It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 19
4
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
third one along on the bottom row is quite a good example. 10 second gap.
Implosion World


Did you actually stop to think what was happening there?....

The explosion on those two buildings occurred less than a second or a second right before the buildings collapsed.

The first explosion was probably another building getting demolished.

Here is a link to the video you are talking about.

www.implosionworld.com...

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with a wall. the only reason i didn't put you on ignore, is because i think you're a danger to people who have no knowledge of scientific principals or propoganda techniques.


...... I really have no time, nor do i desire to continuously argue with anyone who continuously claims to know anything about "scientific principals" yet decides to ignore every "logical" explanation given by several engineers, not just me, and decides to instead insult and claim that "anyone who thinks differently than him/her must be a government agent."

Unless you can actually present proof, not just claims... I am not even going to bother responding to your posts.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
.................
The red area is the cap that we are told crushed all of the beneath floors.

See the size of the cap in relation to the rest of the building? There's an obvious problem here. That cap is much smaller than the rest of the building, and yet we are to believe it crushed all of the floors below?


What you don't seem to understand is that that red cap is much bigger, and weights at least 10 times more than each of the individual foors it fell on. That red cap fell on each one of the floors, collapsing one floor at a time as each floor below the red cap collapsed, more mass/weight is added to the total mass/weight of the fallen debris.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's something else to consider: the core columns thickened towards the base, as the bottom floors had to support more weight than the top. The cap was much lighter than lower floors.


And you don't take into consideration that by that time the weight of most of the debris from the building collapsed, it was much more than the weight that the central columns were meant to support, hence they collapsed also. As some of us have said many times, the building structure does not comprises one solid structure, but the total sum of hundreds of thousands of solid pieces.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And here's something else to consider: that cap would not survive very long into collapse before being utterly destroyed and ejected outwards. See?:



Tell us something... Can you see at what is happening beneath that cloud of dust?.... Do you think that the steel and other solid pieces that are part of that collapse are the dust coud? or is the dust cloud obscuring the view of the solid pieces that are falling and which represent most of the fallen debris?....



Originally posted by bsbray11
The cap is gone in the above pic, obviously. So then what continued to drive the crushing of the building?


Are you claiming that the weight from the fallen debris dissapeared?


Originally posted by bsbray11
Another problem, relating to the cap's destruction, is that an estimated 80% of the debris landed outside of the footprints.


Can you prove this? All we can see in the pictures are dust clouds and "some" solid pieces of the fallen debris, but not 80% of the fallen debris.



Originally posted by bsbray11
This happened all during the collapse, so we can estimate an average of 80% of the debris is being ejected all the way down.


How did you come to this conclusion? By watching the dust cloud?...



Originally posted by bsbray11
And here's something else to consider: the collapse never really slowed. So, if you are to believe the official explanation, not only did that cap have enough energy to crush the much heavier and much more numerous bottom floors, but there was enough energy that the collapse didn't even slow as it got towards the base.


You still don't understand that the fallen mass of debris fell on each floor, collapsing them one at a time there was more than enough kinetic energy in the fallen mass of debris to destroy and continue the collapse on each of the floor under the fallen mass of debris.



Originally posted by bsbray11
But there's another problem: if there was enough energy to crush the bottom floors so effortlessly to the ground, why wasn't it faster at start?


Because at the start there is much less mass of fallen debris....hence each floor gave more resistance at the beginning than later, when there was more weight added to the fallen mass of debris as each floor collapsed...



Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you not find any of that odd, in the least?


Nope.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Considering that all of that is perfectly true, it would seem as though once the building started to collapse, it was going to finish whether there was any driving mass or not.


What in the world are you saying....that the weight from the fallen debris suddenly dissapeared as it was collapsing?......




Originally posted by bsbray11
We can agree on that, because the driving mass was destroyed before the collapse was over anyway, right? So then what possibilities do we have left?


We can't agree on that, you are making false assumptions....



