Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

[scott3x]

Support what you are saying like a man or shut your big mouth.

Ad Hom.

Telling you to shut your mouth if you don't have a basis for what you are saying is not ad hominem and it wasn't undeserved.

I'm afraid I have to agree with John, but it's not like he hasn't been attacking you as well with his unsubstantiated claims that you don't know what you're talking about (he simply didn't say you had a 'big' mouth ). The important point, however, is that no one has used any of the insults that I have proscribed for this discussion, for which I am grateful; those insults can be seen in the first post if anyone would like to see them.

 

[Syzygys]

You can not have a discussion thread with 4 pages when the debate hasn't even started!!
The discussion thread is supposed to discuss the debate with additional info. If you just want to talk about a topic start it in the appropriate forum.

 

[shaman_]

Even more interesting is the fact that the little steel they did get from the towers showed no evidence of having experienced high temperatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related

 

[scott3x]

You can not have a discussion thread with 4 pages when the debate hasn't even started!!
The discussion thread is supposed to discuss the debate with additional info. If you just want to talk about a topic start it in the appropriate forum.

>.<
The debate is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90071

According to MacGyver, the debate has concluded. Since my last post was 8 days ago (thus more then a week), I'm inclined to agree. If another debate is necessary in order to continue with this discussion, perhaps one can be arranged between Tony Szamboti and someone on the official story side. Personally, I would like this discussion thread to continue regardless of whether or not there is another 1 on 1 debate; as a matter of fact, this is the format I wanted to debate- the 2 sides debating, not just 2 people; clearly MacGyver hasn't been persuaded by my arguments and neither have others; thus, I think it makes sense to continue things here.

The reason I don't think this should be moved over to the pseudoscience forum is because I want this to be a -civilized- discussion, without using the words that have been proscribed in my opening post. I also believe that real science is going on here- we are testing theories against the evidence, which is the scientific method.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related

Shaman, NIST did microstructure testing to see what the actual temperatures experienced by the steel were. What were the results of those tests?

Deformation is a function of strength, the mechanics involved, and the force applied. Showing a photo of a deformed piece of steel doesn't tell you what temperatures it experienced.

I have also mentioned to you that ASTM A36 structural steel has an elongation of 21%, and will not crack until it is deformed more than that percentage.

 

[Syzygys]

>.<
The debate is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90071

Oh sorry, my bad. I misstook this for the 9/11 proposal thread. Carry on...

 

[fedr808]

This is my opinion, but im pretty damn sure they collapsed down.

 

[scott3x]

This is my opinion, but im pretty damn sure they collapsed down.

Sure, but did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by planes and their jet fuel initiated fires, or did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by explosives. This is the fundamental issue.

I suppose I could have framed the question better as:
-Why- did the WTC buildings collapse?

It has been phrased this way in the past, first by the official side and then by the alternate theory side, in Steven Jones' paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

 

[John99]

Again you just make claims without providing a basis. The investigation by NIST into what happened to the WTC buildings had how much of the actual evidence at their disposal? Answer: 236 pieces out of 50,000 from the towers and NONE from WTC 7. Even more interesting is the fact that the little steel they did get from the towers showed no evidence of having experienced high temperatures.

Well they could still be investigating steel to this day to satisfy every crackpot on the planet but i dont think that is what investigations are for. And you would never be satisfied anyway. At some point common sense should be the rule.

If someone gets shot and is murdered do the investigators look to satisfy someone who comes up with the theory of a remote controlled bullet? would that be prudent or even logical? maybe someone will claim it was an alien assailant or put forth the theory that the person shot themselves even if no weapon is present at the scene and the victim lost both arms in a farming accident but the could have pulled the trigger with their toes and then a bag lady cam along and took the gun for mongo. So the investigation was not properly done. Then nothing would ever get accomplished and we would be a civilization of imbeciles.

As far as your other points and attempts to shut people up, i debate all kinds of topics here and not much differently than the majority of people do. You happen to be very sensitive and if you are looking for people to walk on egg shells while you incessantly and compulsively discuss provocative issues on the internet then good luck with that.

 

[(Q)]

Q, perhaps you can explain to us how you feel lateral torsional buckling (which is what I believe you actually mean) is applicable here and how it could have made a difference in Gordon Ross' work on the subject.

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

 

[scott3x]

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

While Physicist Steven Jones agrees with one of the things mentioned in Bazant and Zhou's paper (its statement that "The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.") and doesn't seem to address your particular point, he -does- point out many flaws in Bazant and Zhou's paper in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". I believe most if not all of it is in his 11th reason for "advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Q, Dr. Bazant does not address lateral torsional buckling either nor does he mention anything called dynamic buckling. I think you are getting types of loading confused with types of failure.

Anyway, this paper does not answer the question I asked you. It essentially looks at axial loads and plastic hinge buckling.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Hey, Tony...we haven't spoken much. Would you might just giving an overview of what you believed caused the collapse?

Thanks,

Mac

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey, Tony...we haven't spoken much. Would you might just giving an overview of what you believed caused the collapse?

Thanks,

Mac

Mac, I am not sure if you know that the collapses initiated in the floors just above the impact damage, on the 98th and 82nd floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 respectively. So it wasn't aircraft impact damage that caused it. There is also no physical evidence that was kept to show that fire caused the columns to get very hot.

