WTC Collapses

[Buffalo Roam]

Anybody that has access to the videos can see what for themselves?

The Videos still don't show what the actual situation was inside the Towers, looking from the outside and trying to make statement about what was happening on the inside is like saying what the dirt on the moon taste like.

Or are you Superman and have x-ray vision to see what was the damage inside the building? and were the collapse began, that must be some gift, to be able to see inside a building on tape with x-ray vision, Yeah, some gift, :roflmao: Superman, X-Ray Vision, from Video of the outside of the Building.

 

[scott3x]

Definitely. I just thought it might be better to focus on something that's impossible instead of improbable- the official story believers can still hang on to the fact that an improbable occurence is still possible. They can't do the same for an impossible occurence.

There is a good article on which floors were the initiation sites at the Journal of 911 Studies in the Letters section. It is entitled "WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered" by Kevin Fenton.

The refutation of the Official story for the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 is essentially a cumulative argument. All of these anomalies and contradictions add up to show that the present Official story is inept in its ability to explain the actual observations concerning what happened to the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, that other much more plausible explanations exist, and that a new investigation is needed. Among a list of other things, any new investigation should depose those who had access to the interiors of those buildings and those involved with recycling the steel before it could have a real forensic analysis done on it.

That sounds good. I was just saying that in some ways, I do agree with psikeyhackr- if there is evidence that makes certain aspects of the official story impossible, I think that those aspects should be highlighted; this would make the position of official story believers untenable, atleast in those areas.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That sounds good. I was just saying that in some ways, I do agree with psikeyhackr- if there is evidence that makes certain aspects of the official story impossible, I think that those aspects should be highlighted; this would make the position of official story believers untenable, atleast in those areas.

Unfortunately, the perpetrators of 911 weren't completely incompetent and it would appear from the aircraft impacts being used that they built in a level of plausibility to keep down the scrutiny. So there isn't any one glaring thing to point at and show it was completely impossible to occur naturally. although one could argue that the collapse of WTC 7 fits this bill.

The cumulative argument does show that natural collapse scenarios for both the towers and WTC 7 are completely impossible, although there are some points in it that are stronger than others.

 

[scott3x]

That sounds good. I was just saying that in some ways, I do agree with psikeyhackr- if there is evidence that makes certain aspects of the official story impossible, I think that those aspects should be highlighted; this would make the position of official story believers untenable, atleast in those areas.

Unfortunately, the perpetrators of 911 weren't completely incompetent so there isn't any one glaring thing to point at and show it was completely impossible to occur naturally, although one could argue that the collapse of WTC 7 fits this bill.

Uh.. what about the article you wrote with Frank Legge, the title of which was 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Energy not spread across the entire building but confined to a couple of floors, cutting through load bearing structures, beams and wall, add to that the type of construction, lite steel, corrugated, and bent steel, support structures, no mystery, just bad construction techniques, and overestimation of the safety margins, not the first time that has happened, look at the Titanic, somebody screwed the safety margins on that one big time.

WRONG!

What you are saying is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Skyscrapers must sway to withstand the wind. That is part of the design. The WTC towers were designed to sway a maximum of 3 feet off center at the top in a 150 mph wind.

So the impact of the plane as a lateral force had some of the same effects as the wind. The NCSTAR1 report contains a graph of the south tower derived from a Miore pattern produced in a camera focused on the vertical perimeter columns. Sometimes the NIST did good work. The south tower deflected by 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point. The building then oscillated for FOUR MINUTES.

So calculating the kinetic energy of the plane makes almost no sense without knowing how much of the energy went into the building deflection and that cannot be computed without accurate distribution of mass data. So all of the EXPERTS talking about this for SEVEN YEARS without bringing up the importance of knowing the distribution of steel and concrete are being kind of nonsensical.

So the idea that all of the planes kinetic energy went into localized structural damage is rubbish. That is like saying someone can be punched in the face without his head moving backwards. Was there a wall behind the WTC keeping it from moving?