Originally posted by bsbray11
We could say that the floors would collapse simply because they no longer have a floor to roof them, or something to that extent, which doesn't seem to make much sense,


A floor to roof them?....yes you are right, that does not make sense, and I don't know who else said anything remotely close to what you tried to say.



Originally posted by bsbray11
or we could suppose that maybe, whatever brought down the towers was independent of the building itself, and therefore the architecture had no bearing whatsoever. So far so good, eh?


i see... so i guess the planes crashing into the building and the fuel was part of the tower?....and of course, according to you the plane crashing into the buildings and the jet fuel fires, plus other flammable material, were not enough to weaken the redundancy of the structure....



Originally posted by bsbray11
This being purely from a scientific perspective.


You have got to be kidding....what scientific perspective did you present?.....



Originally posted by bsbray11
However you may respond, you may agree that so far this is sound reasoning, no?


It does not sound reasonable.....



Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless the WTC Towers were free energy machines, where the result of the falling of the caps produced an energy output that would have necessarily been greater than what they actually had stored as potential energy, something was up with those collapses. And I'm not aware of any evidence supporting any free energy machines to date.


Really?.... Let's actually see what a real "scientific perpective" says about the collapse....


Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press 9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
By Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou2

Abstract: This paper3 presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged
heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.


Introduction and Failure Scenario
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 (Appendix I). So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel
columns to very high temperature.

The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core. The likely scenario of failure is approximately as follows.

In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800ŽC. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the
initial blast. At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep—an increase of deformation under sustained load).

This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2). Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity.

The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated.
This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles
probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube (stage 5, at left).


The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down (stage 5).

1Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois 60208; z-bazant@northwestern.edu.

2Graduate Research Assistant, Northwestern University.

3The original version with equations (1) and (2) was originally submitted to ASCE on September 13, and an expanded version with equation (3) was submitted to ASCE on September 22. Appendix II was added on September 28, and I and III on October 5. The basic points of this paper, submitted to SIAM, M.I.T., on September 14, were incorporated in Baˇzant (2001a,b). Posted with updates since September 14 at www.civil.northwestern.edu...
www3.tam.uiuc.edu... and math.mit.edu...˜bazant.


Excerpted from.
www.civil.northwestern.edu...

I separated the excerpt into paragraphs so it is a bit easier to read.


[edit on 27-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir[/i

Just because he's a nuclear physicist doesn't mean he's wrong either.
[edit on 15-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]


Oh I see....so if he doesn't have any knowledge on structural engineering that makes him right?....

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]


just as much as your contention that being an "electronics engineer" doesnt make you wrong. it seems that if thats your whole argument against the BYU prof. it would also have to apply to yourself right? I'm not saying he is right just that your are using a double standard in this situation. my personal opinion is right there with MacMerdin.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by bsbray11
See the size of the cap in relation to the rest of the building? There's an obvious problem here. That cap is much smaller than the rest of the building, and yet we are to believe it crushed all of the floors below?

What you don't seem to understand is that that red cap is much bigger, and weights at least 10 times more than each of the individual foors it fell on. That red cap fell on each one of the floors, collapsing one floor at a time as each floor below the red cap collapsed, more mass/weight is added to the total mass/weight of the fallen debris.




How is it that you can look at the cap as if it is a single object, but then look at the lower building in terms of individual floors, as if they are not constructed of the exact same materials in the exact same fashion? Only less material, as the caps needn't have supported as much weight as the lower floors, and there were of course much fewer floors in the caps to begin with. You certainly have a selective way of seeing things.

You can imagine it as the cap crushing the lower building 1 beam at a time if you wish, or 1 rusty bolt at a time, but that does not change the problem at hand objectively, but only in your mind. And there was no significant weight added to the caps from the crushed floors. The crushed floors merely became debris, most of which was ejected outward as you can clearly see in any video of either collapse if you have any god-given sense about you.

