Phillips:60 Architects Support WTC7 Controlled Demolition Theory

Snoopy,

Either you're reading me wrong or I am not being clear. I will concede that it could be me.

I'm getting at that Dr. Greening made calculations of the caps energy and all debunkers run with that calculation. What he didn't include in that energy calculation was the resistance of the buckled columns.

As far as the slump. I'm probably not using the correct wording because I definately didn't mean slump over. I just mean a collapse that would be slower (however slightly it might be) than a freefall collapse which would in turn make the amount of energy crashing into the remaining building less than what Greening calculated and the debunkers use.

Is this any more clear?

Griff,

I know I came across a groups request for US NIST/FEMA(?) to clarify thier clipped data in their structural and fire Damage simulation - bc i printed it out and showed it to some colleagues.

I think it was a nine square test with minimal, moderate, and extreme damage from fire crossed with the same parameters for structural damage.

In essence the bastards (meaning the principal investigators who released the report and not all the other decent folks making a days wage at NIST etc) didnt offer the full data sets for time and temps etc. ,

yet the government could ONLY recreate full tower collapse (as it happened) when there was an

*** Immediate *** and complete structural failure of the CORE columns!

Which is pretty problematic as we all saw this was not the case long after the plane hits and fireballs. Also when applying the immediate failure route its pretty hard to bring steel up to 1300C over the required time period. Also I am foggy if this sole simulated full collapse was suggesting complete and immediate failure of the entire core structure from HAT to foundation?

Did anyone else see this - or maybe it was actually a previous thread here in ATS?

This has been my contention all along. My scenerio is that the core was taken out at the base and the two areas of mechanical floors (maybe with something to help the fall also but mostly not needed).

If you take out the core columns, the outer columns now have an extra 50% weight added. Add that to the 15% columns that were severed and you get more than the factor of safety could have handled. Also, the helper charges were probably just to make sure that the outer columns were compromised to initiate failure.

BTW, before Snoopy comes on here and starts to try to discredit me, the collapse initiation would have started in the impact zones with this scenerio also.

Man, again I congrat you for sticking your name to something.

Really I could give a *snip* if the towers were demo'd or fell by magic.

The troubling aspect for me is that people work, live and play each day in the same structures some wish to believe are built so tenuously that the type of global collapse which occured (three times in one day) could occur again. If their case was the rule, then I really take my hat off to those who accept 911 building failure syndrome and still manage to sit their 9-5's in any structure taller than a story - or cross a bridge/tunnel.

Nough about that. Dont let the questions fluster you. I am willing to give all the benefit of doubt, including myself that maybe I am wrong and the buildings did fall from plane+fire+some weird design/material flaw. (It becomes tougher for me squash my scepticism when US government engineering bodies fail to replicate the days tower events.) And IMO what is overlooked is that WTC7 was technically an alternate structure 'by design type' from the other two towers. ALL 3 still fell by the same coincidence that killed thier sprinkler systems.

..still maybe I am wrong. However by saying that it means that those who argue the otherside can be wrong as well. Bottomline keep coming with what you feel is the truth - bc it makes me feel more confident in what i've believed for awhile now.

And any help on the NIST report failure to produce collapse from anyone would be apprec'd. I will dig for it tonight.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

That's always been my contention also. That I could be wrong. That is why I have no idea why Snoopy came in here and accussed me of trying to be this all knowing engineer that's infalliable. He has seen my posts before enough to know that usually I put a disclaimer that I could be wrong. I'm human after all.

The only thing I can think of that what he was doing was just trying to discredit me. Which is the last resort of a debater. If you can't debate the subject, try and discredit your opponent.

BTW: Thanks for the support. I hope it doesn't bite me in the arse though. I'm waiting for my results from my PE (professional engineer) exam. I must really be paranoid to think that they would hold my PE license because I question 9/11 but you never know. Stranger things have happened.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by Griff]

Now to think on it 'global collapse' happened four times in one day correct? The Pentagon had a similar if less tall failure awhile after theoretically being hit with the same combo punch.

What are the engineering odds? Four times in one day. And isnt the pentagon a much different construction and design type than either WTC7 or WTC1+2.

...and my apologies to ATS censors and members. My typed profanity above (self-censored in part) was only added to indicate my incredulity and frustration.

I completely agree with your edit and site rules - keeping ATS in my opinion *snippin* top notch!

scrap

You make a good point but you have to realize that the pentagon was reinforced concrete and not just steel columns.



