How was WTC foundation failure achieved?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I totally lost you there. What do you mean that the columns could have been supporting 0 load?


They weren't supporting 0 load, they were supporting the building above them.

I'm talking about the buckled columns. They might just as well have been totally ripped down and thrown onto the trusses. Screw supporting only some of their loads. There would STILL be no reason for the buildings to collapse.


Serious problems have been exposed with your theory and you just ignore them and truck along as if not a word has been said. I'll break it down for you again.

• Photos do not show NEARLY enough buckled columns to explain why the collapses began.
  
• You assert that, suddenly!, before the buildings collapsed, buckling spread throughout the building faster than anyone could videotape.
  
• Aside from being totally unprovable, the above also contradicts the FACT that earlier buckling DID NOT PROPOGATE AT ALL, let alone at lightning fast speeds, too quick to videotape.

Do you get it NOW? Or do we have to go over it a third time before this insanely complicated thread of logic dawns on you?

Originally posted by Masisoar
JimC, so the building fell progressively faster yet was losing mass at the same time.

Losing structural mass.. yet still manages to take down the rest of the 70+ something floors below it that were structurally sound. I know a large mass like that can cause significant damage, I'm not going to argue you there, but the whole building. No.

How was it losing mass? It was gaining mass as each collapsed floor came down on the next floor.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Aside from using classic conspiracy theory logic, ie "it's true because you can't prove it", you also ignore the fact that columns had already buckled much earlier -- and this buckling did not propogate at all!

Really.

I don’t see it here:






but I do see it here

No, they were not.

Did you happen to miss all of that solid debris spewing over all four building facades, for both buildings?





Most of the debris landed OUTSIDE of the building footprints. Check GZ pics.

Therefore, most of the debris did not fall straight down, but fell over the sides of the building. And so, your line of thinking is totally flawed.

You are feigning a lot of stupidity here.

We have very little buckling for prolonged amounts of time.

Then we have buildings collapses.

There was no visible increase in buckling BEFORE the collapses began.

Your explanation of buckling propogation suddenly being lightning-fast and spanning whole floors instantaneously is idiotic. There was visible buckling that DID NOT PROPOGATE well before the collapses began.

It makes NO SENSE for the buckling to have not propogated itself at all, or very, very slowly, and then suddenly propogated too quickly for cameras to even pick up.

The fact that you try to argue this insane idea seriously sheds some light on your real motivations for being here, imo.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Each floor added its energy to collapsing the floor below it.

Do you understand the fact that pulverizing concrete into a very fine powder takes a lot of energy? Or dissociating steel members?

Energy was not just added from floor to floor. That is about the farthest from what actually happened. Aside from massive amounts of energy being exerted by the falling floors for each additional floor destroyed, most of the mass was also falling over the sides of the buildings. Also, each floor was progressively taking more and more energy to destroy because of thicker columns towards the base, and floors that have already been destroyed do not destroy additional floors very efficiently. Imagine a destroyed floor falling. They were falling everywhere, in all directions -- in pieces.

Not just straight down, gaining momentum and mass and speed the whole time.

The lightweight concrete used in the WTC flooring doesn't take much to be reduced to powder. The main strength of concrete comes from the aggrigates in the mix as well as the reinforcing materials used in it. All the concrete floors did in the WTC was to transfer their own loads to the building's structure. Concrete only handles compressive loads well and has very little tensil strength. When you look at the videos of the collapse you can see that the entire building above the impact zone starts to move as one piece, it is only later that it disintegrates. That falling section of the building builds energy rapidly and that is what overwelms the lower structure. The amount of debris falling outside of the tower area ia negligable, in compairison of the over all mass of the building.

Let me see if I have this right.

Claim:
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition because the building collapsed into it’s own footprint.

Claim
WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions because the debris was “blown” all over the place.

Hmmm,

Spongebob lives under the sea, and yet drinks water from a glass.


yep, make sense to me.




not

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The lightweight concrete used in the WTC flooring doesn't take much to be reduced to powder.

Support?

The amount of debris falling outside of the tower area ia negligable, in compairison of the over all mass of the building.

As in, most of the building's mass is negligible in comparison to the minority of the building's mass? Support? Again -- most of the debris fell over the sides. This is not something that can really be disputed. Look at aerial photos of Ground Zero.


