How they can fail at the impact zones even if the core was taken out

I posted this in another thread. I feel it has merit on it's own for a discussion. I hear this question all the time. The question is how could the building fail at the top if there was a bomb at the base.

The outer and core columns were connected at the top with the hat truss.

The outer columns could hold 50% of the weight (I've heard less but this makes it easier). Now, factor in that about 15% were damaged. I believe there were 207 outer columns. That leaves it with 175 columns holding 50% of the weight.

Let's assume the weight as 1 ton just to make it easy.

So, .5 tons were being held by the outer columns.

With a factor of safety of 2 (also something not verifiable yet), the columns could hold 1 ton.

OK. If the core is taken out, that puts all the weight onto the outer columns...i.e. 1 ton. That's at the brink of the ultimate load. Given that the outer facade was weakened 15%, that would put the load over the amount of the ultimate and cause failure.

The failure would occur at the impact zones because that was the weakest part of the facade and we all know that a chain breaks at it's weakest link.

Hope that clears up any confusion. And as usual, I could be wrong, but no one has challenged me on this priciple as of yet.



[edit on 7/10/2007 by Griff]

Let's get a discussion on this. Anyone feel that I am wrong in my assumptions?

I have been led to believe that there was a red button for the WTC , in case extensive damage was done to the buildings, that could of caused sideways collapse and caused widespread chaos on the streetys of NY.
In case of emergency - smash glass.
After the planes impacted, the people that could make that decision, did.
The buildings were pulled, and made to fall nearly in their own print. The only reason for the slight deviation, is because of the structure splintering at the impact areas.

That is a possibility Hawk Eye.

What I really want out of this thread is to stop hearing that it couldn't have been a CD because they failed at the impact zones. I have proven (sort of) that taking out the core could be a way to fell the towers from the top down.

Also, the evidence that this happened would be seen in the connections. The way they were sheared indicates that the core fell before the outer columns.

NIST states that the trusses pulled the outer columns in to cause collapse. The connections show otherwise IMO.

Originally posted by Griff
What I really want out of this thread is to stop hearing that it couldn't have been a CD because they failed at the impact zones.

The "top down" failure of the building is cited over and over by debunkers as a reason it could not be CD because after all no one has ever seen a top down CD so it must not be possible right?

The load transfer via the hat truss is guaranteed if the core is taken out that is , after all the point of the hat truss, to redistribute the loads. Not only that but now the outer columns must also support the weight of the "dangling" 47 core columns...

It is hard to convince most debunkers that a top down demolition is very possible it is just not used normally in CD as it is cheaper, safer and easier to do a standard demolition. It does not take a lot of imagination to see how easily the buildings could be made to appear to fail from the impact zones and your theory sounds plausible and possible.



[edit on 10-7-2007 by Pootie]

"pancake" theory is bogus but thats my opinion i have done too much research to really be told anymore that it wasn't a CD. I'll debate the Pentagon but wtc 1, 2 and 7 were blown.

The red button idea is interesting but very unlikely it was used with good intentions because you could never make a case to blow a building with fire fighters and countless people inside. So if it did exist it was pushed by the same criminal people that called for norad to stand down.

My opinion is pretty mainstream. Charges were placed in the weeks before 9/11 during the power downs and the sequences initiated on that horrific day.

Originally posted by Pootie
Not only that but now the outer columns must also support the weight of the "dangling" 47 core columns...

I was going to get into that. Also, the weight of the newly added plane and contents.

It does not take a lot of imagination to see how easily the buildings could be made to appear to fail from the impact zones and your theory sounds plausible and possible.

Thanks. I haven't had anyone contend my theory as of yet. The only thing is the last section of core and how it stood. My belief is that it took longer for whatever happened to the core to take place in that last stronger section. Either that or the rest of the debris held it up for a moment or two.

And actually, the fact that it did stand is a tribute to how very strong those columns were.

Originally posted by Beefcake
My opinion is pretty mainstream. Charges were placed in the weeks before 9/11 during the power downs and the sequences initiated on that horrific day.

Damocles has pretty much convinced me that HE explosives were not used. At least up until the collapse. The problem is the sound of HE explosives. That's why I try to focus on the physics and not speculation of what was used. Most of the time, I fail horribly. I still believe thermate cutting charges are a viable option. Or a bunker buster type bomb placed in the mechanical floors core sections. Captain Obvious has shown me that there were indeed fires on the mechanical floors.