NIST NCSTAR 1-2
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of
the World Trade Center Towers

pdf page 143

Figure 2–15. Displacement of floor 70 of WTC 2 after impact based on video analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

The impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 caused the tower to sway back and forth for almost four minutes. The estimated period of oscillation was found to be nearly equal to the calculated first mode period of the undamaged structure, indicating that the overall lateral stiffness of the tower was not affected appreciably by the impact damage. The maximum deflection at the top of the tower was estimated to be more than 1/3 of the drift resulting from the original design wind loads (about 65 in. in the N–S direction) as calculated from the baseline analysis (see Chapter 4). Since the lateral stiffness of the building before and after impact was essentially the same, it can be concluded that the additional stresses in the columns due to this oscillation were roughly 1/3 of the column stresses resulting from the original design wind loads, assuming linear behavior and assuming that the oscillation mode shape and the static deflected shape under design wind loads were identical. The building demonstrated an ability to carry this additional load and therefore, still had reserve capacity. This was confirmed by the structural analysis of the damaged
towers reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-6.

psik

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Uh.. what about the article you wrote with Frank Legge, the title of which was 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

The fact that sudden collapse initiation was impossible due to fire and that some form of demolition method had to be used to cause it is a very strong argument. However, you may not be able to sell it as a totally glaring impossibility to everyone. Some have tried to say things were actually creeping and the perimeter columns were bowing and that it wasn't sudden. Of course, that is just parsing words but it keeps the argument going rather than settle it.

What I am saying is that when taken together, all of these separate arguments which show the present official story to be inadequate, build an extremely strong case for controlled demolition. For instance, I wouldn't think of not discussing all of the below when making a case for controlled demolition for both the towers and WTC 7: the molten metal in the rubble, the NASA and NOAA thermal imagery showing hot spots only under the buildings that collapsed and not under others which were ablaze but did not collapse, the iron microspheres found in the dust, sudden onset being impossible due to fire, the wings could not have made it to the central core columns, the jet fuel burned off within minutes, the lack of high temperature evidence on the little steel saved from the towers, the fact that only 0.5% of the steel was saved for analysis from the towers and none from wtc 7, freefall in the WTC 7 collapse, the high level of redundancy in the tower columns, visual evidence of squibs, the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and the fact that the collapses initiated on floors with almost no column damage just above the major impact zones (which by the way negates the argument of how the demolition devices could have survived the impacts).

I believe I mentioned here that we will soon be publishing a paper which shows that there was no deceleration in the collapse of the North tower's upper block, which is necessary to gain a load amplification and overcome the factor of safety imherent in the design.

Looking for one total smoking gun isn't the way to win the case. It is always better to have many arguments backing a specific conclusion.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

psikeyhackr

So the idea that all of the planes kinetic energy went into localized structural damage is rubbish. That is like saying someone can be punched in the face without his head moving backwards. Was there a wall behind the WTC keeping it from moving?

And who said that all the kinetic energy went in to localized damage?

If the Building flexed 12" on the 70th floor what was the deflection on the
110th floor?

I am a avid shooter, and from my shooting I know that kinetic energy is distributed in and across the target, and in doing so creates damage away from the impact point.

We could see the damage at the point of impact from the out side, what we couldn't observes was the damage on the inside.

I use ballistic gelatin, to do some of my assessment of bullet performance.

It gives me a fixed measurable impact to measure.

A 30 cal. bullet can fracture the gelatin upwards of 10 in. away from the impact point.

So the Planes impact point is only the center of the damage path created by the Kinetic energy and the planes path through the structure,

This is probably what the path of the Aircraft through the building resembled, a frangible bullet, shredding it's self and the building as it passed through at impact.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

psikeyhackr



And who said that all the kinetic energy went in to localized damage?

If the Building flexed 12" on the 70th floor what was the deflection on the
110th floor?

I am a avid shooter, and from my shooting I know that kinetic energy is distributed in and across the target, and in doing so creates damage away from the impact point.