PS, HowardRoark -- I think you're having enough trouble with your buckling b.s. to be posting straw-man arguments for us to attack.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
... you can see that the entire building above the impact zone starts to move as one piece, it is only later that it disintegrates.

What applied forces caused this rapid and complete disintigration/pulverization mid-air?

i like the picture you showed when the tower coloapse BSB,
theres almost as many debris aside the building that im clearly suspecting the weigth on the undamage floor is not enough to make it fall at the same speed. the building was smashed open at early stage of the collapse so the weigh was inconsistent unlike the perfect fall.

No. We had no evidence of buckling, the we did. In each case, shortly thereafter, the buildings collapsed.











It appears to me that the buckling had progressed from just past column 330 to past 340 in these two pictures.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Let me see if I have this right.

Claim:
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition because the building collapsed into it’s own footprint.

Claim
WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions because the debris was “blown” all over the place.

Two different styles of CD.

7 didn't "shower down" from the top... 7 fell as if the bottom was being "dissolved" (for lack of a better term) and it was sinking down into it's own basement. The BOTTOM supports were removed. No giant cloud of 'particles' from the top like 1 and 2. If it was blown from the bottom we would expect this behavior and this is what we see in the footage.

1 and 2 blew up from the top down with the suooprts being sequentially removed from the TOP on down... NOT landing in their own foot print BUT staying about as close as they could to being in "their own footprint". In this top down CD this is the expected behavior or landing zone for the debris. (logically)

Are you saying that because they came down differently that they could not both be CD?

The photos you are posting now show WTC2 AFTER it had started its collapse sequence.

AGAIN -- you have not shown the CAUSE, but merely an EFFECT of the collapse initiation. Where was all of that buckling BEFORE the collapse began?

Your suddenly-lightning-fast-failures does NOT match the previous buckling in the building. This must be the fourth or fifth time I've said this in the past 30 minutes, Howard! What is up with you today?

Is your goal to drown this thread with so much stupid crap and repetitive images that all good information is lost?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It appears to me that the buckling had progressed from just past column 330 to past 340 in these two pictures.

It appears to me as if the cladding HAS fallen off or is loosened in many spots in those photos and "buckling" is your opinion of what you are seeing.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Wrong.

The core had no lateral stability.

Source?

The core was interconnected... interlaced. Show me any loading documention or even the bluprints showing that this MONOLITHIC interconnected core "had no lateral stability".

You are just making this stuff up as you go along now Howardroark.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

The cladding won't "fall" inward.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The cladding won't "fall" inward.

No, but if it falls off, it will ive the visual impresson of a depression on the facade.

Also... what do you see in the core in this pic HowardRoark:



[edit on 31-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The cladding won't "fall" inward.

No, but if it falls off, it will ive the visual impresson of a depression on the facade.

There is a clear bowing inward in those pictures.

Also... what do you see in the core in this pic HowardRoark:



[edit on 31-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

That looks like the lower portion of the building. You can tell because it is well below the Y where the columns split into three separate columns. Count the columns per side and compare them to this:




As I stated, there were diagonal braces in the lower plaza levels. This is because there were no deep spandrell plates on the exterior in this area.





-Note that the bracing at the top portion of the core is part of the kangaroo crane system and not the core.



[edit on 31-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is a clear bowing inward in those pictures.

Again, your visiual interpretation of the photo.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That looks like the lower portion of the building.

but your statement was that the core had "no lateral stability" howardroark. This is a FLAT OUT LIE. It could withstand a lateral load at the bottom... probably a substantial one... It could also withstand some amount of lateral loading at the top... probably "a lot". Just because it does not have diagonal pracing, does not mean the "matrix" connected columns that created the core had "no lateral stability". That notion is ridiculous.

Rephrease your sentences for accuracy please Howardroark.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
but your statement was that the core could withstand "no lateral load" howardroark. This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

Oh, go pound sand . . .


I clearly stated that there were exceptions to the bracing issue for the core.

In spite of these exceptions, the core was not designed to withstand lateral loads, the exterior was.

Your continued denial of that fact will not negate it.

Your attacks on me will not negate it.

Just because it does not have diagonal pracing, does not mean the "matrix" connected columns that created the core could withstand "no lateral load". That notion is ridiculous.

Find me a structural engineer that will agree with you.