The rest of your post is based on similar thinking.


At any rate, the post you have just responded to was directed towards someone of some intelligence: AgentSmith. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Best regards,
Brian

[edit on 27-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalmessiah
just as much as your contention that being an "electronics engineer" doesnt make you wrong. it seems that if thats your whole argument against the BYU prof. it would also have to apply to yourself right? I'm not saying he is right just that your are using a double standard in this situation. my personal opinion is right there with MacMerdin.


Well, first MacMerdin did say in one of his posts that the explanation of one of the structural engineers i gave a link to made sense and was right.

I also haven't seen MacMerdin respond in a long time.

As for whether or not I am wrong, you would have to address anything that I said and proof that it is wrong. i would find that difficult since I have already given several links with excerpts where other engineers, including civil and structural engineers, agree that there was no need for any "explosives" for the towers to collapse.

I did not "just claim" that the professor is wrong. I gave my own input into some of the things the professor gave and presented evidence from structural, civil and other engineers who all agree that there were no explosives. The crash from the planes, and the further weakening of the redundant structure of the buildngs by the fires was enough to start the collapse, and it was enough for the entire structure to collapse.



[edit on 27-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


How is it that you can look at the cap as if it is a single object, but then look at the lower building in terms of individual floors, as if they are not constructed of the exact same materials in the exact same fashion? Only less material, as the caps needn't have supported as much weight as the lower floors, and there were of course much fewer floors in the caps to begin with. You certainly have a selective way of seeing things.


humm...let's see.... Did one floor start collapsing, or did about 12 floors collapsed in one building and about 26+ floors collapsed on the other building on top of the rest of the floors?....

You don't think that since 12-26 floors collapsed on each floor below it that the total weight which fell on top of the lower floors is more than just the weight of one floor?....



Originally posted by bsbray11
You can imagine it as the cap crushing the lower building 1 beam at a time if you wish, or 1 rusty bolt at a time, but that does not change the problem at hand objectively, but only in your mind.


Only in my mind?... I guess every link and excerpt i gave from every engineer, including structural and civil engineers, are all imagining things....



Originally posted by bsbray11
And there was no significant weight added to the caps from the crushed floors. The crushed floors merely became debris, most of which was ejected outward as you can clearly see in any video of either collapse if you have any god-given sense about you.


...no significant weight added from each floor collapsing?..... I see..... so the weight dissapeared?...... Now that would be some conspiracy theory.... We would have to find out what happened to the dissapearing weight from each of the floor that collapsed.....



Originally posted by bsbray11The rest of your post is based on similar thinking.


Thinking...yes, perhaps you should start doing that.



Originally posted by bsbray11
At any rate, the post you have just responded to was directed towards someone of some intelligence:
Brian


I guess that leaves you out of the discussion...Brian.....

BTW Brian, is it possible for you to lay of the insults? or is that all your "magnificent intelligence" has to offer to the topic?

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by bsbray11
At any rate, the post you have just responded to was directed towards someone of some intelligence:
Brian


This is a misquote.

The original post:


At any rate, the post you have just responded to was directed towards someone of some intelligence: AgentSmith. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Best regards,
Brian


And where the hell did anyone say "magnificent intelligence" for you to put quotes on it?



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by billybob
having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with a wall. the only reason i didn't put you on ignore, is because i think you're a danger to people who have no knowledge of scientific principals or propoganda techniques.


...... I really have no time, nor do i desire to continuously argue with anyone who continuously claims to know anything about "scientific principals" yet decides to ignore every "logical" explanation given by several engineers, not just me, and decides to instead insult and claim that "anyone who thinks differently than him/her must be a government agent."



i never said what you quoted me as saying. you just keep making stuff up.

i don't ignore every engineer. just the ones who are wrong. HAHA!



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I also haven't seen MacMerdin respond in a long time.