I think the initiation was done by taking out the outer core columns with the use of incendiaries and this steel could not be kept for NIST to examine, as it saw much higher temperatures than what fire could have caused. The reasons I have for this are the sudden onset and the flowing molten metal coming out of the damaged corner of WTC 2 just prior to collapse and the large amounts of molten metal found in the rubble of not only the towers but WTC 7 also. This molten metal was only found in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. It was not found in the remains of WTC 5 and 6, both of which burned fiercely and had a lot of debris damage but did not collapse. The removal of the outer core columns would also cause the perimeter columns to be bowed inwardly via the floor trusses with the core columns falling. So the NIST is right that the floor trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward but it wasn't because of sagging. It was because the outer core columns were being cut. The floor truss fire tests done at Underwriter's Laboratories did not produce much sagging.

In addition to removal of the outer core columns taking down the towers would require softening up the perimeter corners since they formed a stiff structural element with support in two orthogonal directions. The removal of the outer core columns would also explain why 60 to 70 stories of inner core columns were left standing. This would occur once the column welds on the inner core columns were large enough to withstand the pull of the outer core columns and cause the beam connections to break first.

After the initiation I think explosives were used as the sound would be masked by the collapse and they could also be tamped to keep the noise down. Once the collapse was moving the explosives would only be necessary in key areas for reliability and to ensure complete collapse occurred without toppling. The use of some level of explosives would also explain the squibs coming out of the corners, once the collapse was underway.

The NIST has been forced to acknowledge freefall for the first 2.25 seconds or 100 feet of the collapse of WTC 7. There is only one way that can happen and since charges couldn't be put in place on Sept. 11, 2001 they had to be pre-positioned. This lends credence to the notion that charges could have been pre-positioned in the towers also.

While none of these things are total proof when taken separately, when looked at in an overall sense it seems only one general conclusion can be made. I wrote a paper on this in May of 2007, and updated in Feb. 2008 due to new column and mass information being available, which is published at the Journal of 911 Studies. If you are interested it is only eleven pages and can be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/...itionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

 

[MacGyver1968]

Once the collapse was moving the explosives would only be necessary in key areas for reliability and to ensure complete collapse occurred without toppling. The use of some level of explosives would also explain the squibs coming out of the corners, once the collapse was underway.

Thank you for your response.

Why would it be necessary to place charges to ensure compete collapse? How would a complete collapse differ from a partial collapse? And why would they insiders take extra measures to ensure a complete collapse?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you for your response.

Why would it be necessary to place charges to ensure compete collapse? How would a complete collapse differ from a partial collapse? And why would they insiders take extra measures to ensure a complete collapse?

A partial collapse could have led to a topple. A topple would have caused even more serious problems than the complete collapses. The towers were over 1/4 mile high. Even though it was quite significant, the complete collapses confined the major damage to a much smaller zone.

A partial collapse would have also been easier to investigate and the evidence harder to hide, and with a complete collapse it would be easier to get rid of the evidence in a cleanup. It was just all scrap at that point.

 

[MacGyver1968]

A partial collapse could have led to a topple. A topple would have caused even more serious problems than the complete collapses. The towers were over 1/4 mile high. Even though it was quite significant, the complete collapses confined the major damage to a much smaller zone.

A partial collapse would have also been easier to investigate and the evidence harder to hide, and with a complete collapse it would be easier to get rid of the evidence in a cleanup. It was just all scrap at that point.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just set charges in the basement? That would have ensured a complete collapse. Why would the insiders make things harder than they had to be?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just set charges in the basement? That would have ensured a complete collapse. Why would the insiders make things harder than they had to be?

What makes you think setting the charges only in the basement would ensure a complete collapse?

To take a building down via controlled demolition one needs to develop enough kinetic energy so that the impact between the intact portions causes them to crush each other and crumble. The demolition of WTC 7 required eight stories or 100 feet to be removed to develop enough kinetic energy to crush the upper thirty-three floors and the lowest six floors. How many stories of the towers do you think would need to be removed near the ground or basement to develop the kinetic energy required to crush the remaining upper part of the building?

Taking out too many low columns of high aspect ratio buildings, like the towers, would probably cause toppling.

Additionally, setting charges only in the basement would also not work if the objective was to make it appear that the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires.

 

[shaman_]

Shaman, NIST did microstructure testing to see what the actual temperatures experienced by the steel were. What were the results of those tests?

You have been made aware that very few of those samples came from the impact areas and few of those from the core.

Deformation is a function of strength, the mechanics involved, and the force applied. Showing a photo of a deformed piece of steel doesn't tell you what temperatures it experienced.

I have also mentioned to you that ASTM A36 structural steel has an elongation of 21%, and will not crack until it is deformed more than that percentage.

Have you seen the steel bent like a horseshoe?

 

[fedr808]

Sure, but did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by planes and their jet fuel initiated fires, or did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by explosives. This is the fundamental issue.

I suppose I could have framed the question better as:
-Why- did the WTC buildings collapse?

It has been phrased this way in the past, first by the official side and then by the alternate theory side, in Steven Jones' paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

No Scott im pretty sure i gave the best answer ANYONE in this thread has given. An answer EVERYONE agrees on, that the buildings collapsed downwards, because you guys cannot decide on anything else.