The odds are definately high I'd say. Yes, it would be different. But, i also believe that reinforced concrete can be compared to steel. You just have to adjust one variable. E (modulus of elasticity). That is how composite (usually composite decks which consist of steel with concrete placed on it but they are connected) structures are designed. While designing a composite deck, you adjust the steel's E to match the concrete. That way it makes the calculations easier.

Hope I answered your questions. Probably not. Sometimes I have a problem when trying to write what I mean. It's kinda like writers block.

There is a bit of self-evident illogic to this reasoning. Wouldn't it make sense for all the buildings that were hit by 300,000 pound planes to have similar structural failures?

That said, this still leaves WTC7 as the inexplicable event of the day. There was no corresponding release of enegy equivalent to 300,000 pounds slamming its core at 500 mph. Steel beams hitting it from the sky are unlikely to uniformly damage all of the perimeter columns at their base.

Not when we take into consideration that the buildings all fell after and not as a direct result of the damage done.

This I think is the point you are not addressing.

Their different structural types (excluding wtc1+2) makes uniform failue more suspicious. IMO

The buildings were hit with force and fire-period, yet structures of alternate design and material type all resulted in a total collapse over a prolonged period following the initial damage.

When I say total collapse regarding the Pentagon I mean the full storied section of the ring hit.

Strike and initial blasts + alternate building types and structure + time = 4 failures?

Sorry my fault there, should have said 'similar in global failure sense' meaning full failure well past the initial attack time - not similar structures. All did stand just fine after the initial strikes /blast.

What's the material score anyhow? (I am doing this without any certainty so anybody please check me)

WTC1+2: steel box core with an independant concrete flooring; concrete over spanning steel joist floors ; connecting to supporting outter wall steel exterior columns.

WTC7: (guess) Steel column and beam ; poured concrete over steel pan floors - wall system??

Pentagon: Cast in place reinforced concrete column and beam? Concrete flooring system? - infill or cast in place reinforced exterior wall of some type?

[edit on 2-6-2007 by scrapple]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by scrapple]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by scrapple]

Not sure why this thread is running on so much speculation when the info on a lot of these questions/comments has been out there a long time. Granted you have to wade through a lot of bunk to get to the professional people who have done analysis, calculations, and experiments. Keep looking. These are the sites I find have the most legitimate arguments, research and background. Note they have similar URLs to other sites that are less stringent.

stj911.org...

www.journalof911studies.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

Griff, hope that PE comes through. My ex could never get confident enough to even take the test.

I have run across a paper that is really stretching my 30 year old physics. If you have a clue about elastic loading and plastic shortening phases, maybe you can give an opinion as to whether this guy has his physics and math right.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Scroll down to Volume 1, paper by Gordon Ross on "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1 "

Just a note on the new site and what I have run into personally and in comments on several sites or videos.

This is one tough idea to deal with. It challenges your faith, convictions and hope for this country. If the WTC collapses were not solely the work of terrorists, what does that mean about the country and our future?

I do not discount the terrorist role. They may or may not have known that someone was on to them. The explosives causing the collapses could have been outsourced by people who were not acting in any official government capacity, or with approval at the highest level. I do suspect Cheney due to Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 commission and Shooter's PNAC/Halliburton history.

Whatever the ultimate discoveries on that score, I agree with Dr. Stephen Jones and others. There is enough evidence against, and lack of support for, the official conspiracy theory (19 Arabs conspired to fly planes into the buildings and the impact + fire brought them down) to warrant a MUCH better forensic investigation. More importantly to me, the Firefighters and Structural Engineers were calling for this by 2/02. I think they absolutely have a right to know why the buildings failed so drastically when they were over engineered to withstand the combination of the plane impact (not all that powerful, actually) and the fires. The new addition of architects and structural engineers to this effort is welcome and appropriate.

Notes on basic thermodynamics. Black smoke indicates a cool burning fire that is oxygen starved. Carbon fuels cannot get hot enough to MELT structural steel. There was a LOT of molten steel in the basements of all three WTC buildings for months. As in, the structural steel beams that the large equipment would pick up were partly melting. Finally, if you think the debris from WTC 1 caused WTC 7 to collapse, why didn't WTC 6 also collapse completely? Hint: look at aerial pictures of 6. For that matter, why didn't the Post Office and the Verizon buildings on either side of 7 get that kind of damage and collapse? Why didn't the building that was badly damaged by WTC 2 debris collapse?

