00 tons of building collapsing will destroy the floors right down to the ground.

They also might not have wanted to expose the liability of the deign... PANYNJ, LERA and the NYC DOB approved plans. Even if this initiation was some bombs/devices up top, this still exposes the inherent flaws in the design.

The design DID perform very well to the lateral impact of the planes. I'll give them a A+ for that.. but the discussion needed to turn to what got all that mass to collapse and kick of the runaway progressive collapse of all the floors.

Their fire theory would have to cause 3-6 entire floors to collapse to provide the threshold driving mass. That was another stretch of the imagination which wasn't going to play.. so they came up with the hooey about these puny trusses made of 1/4" steel... 2 - 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 angles pulling the entire facade in and voila! hahahaha

So they were providing cover for:

1. The flawed design and those who approved it
2. And whomever might have exploited it with a few devices

My guess is that they were more concerned with #1 because they knew that the hijackers did it would not even be questioned. And of course the progressive failure of the entire structure from a progressive collapse IS a design flaw and IS a liability/negligence regardless of what started it... or is that... except for acts of god?
talayo
sanderso says:

"If you stacked ALL the contents of the towers compactly in/on the foot print it would be less than 3 stories high!."

I did some very "advanced" mathematical computations (about grade 7) that shows the following:

the average hight of WTC 1 and 2 floors was 12 feet. That is about 430 inches for 3 floors.

There were about 100 floors with 4.5 inches of concrete. That is about 450 inches.

With this alone we are already 20 inches higher than 3 floors!

3 floors represents 2.7 % of the total volume of the building. The accepted generic value tends to be between 6 to 8 % which is at least double the value that you attribute to WTC buildings (as I indicated in my "final" comment on the subjet)

You seem to be intelligent and particularly well informed, but your estimates seem, now and then, to be twisted to show that everything is normal. I cannot understand your lapses into questionable claims.
KP50
Stepping briefly back into this - SanderO said

QUOTE
As far as not being able to recognize "anything" the same answer applies... What would be recognizable after being ground with a few hundred thousand tons of material confined to the relatively small "chute" of the donut shaped foot print for as much as 15 seconds? Do you really expect to see a file cabinet come out of that such that it can be identified?

My sense is that most people simply (and I am no exception) have no frame of reference for such massive grinding forces. We see structures of a few stories collapse or car crashes and those are infinitesimal in comparison to the forces involved here.

You do know there were 25 stories above the plane impact in WTC2. What massive grinding force is acting on the furniture on, say, floor 103?
SanderO
talayo:

The floors were 4.5" thick

4.5 x 100 = 450"

450"/12' = 37.5'

One story height is 12'

37.5" = 3.125 story heights.

ALL the facade steel fell outside the foot print.

The total volume of the core steel

Assumed weight - 40,000 tons
wt of steel - 495# / cu ft = 6.68 tons / cu yard

40,000 / 6.68 = 5,988 cu yards

footprint 208 x 208 = 43,264 sf = 4807 sq yards

Assuming ALL core steel fell inside (it didn't) the foot print (and was compact) it would add 4' to the pile height.

Add the core steel to the 3.125 story height and you get to 3.5 Story heights

However, the debris scattered (some carried aloft as dust) and the ground up material formed a "cone shaped pile... which was larger than the foot print.

So I am sticking with the size of the expected debris to be max ht under 4 stories tapering down as you move outward. So a pile which was topped off at 3 or even slightly less stories is not unrealistic.

I think MOST buildings are about 96-97% air by volume
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.