We could see the damage at the point of impact from the out side, what we couldn't observes was the damage on the inside.

I use ballistic gelatin, to do some of my assessment of bullet performance.

It gives me a fixed measurable impact to measure.

A 30 cal. bullet can fracture the gelatin upwards of 10 in. away from the impact point.

So the Planes impact point is only the center of the damage path created by the Kinetic energy and the planes path through the structure,

This is probably what the path of the Aircraft through the building resembled, a frangible bullet, shredding it's self and the building as it passed through at impact.

NIST did studies on this and the wings don't make it to the central core. They are shredded by having to go through multiple reinforced concrete floors. Only the fusealage would have had any chance of getting to the core. Ballistic gelatin is completely connected molecularly and the temporary cavity pressure does the damage you are speaking of. It isn't really analogous to the aircraft hit on the towers. The smaller aircraft parts after shredding would not have affected the core column integrity and that is why NIST had to go to fire being the cause of the collapses, which they tried to say could have happened due to stripped off fireproofing.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is why I suggest that computer simulation of the 5 story gap and the top 16 stories falling 60 feet.

That gap would be far more damage than the plane and fire could possibly cause. So if 16 levels falling on 89 levels at 44 mph can't destroy the 89 levels then all debate about how much damage the plane inflicted goes out the window because the falling top could not destroy the bottom, no matter what.

So the next step would have to be, "What did it because the plane couldn't?"

It is really pathetic that we haven't gotten to that point in SEVEN YEARS. Too many people don't want to hear CD so they have to cling to the plane being responsible. Just PROVE the top couldn't destroy the bottom in a collapse.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

If the Building flexed 12" on the 70th floor what was the deflection on the 110th floor?

I have not seen that information anywhere. I presume the reason we have the data that we do is because the camera was aimed at the north tower and just happened to catch the effect of the impact on the south tower and that is reason for the cut off is at 70.

I would expect the building to have gone into a kind of bow shape in the first couple of seconds after impact so 110 might not have moved very much immediately because of the inertia. But then the building would go into a complex oscillation pattern.

That is why I built this model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

To show people why it was necessary to know the distribution of steel and concrete and how ridiculous it was that the NIST did not supply it in their 10,000 page report that took 3 years and $20,000,000.

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I have not seen that information anywhere. I presume the reason we have the data that we do is because the camera was aimed at the north tower and just happened to catch the effect of the impact on the south tower and that is reason for the cut off is at 70.

I would expect the building to have gone into a kind of bow shape in the first couple of seconds after impact so 110 might not have moved very much immediately because of the inertia. But then the building would go into a complex oscillation pattern.

That is why I built this model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

To show people why it was necessary to know the distribution of steel and concrete and how ridiculous it was that the NIST did not supply it in their 10,000 page report that took 3 years and $20,000,000.

psik

But what about the whip crack effect? and the occilation, could it have gone harmonic?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is why I suggest that computer simulation of the 5 story gap and the top 16 stories falling 60 feet.

That gap would be far more damage than the plane and fire could possibly cause. So if 16 levels falling on 89 levels at 44 mph can't destroy the 89 levels then all debate about how much damage the plane inflicted goes out the window because the falling top could not destroy the bottom, no matter what.

So the next step would have to be, "What did it because the plane couldn't?"

It is really pathetic that we haven't gotten to that point in SEVEN YEARS. Too many people don't want to hear CD so they have to cling to the plane being responsible. Just PROVE the top couldn't destroy the bottom in a collapse.

psik

WTC 7 was completely demolished by removing the resistance of 8 floors, from the 7th floor to the 14th, or about 100 feet. This would have been done to build up a head of steam and inertia of the upper thirty-three floors to keep it straight while providing the energy to crush the remaining lower six floors and itself. This methodology worked remarkably well.