The only structure in the area besides WTC buildings that had to be destroyed was an old church that was built of stone - not a steel frame high rise.

I started reading about this in March of '06 and still don't have my life back into any semblance of normal. What keeps me going is that without knowing what really happened on 9/11/01, how can we protect ourselves from a repeat? Oh, if you haven't read it or seen this yet, Google Operation Northwoods and read it. Add 40 years of more experience and the advances in technology, 9/11 is a piece of cake for the CIA/Joint Chiefs - or people who did that kind of work for them at some time in the past.

You know what BED666... I was thinking just that. Can you show me the federal indictment alleging osama bin laden planned and carryed out the 9/11 event.

What.... There isnt one... How can that be???

Hey CT

..sorry about off topic but hows Melbourne?

I am applying for a research position there right now. I would love to take a wee break from the States for a few years. My contacts there however tell me that underneath the live-free image we get here in the states, there remains a similar neoCon tote the line mentality? And will there be any water for me to drink?
best,
scrap.

IMO it's a good piece. It has holes in it like everything else. The whole scenerio is hard to calculate by hand. But, I believe he gets the point accross. We need finite element analysis from computers to actually be able to calculate everything that day.

And I shouldn't be so hard on Dr. Greening's work because of the same dilema.

Thanks, Griff. I tend to agree with you on the overall issue of holes and being too hard on anyone's calculations, etc. The destruction of too much evidence and withholding or lack of access to some, leads to not having all the information needed to do the precise work. Still, compared to the stuff NASA has been doing for 50 years...the capacity is there to discover a lot.

Thought a comment in one of the other articles by Kevin Ryan (the Chem Engineer from UL) states it well. He argues that the 9/11 truth movement is not so much about promoting a new conspiracy as questioning the one that has been accepted with too many holes in it. The only way to find out if those holes mean anything important is to push for a solid forensic analysis by independent professionals.

It may or may not provide enough answers to ever know for sure what happened. Knowing for sure that more happened than we realized at the time is good. Puts the perps in the position of being really vulnerable if they try to pull another one.

Update:

I see the site has started a new forum and will verify it's members.



Source: ae911truth.org...

I think yer missing a very strong point these guys have made....
The explosives left thermite traces and caused excessive temperatures that persisted for weeks in the basement!
If there were any explosive traces its case feaking closed boys...
bergle

I think the best way to understand the situation is to address the very root of the conspiracy:

I believe there would be no reason to destroy the towers completely after the high-jacked planes hit. The very fact that we were attacked is enough to validate declaring war, and to 'dynamite' the building to me seems superfluous and unnecessary on the part of whichever military engineering corps currently stands accused (by conspiracy theorists) of said disaster, just wasn't necessary.

"occum's razor" usually puts thing into perspective.

Someone had mentioned 'cosmetic' damage...you can't be serious. I saw the gaping holes first hand that day and ill say that it was anything but cosmetic....when the jets hit they blew explosive gas and debris right through to the other side of the towers, cosmetic would not include parking a smoldering jet on the 70th-something floor, possibly a light aircraft 'grazing' the building and causing peeling paint could be called cosmetic. That's just crazy to even think it was such a 'small' explosion\problem...in fact in some ways it denegrate's the lives that were lost to nothing more than a silly incident to which no one wants to avenge even politically if not violently, kinda disturbing.

well, fallenblueangel666, are you an architect or an engineer?

when you speak of occam's razor, can you justify it's application? you realise occam's razor does not apply to complex systems, right?

if i say, the real reason for 911 was to turn north america into a police state, how do you think that occam's razor applies?

let's say i try and apply occam's razor to the reason i have to pay income tax. how does that work, exactly?

let's say, 'cosmetic damage' means '15% loss of perimeter structural support' across 5 floors, and 'an unknown amount of core support loss'.

let's imagine, then when something loses critical support strength, it moves.

did the towers budge after the plane hit? or did they sit their smoldering, while supporting the added 120 tons of airplane on two to five floors?

did they collapse gradually, or suddenly?

gee. a whole huge jet on a mere few floors.

it is very strange that the impacted zone showed such immense strength, and, yet, the rest of the tower folded like a cheap suit.

i wonder if occam folded his suits in twelve seconds.

What a great way to put it. I couldn't have said it better myself.

An update on the site: As of now, I tried to re-register so that I can be a confirmed member. Will update all when I hear back from them.