I'm still here in the background. I haven't posted in awhile because I've been busy and also I don't want to post something that is wrong. Right now, I am doing a small structural analysis involving the support bolts on the floors to see if the strength of the bolts would have stopped the fall of the remaining floors (since the bolts are what NIST says where the "weekest link")....sorry had to. I have a few questions for people who have been researching this topic for awhile.

I need to know the mass of both caps of the buildings (official estimates will do). Or the estimated weight of both caps because that's what I'm trying to find out anyway.

As far as my view: I'm not sure about the demolition theory either way as of yet. I know what my opinions are but I need to find somekind of proof (structural analysis, blueprints, etc.) to be totally sure of the structural integrity of the buildings.

That is why I haven't posted. As someone said earlier, I would like to be certain before I put my career on the line.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
you might try this link for some figures....Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the
Dust Cloud following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center



Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate [Ref. (1)]: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. "That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.


enjoy.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Is this what you need?


Below are floor load estimates based on a review of WTC data contained in a 2005 NIST report. This report contained select scanned images of original WTC specification documents. Because of contradictions in the NIST final report this paper relied on the original WTC specification documents. Data was incomplete so inferences had to be made. The load rating for columns in the perimeter area was 50 psf. The load rating for the core area was up to 100 psf. This comes out to be an estimated 75 psf average for an office floor. The load ratings for floors 110-94 average out to be about 82 psf (3.9 kPa) per floor. On average, a floor's design live load was 1,488 tons. The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306 tons. Add the factor of safety and the building structure could handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing. To visualize, imagine 5,500 2-ton cars stacked in a square about 1/3 of a city block.


From this paper:
911research.wtc7.net...

That's for WTC1. Hopefully it will help.

The paper concludes:


CONCLUSION

Why has no person of conscience done this analysis yet?

Keep in mind that this is a DRAFT version of a paper. A rigorous peer review is necessary before anyone firmly accepts this paper's findings. A careful frame-by-frame analysis of videos, a more detailed modeling of the fire, collapse, and clouds, should be done to confirm measurements and observations.

The findings are beyond astounding. If this paper proves its accuracy, then it is undeniable that explosives were used to pull down WTC 1. This radically changes the perspective of 9-11 and everything associated with it. I leave the discussion of the implications to YOU the reader.


Maybe you can provide some peer review?


[edit on 28-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by AdamJ
third one along on the bottom row is quite a good example. 10 second gap.
Implosion World


Did you actually stop to think what was happening there?....

The explosion on those two buildings occurred less than a second or a second right before the buildings collapsed.

The first explosion was probably another building getting demolished.

Here is a link to the video you are talking about.

www.implosionworld.com...

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Muaddib]



lol.
I think you'll find you are wrong
personally i think you are making a bit of a fool out of yourself.

You could also try the 7th one along on the bottom row, the hospital. The explosions are going off a good 5 seconds before you see any collpase

And why do you need to post the same link that i posted???

[edit on 29-11-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 29-11-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
1. - The structural engineers and their links which are thrown around here multiple times by Muaddib, are totally outdated and proven wrong, by his own favoured scientists payed by the US government :
The first time by the 9/11 Commission Report
The second Time by the FEMA Report
The third time by the Final NIST Reports from 26 Oktober 2005.
(Remarkably, again they avoided WTC 7's total collapse as the Pest, and will keep doing that, untill a new enlightened government has taken over, so the few honest NIST scientists can at last come forward, they managed to include already many hints to be found if you search deep enough, and I am searching already from the day NIST released those final reports, 26 Oktober 2005)

The whole pancaking theory is thrown overboard long ago, they do not touch it with a 10 meter long flagpole anymore, FEMA and NIST leave it to the reader to decide how the buildings collapsed. They try to come up with a theory why the collapse initiated, but then stop dead in their tracks by not explaining how f.ex. the 3 sets of heavily reinforced double floors of the Skylobbies didn't measurably slowed down their socalled progressive collapse.