Interestingly, in a video of the collapse of WTC 7 recently made public we see the top of the building fall asymmetrically toward the north side near the end of the collapse. In the case of WTC 7 the north side was wider and heavier. The topple was also in the direction of the building's least moment of inertia. Apparently the upper thirty-three story block ran out of steam at that point and asymmetric forces became dominant. You can see the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related if you haven't seen it yet.

Removing the resistance of five floors in the towers or about 60 feet would certainly have caused a large number of floors of the lower block to be demolished. This is how demolitions are done, by releasing the building's potential energy. The towers were symmetric moment of inertia wise on their perimeter, although not in the cores, so it is possible that some sort of asymmetric damage and topple could have been the final result as you intuitively believe. A topple would be harder with a shorter upper block since the aspect ratio is lower and the Cg lower and well within the base. The upper block in the North tower was actually 12 stories or about 150 feet high making it even harder to have happen. The South tower upper block was 28 stories or about 350 feet high and more likely to topple with a 209 foot base.

 

[scott3x]

Uh.. what about the article you wrote with Frank Legge, the title of which was 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

The fact that sudden collapse initiation was impossible due to fire and that some form of demolition method had to be used to cause it is a very strong argument. However, you may not be able to sell it as a totally glaring impossibility to everyone. Some have tried to say things were actually creeping and the perimeter columns were bowing and that it wasn't sudden.

I believed you said in that article or in another that the bowing was probably due to the core pulling things down, but I think I see what you mean.

Of course, that is just parsing words but it keeps the argument going rather than settle it.

What do you mean by 'parsing words'?

What I am saying is that when taken together, all of these separate arguments which show the present official story to be inadequate, build an extremely strong case for controlled demolition. For instance, I wouldn't think of not discussing all of the below when making a case for controlled demolition for both the towers and WTC 7: the molten metal in the rubble, the NASA and NOAA thermal imagery showing hot spots only under the buildings that collapsed and not under others which were ablaze but did not collapse, the iron microspheres found in the dust, sudden onset being impossible due to fire, the wings could not have made it to the central core columns, the jet fuel burned off within minutes, the lack of high temperature evidence on the little steel saved from the towers, the fact that only 0.5% of the steel was saved for analysis from the towers and none from wtc 7, freefall in the WTC 7 collapse, the high level of redundancy in the tower columns, visual evidence of squibs, the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and the fact that the collapses initiated on floors with almost no column damage just above the major impact zones (which by the way negates the argument of how the demolition devices could have survived the impacts).

I was thinking that might be the case...

I believe I mentioned here that we will soon be publishing a paper which shows that there was no deceleration in the collapse of the North tower's upper block, which is necessary to gain a load amplification and overcome the factor of safety inherent in the design.

Ah, ok.

Looking for one total smoking gun isn't the way to win the case. It is always better to have many arguments backing a specific conclusion.

Well I think it might matter just how powerful the different arguments are; if one is a real killer, it might be best to focus on that specific argument. But in this particular case, it may well be that the best thing to do is to use many arguments as you say. I've certainly been using a lot myself but I started thinking perhaps it might be best to focus on one particular element instead of trying to support so many.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I believed you said in that article or in another that the bowing was probably due to the core pulling things down, but I think I see what you mean.

What do you mean by 'parsing words'?

Well I think it might matter just how powerful the different arguments are; if one is a real killer, it might be best to focus on that specific argument. But in this particular case, it may well be that the best thing to do is to use many arguments as you say. I've certainly been using a lot myself but I started thinking perhaps it might be best to focus on one particular element instead of trying to support so many.

The bowing was probably due to the core pulling it down. I explained that in the Sustainability paper. It is much more probable and there are no videos of this bowing occurring for minutes prior to collapse. The only videos of the bowing show it during the immediate seconds as the collapse initiates.