( A light colored dust detonation zone progresses down the side of the tower while the corner section remains intact, indicating that the floors are not "pancaking" but being blow-out in a downward cascade. The freefall speed of the explosive cascade is far too fast for a genuine collapse and can only be generated by a computer controlled demolition sequence. )

2. - A fact is, that that cap was tilting and rotating, before the charges were set off. That implicates a very important fact, namely :
That outside frames were buckling and sagging at one side of the structure, the side where the cap was tilting over the side of the tower. I still haven't been able to position the impact hole of the plane in that cap-tilting picture, I had other things to do. Probably someone else has done that already.
There are a few possibilities, of which 2 will be addressed now :
.....a.- the cap tilted and gave in on the side where the plane hit.
.....b.- the cap tilted and gave in on the side where most fires burned
..........for the longest time and the highest intensity.


( The top section of the south tower began to lean at a sharp angle early in its implosion. In the seconds that followed, this intact top section turned to dust instead of falling into the street in one large piece. Critics charge implosions always start at the bottom, but this style of mid-level detonation sequence is not uncommon, as seen in Philadelphia in 1999, courtesy of Controlled Demolition Inc. )

It means in both instances, that big parts of the opposite sides of the cap were still attached firmly to the rest of the structure, otherwise the cap wouldn't have tilted, but fallen flat down on the next floor in a pure vertical movement.
(The demolition crew nearly for sure had not anticipated the tilt, and had to blow up that cap, otherwise the whole tower would have tilted over on a substantial part of Manhattan)

That means, that a great deal of the load of the cap hung on one side of the building, on a kind of "hinge", and with increasing force, the more it tilted, untill the outside frame collumns on the opposite side would snap, and then for a few moments the whole opposite side, the one under the tilt- "hinge", would slip back in the building because of central gravity force of the cap breaking the "hinge" inwards, making the whole cap tilt increase even more, untill it would fall "overboard".

That again means, that the gravitational center of the cap made an increasing angle with the gravitational center of the still standing part of the building.
That means that the cap's gravitational center was moving in a slowly rotating ARC, which normally can't be stopped anymore, only if the core collumns would act as a "pin", in fact a strong square tube "guiding" the whole outside frame tube.

Imagine a set of vertically connected "rings" collapsing and slowly tumbling down around a standing square "pin", and on the way down those vertical connections "hinges" would break under the spiralling down gravitational weight center of the spiralling down rings.

However, in this miraculous case, it did not rotate further down in the same rotating downward arc, breaking one floor-side of the building followed by the next one, and so on around all sides of the tower, floor by floor side ;
but suddenly the whole cap bursted out in a dustcloud, which spit out numerous streams of heavy smoking heavy debris, in up- and sidewards arcs, only possible when thrown up by an explosion (parts ended up 600 feet further in the roof of the Winter Garden, explain that please, without explosives again) , and then we also see that exact moment in the Danish video a huge "puff of air" (ROTF,LOL) spitting out a window in a position many floors under the cap-"hinge", exactly the moment when we hear a loud explosion sound in that video in real time, so without the delay of 9.2 seconds.

Please explain that.
Any explanation anyone comes up with without explosives, must explain why the visuals of the collapse did not show ANY continuing spiralling collapse, but a perfect flat implosion rate of all next floors, after that outburst of ENERGY which blew the cap to thousands of pieces + a huge dustcloud.


( Sections of the North Tower's outer steel framework, weighing as much as a jetliner when joined together, were shot like missiles roughly 600 feet through the air into the top of the Winter Garden. This feat was accomplished by massive explosions that brought down the north tower at freefall speed and completed the illusion of terrorism to traumatize the unsuspecting public.)



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I've marked out the distance for that particular piece of debris before, and it's closer to 500 feet, allowing for lens distortion maybe 550ft.



That panel would weigh about 8000 - 8500lbs. The energy required to create an impulse capable of shooting an 8500lbs piece of debris 550 feet laterally is enormous. And that's not even counting the energy required to first snap the thing from it's connections to the composite panels surrounding it and to the three floors to which it was anchored. There are just so many gargantuan energy sinks involved in these bizarre collapses, with all of their physics defying phenomena, as to make the "pancake theory" more like the "ice cream theory" - as soon as the heat of scrutiny is put on it, it melts into a puddle of soupy nonsense. No wonder NIST avoided addressing the collapses; there's just no explaining it, so the best thing to do is just ignore it and hope it will go away.But four years later and it refuses to do so. Besides, I think the feds ran out of desserts to support their theories.

Watch these videos of the collapse of WTC1. You can see the huge pieces of debris being ejected in positive angle parabolic trajectories; arcing first upward and then over and down. Impact from descending debris cannot create this effect.

WTC1 from North, slow01

WTC1 from North02

[edit on 2005-11-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I have no idea why some people keep pressing on about severing the base when everyone can clearly see the collapse starts at the point where the aircraft entered the building. Severing the base would not accomplish anything and the collapse would have looked completely different.

You seem to be confused, thinking that the destruction of the base columns was the way in which the collapse was initiated, or that it comprised the collapse method in its entirety. Every demolition of every building is a multi-step process, and every demolition is different dependent on the design of the structure. But regardless of how it's done, the base columns are always destroyed as one of those steps. Otherwise the building simply will not collapse completely; it will partially collapse. It's really such a simple concept, as simple as a man standing, and is so fundamental to the construction, integrity, and demolition of structures that I don't know why the argument continues.



I'd love to see people talk to a demolition expert and tell him, "Dude, you don't need to worry about taking out the base columns, just drop the top 8% of the building on itself and it will, like, totally collapse into dust and pick-up sticks all the way down. Trust me."

Still, here's a simple diagram to help you understand the concept:



Now imagine that is the core of the towers. What do you think is going to happen if you don't sever the base columns? The thing is going to collapse sideways, or it's not going to collapse at all, because it has enormous strength along its vertical axis, and much less strength along its lateral axis.



Even with debris falling on it, the thing is not going to simply crush into the Earth, particularly since by the time the caps were destroyed, the debris that was involved in the crushing process was all unconnected, individual parts. Here's an analogy for you: Drop a 5Kg bag of pebbles on a milk carton and see what happens, it crushes the carton. Then drop 5Kg of loose pebbles on it and see the difference. The pebbles do some damage but are largely deflected, because a) the energy is not concentrated in one unit, b) the individual parts are lighter and deflected easily by the resistance of the structure below which is resisting as one single unit, and c) the individual parts are free to follow the path of least resistance - over the side. Bits of Rock vs Whole Rock = Bits of Rock lose. Also remember that the core wasn't designed to take the lateral load of the building, the perimeter was, but the core had enormous vertical strength - 47 massive columns carried 50% of the entire vertical load, the same amount of load that it took 236 perimeter columns to carry.



If the base columns of the towers were not destroyed, there is no way the building could collapse to the very pavement like it did, and those super-strong cores would have remained standing like skeletons with their flesh stripped off. And you know what? They did! You can see them standing 50+ storeys into the air after both collapses, before simply falling straight down as if they weren't connected to the bedrock by massive, massive box columns 72 feet underground. Here's just a few examples:

WTC1 core 01 - wmv

WTC1 core 02 - wmv

WTC1 core 03 - avi

WTC2 core 01 - wmv




Those massive cores were not destroyed by the falling debris, they stood strong, and yet a few seconds later they suddenly fell straight down as if they were made of butter. And you can see that they initially retained both lateral and vertical rigidity, because they were swaying from the collapse like a tree in the wind yet did not fall over.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said in an interview: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”


If anyone wants yo carry on down the explosives path the only going theory is that the building was wired up in a highly extravagant manner and would have to have been detonated in a downward flowing wave from the points of impact.