By parsing words I meant that those who tried to belittle the Sudden Collapse Initiation paper did not actually argue the points we made about strain hardening and the need for more energy and heat to generate additional deformation. They didn't provide a mechanism to generate the additional energy needed. It seemed like some did not fully comprehend it so I am not sure it would convince those without specific scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately, I think the multiple argument scenario is the only choice. It is a complicated scenario and one needs to show the present official story is off in many areas. Of course, there is no reason to not use the most forceful arguments up front. I always show people the collapse of WTC 7 and then ask them when there would have been a chance to set the charges. It is after that initial glimpse that I bring in all of the other anomalies and problems with the official story and then offer the other more plausible explanations for what was observed.

The beauty of it is that it all works together since it is the truth. One anomaly by itself will be dismissed by some but many cannot be, especially if a plausible alternate theory explains all of the anomalies.

 

[scott3x]

The land of the magic 8 balls

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

So you say. I have a feeling, however, that if you had found a 9/11 truther with characteristics such as yourself...

I would respect that person more than you.

I doubt it. I believe it'd end pretty badly, in a flame war.

You play games to avoid facing the failure of your argument and those of your heroes.

Which you have shown evidence for somewhere, out there, right ?

It's not as bad as 'idiot', 'moron' or 'stupid'.

Surely, if I would just stop disagreeing with you, you'd be more civil Fortunately for this debate, I don't put any such conditions on you. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a person of high integrity and honesty.

You certainly might be in everyday life. When it comes to debating you are not. Deep down you know I am right.

Ah, another person with a magic 8 ball . Anyway, when you'd like to present some actual evidence to support your assertions that you know what happens 'deep down' in me, let me know.

 

[scott3x]

I believed you said in that article or in another that the bowing was probably due to the core pulling things down, but I think I see what you mean.

What do you mean by 'parsing words'?

Well I think it might matter just how powerful the different arguments are; if one is a real killer, it might be best to focus on that specific argument. But in this particular case, it may well be that the best thing to do is to use many arguments as you say. I've certainly been using a lot myself but I started thinking perhaps it might be best to focus on one particular element instead of trying to support so many.

The bowing was probably due to the core pulling it down. I explained that in the Sustainability paper.

Thought so, was too lazy to check ;-).

It is much more probable and there are no videos of this bowing occurring for minutes prior to collapse. The only videos of the bowing show it during the immediate seconds as the collapse initiates.

Cool, nice work.

By parsing words I meant that those who tried to belittle the Sudden Collapse Initiation paper did not actually argue the points we made about strain hardening and the need for more energy and heat to generate additional deformation. They didn't provide a mechanism to generate the additional energy needed. It seemed like some did not fully comprehend it so I am not sure it would convince those without specific scientific knowledge.

Yeah, this is definitely a problem. I've been debating here since August and I think that only now am I really beginning to see the full power of the scientific arguments. It's a bit of a learning curve.

Unfortunately, I think the multiple argument scenario is the only choice. It is a complicated scenario and one needs to show the present official story is off in many areas. Of course, there is no reason to not use the most forceful arguments up front. I always show people the collapse of WTC 7 and then ask them when there would have been a chance to set the charges. It is after that initial glimpse that I bring in all of the other anomalies and problems with the official story and then offer the other more plausible explanations for what was observed.

You seem to be suggesting that many people believe that WTC 7 was brought down due to the building being unsafe or something of that nature. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You seem to be suggesting that many people believe that WTC 7 was brought down due to the building being unsafe or something of that nature. Is that what you're suggesting?

Most people viewing the collapse of WTC 7 will see it for the obvious controlled demolition it was. The problem for the official story, and why they can't admit it was a controlled demolition, is the charges could not have been placed on Sept. 11, 2001. They had to be pre-positioned. This forces a person to realize that there was forethought of some sort. Now when you shift to the tower issue the collapse of WTC 7 lends credence to the allegation that charges were pre-positioned in them also.

My opinion on why WTC 7 was taken down is that it was a garbage can for all sorts of high profile financial crime case files, including ENRON's early 2001 California electricity swindle.

However, the official cover story could have been that it was done for safety reasons but then that pesky problem of not having time to set the charges and pre-positioning comes up.