Firstly, any destruction of a building by controlled means is going to be a multi-step process. But more importantly, why are you insisting that there only be one theory on how the demolition was carried out? Is it because with that one you can always fall back on the "they'd need millions of bombs on every floor, so how did they do that" argument? There are plenty of theories out there regarding how it was done, and the most ridiculous of them all is the government one. All the other theories explain the observed phenomena quite neatly, including the molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

external image


If the aero-fuel had pooled anywhere and/or gone down access shafts then maybe similar things happened, accounting for any explosions some people might have heard. It seems rather likely to me.

I am constantly amazed by how many anomalies have been attributed to the magical jet fuel which traveled all over the building from top to bottom, burning in hellish steel-destroying fires here, pouring down some elevator shafts and only igniting once it reached the basement there, resting on office floors and exploding at various times to fool police and firemen into thinking there were bombs in the building, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff. Now we have a gargantuan pool of unburnt jet fuel sitting around somewhere, and then exploding purely by coincidence just a few seconds before the building collapsed. This all-purpose jet fuel truly is amazing. I'm thinking Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, there was jet fuel on the grassy knoll which exploded just as the limo approached and killed him dead!



[edit on 2005-11-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
WCIP, I always like reading your posts. The fantasy world that you live in is rich and imaginative.

I especially like your absurd theory of how the cores should not have failed even while the rest of the building was collapsing around it.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I especially like your absurd theory of how the cores should not have failed even while the rest of the building was collapsing around it.


Yeah, I know. It's amazing how when you watch real-life footage the brain can trick you into seeing the cores standing when what you're really seeing is the cores standing.

It's also amazing how some people can read through posts and completely miss the point. If the cores hadn't had their base columns destroyed, there would have been much more of the structure left standing than we already did see.

And what's even more amazing is how the legendary Howard is reduced from the great debunker he once was, to a lowly wielder of ad hominem and smiley faces. It's just not as fun as it used to be back in the heady days of the WTC Challenge.



[edit on 2005-11-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WCIP, I always like reading your posts. The fantasy world that you live in is rich and imaginative.

I especially like your absurd theory of how the cores should not have failed even while the rest of the building was collapsing around it.



I'd like to see someone's calculations on why they didn't stand. I have not looked into this yet. The thing is.....would the inner core act as one unit, or would it act as individual columns? From NIST (if I'm reading the details right) there are supporting beams connecting the columns every floor. This would lead one to assume that the inner coulumns would act as one single entity core coulumn.......if I'm wrong in assuming this please feel free to correct me and please give calculations (i.e. proof) that my assumption would be wrong.

Now, what the official theory says is that the rivets, welds and bolts are what failed and triggered the fall and what continued to fail bringing down the towers.

If the bolts, rivets and welds are what failed.....then when a floor came crashing onto another floor, say 98 to 97, the floors (97) are no longer attached to the inner core because the connections have failed. When there is no longer attachment to the inner core, there would not be significant lateral forces to destroy the inner core. That is to say IF the floors pancaked onto themselves. This does not take into consideration the lateral forces produced by steel bending and maybe hitting the inner core or something like that....which probably did happen.....but IMO not enough at least for the bottom sections of core....which we DID see stand for at least a little bit.

Keep in mind that the inner core was imbedded into bedrock and would still give significant lateral resistance....unlike what NIST would have you believe....also IMO...if I can be proven wrong please feel free.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WCIP, I always like reading your posts. The fantasy world that you live in is rich and imaginative.

I especially like your absurd theory of how the cores should not have failed even while the rest of the building was collapsing around it.





yeah, wecomeinpeace. i especially like your fantasy picture of the core still standing. OBVIOUSLY photoshopped!

i just want to know how you did the cgi on the south tower collapse video from across the river, where you can see the core still standing through the smoke, then it begins to TIP to one side, and then magically loses it's angular momentum and falls straight down.

is it true oswald used jet fuel? WOW!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join