 

[scott3x]

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site, Round 2

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

Originally, you said there were urban activists. I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned it in the plural, however, and that slip almost went unnoticed. But most importantly, why did you bring up the urban activist if you felt that it was 'not the point'?

No you’re not getting it. There were several fishy professions. That was but one of the ones I mentioned. You said “but there is only one of those” as if that matters.

A few points:
1- The urban activist was also an architect.

2- Being an an urban activist may or may not be a profession, but I don't see anything 'fishy' about it.

3- The only other profession that you had previously put into the 'fishy' category were software engineers. I see that you've now added electrical engineers. These professions aren't 'fishy' but I have agreed with you that I don't think they should have included engineers in their architects and engineers section that don't have degreed expertise in relation to buildings.

4- Even if we were to take out the software engineers, there are still a lot of architects and engineers in the list.

They have included all engineers. Even if the engineers in question have nothing to do with architecture (such as software engineers). That's not 'padding' anything, that's simply including all engineers. I have already stated that I think it would have been more meaningful to have a list of people who that only had architects and engineers with diplomas related to building design, but there's a difference between not selecting the best criteria and padding out a list with people who don't fit said criteria.

Well I consider it to be padding out the list when they have people who don’t even work in a relevant field. If they had 500 structural engineers then I might be impressed. They don't. They have architects, electrical and software engineers.

Perhaps we can lay this whole issue to rest with what I said above.

Then quit telling me to scan through your previous posts for information that you should be linking to yourself.

Don’t you have a memory?

Yes, I do. It's not encyclopaedic. Neither is yours, but I don't tell -you- to go find where I've countered your arguments. I like to the material or I quote what I've already written.

Do you feel the same way concerning thermate as well or is that possibility atleast a little more on the credible side for you now?

No I don’t think thermite is as silly as nuclear weapons. Rating the theories I don’t find convincing isn’t really a worthwhile exercise though.

Perhaps not to you, but I find it heartening that you atleast believe that controlled demolition with the use of nano thermite/thermate is more probable than nuclear weapons.

 

[scott3x]

The collapse of WTC 7

You seem to be suggesting that many people believe that WTC 7 was brought down due to the building being unsafe or something of that nature. Is that what you're suggesting?

Most people viewing the collapse of WTC 7 will see it for the obvious controlled demolition it was.

Not so sure about that. There are a number of official story supporters here who don't seem to think so. One argument that I haven't seen debunked yet (perhaps I missed its debunking) was that WTC 7 was built over a hole and that's why it went down so smooth.

The problem for the official story, and why they can't admit it was a controlled demolition, is the charges could not have been placed on Sept. 11, 2001. They had to be pre-positioned. This forces a person to realize that there was forethought of some sort. Now when you shift to the tower issue the collapse of WTC 7 lends credence to the allegation that charges were pre-positioned in them also.

My opinion on why WTC 7 was taken down is that it was a garbage can for all sorts of high profile financial crime case files, including ENRON's early 2001 California electricity swindle.

Yeah, I actually put up a web page on the people who benefitted from the WTC 7 collapse:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/wtc7/no_cd_counters/spidergoat/who_benefits.html

However, the official cover story could have been that it was done for safety reasons but then that pesky problem of not having time to set the charges and pre-positioning comes up.

I have wondered if perhaps Larry Silverstein's initial "they decided to pull it" comment was an attempt at going for the 'the building was pulled due to safety reasons' argument, before he or someone else 'above' him decided to change that story, precisely due to the reasoning you made above.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The collapse of WTC 7



Not so sure about that. There are a number of official story supporters here who don't seem to think so. One argument that I haven't seen debunked yet (perhaps I missed its debunking) was that WTC 7 was built over a hole and that's why it went down so smooth.

I assume you are joking, but in case you aren't I guess I would have to ask the person proposing this notion how he/she thinks the building was supported. Foundations are engineered, they aren't left to chance.