Does anyone know if you could make a fuel/air bomb with jet fuel? It would solve the problem of the fireballs, the fires on mechanical floors and the smell of jet fuel everywhere. If anyone knows, please let me know.

See what I mean about failing at not speculating.

Griff
very interesting way of looking at the initiation of collapse--it really has quite a lot going for it. I've been slugging it out with Damocles about these issues on the "no explosions" thread--bombs, squibs, the rumble felt at Columbia's seismographs, initiation of collapse, etc.--and he posed a very good question, which was why were there no explosions at the initiation of collapse.

I argued for planted thermate--no bang--but your theory makes perfect sense.

Once you take out the cores, failure is guaranteed at the impact areas. Then you blow the tops to ensure they don't topple en masse and help collapse along with detonations in the cascade wave and blowing out sections of the core (squibs).

Really, quite compelling idea. Makes excellent sense and is elegant in its simplicity. Also, it would look "real."

I think you put a seriously large piece of the puzzle into place.


[edit on 10-7-2007 by gottago]

Griff
You have been looking at this long enough to know that an aluminium bodied airplane could never take out the core all by itself. Even the fires weren't stong enough. Interestingly if you look at enough video's you find the one that shows about 40 floors of the core still standing in the smoke, and then somehow it falls later? If you watch the building of the WTC video and then see that other video, it really make you wonder. What brought down the core after the global collapse.

Originally posted by gottago
Then you blow the tops to ensure they don't topple en masse and help collapse along with detonations in the cascade wave and blowing out sections of the core (squibs).

Bolded by me. Notice how what you said was exactly what happened to WTC 2's cap?

It's my belief that since the impact zone of WTC 2 was so near the upper mechanical/sky lobby floors that the cap started to tilt when the core seperated and they had to finish the job on that tower before tower 1.

Really, quite compelling idea. Makes excellent sense and is elegant in its simplicity. Also, it would look "real."

I think you put a seriously large piece of the puzzle into place.

Thanks. There are still a few kinks I need to iron out though.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
What brought down the core after the global collapse.

This is one of the kinks in my theory I've been talking about. Maybe it is that whatever was used in the core to sever it took longer at the base than was planned and then after global collapse was either knocked out or whatever was used to sever it finally severed it. Does that make sense?

Griff^

I don't think the cores lingering are really that much of a kink (though it seems nothing is ever cut and dried). After all, they were pretty much a bunch of burnt-out matchsticks in those few seconds they lingered.

When you think of the structure down there--this tightly trussed structure of 4 inch thick box columns just giving up the ghost like that--it's already proof that they'd been blasted by something (or things) massive, and it shows just how strong the core was to remain as long as it did.

They'd have had to have taken out the major elements to get it to sag and initiate the collapse above, but you'd have to assume there was enough remaining secondary structure in the basement areas to allow the core to more or less hold on or to prop it up.

The core would have been tied into the basement floorplates pretty solidly; when it gets blown out below, the floorplates all sag and drop with it but outside the area of the detonation, the upper basement levels would have enough integrity to keep it standing. Add to that, you're blowing off the upper core at a staggeringly fast rate, and the chance of actually unseating it and toppling it is basically nil until the collapse is over and it is exposed.

Then it slumps and topples--just as if it wasn't being supported by anything.

And also, why don't we see any stump core left? By all rights it should have stood at least 30-40 stories high once the dust had settled. And not toppled.

What a surprise the structural plans remain classified.

Edit to add: Yes, I've always thought the tops of the towers were explosively demolished to keep them from simply toppling and causing even worse destruction by falling en masse--its quite obvious, since they just explode in mid-air--and I think it's one of the major proofs of CD.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by gottago
When you think of the structure down there--this tightly trussed structure of 4 inch thick box columns just giving up the ghost like that

I was on the architects and engineers site today and there is someone messing with SAP2000 and the NIST files that were released recently. What they are finding is that alot of those columns were thicker than 4 inches. At least one I saw was up to 8 inches thick. No wonder NIST had to tweak their values for collapse.

its quite obvious, since they just explode in mid-air--and I think it's one of the major proofs of CD.

I agree.

Very high props to Griff

So according to this theory then, hypothetically they would of had to place the explosives/thermate close to the impact zones, correct?

In which case that would prove this was severely planned out and it would explain that audio excerpt/quote I heard a while back (Sorry that I can't remember exactly the source, I believe it was Gulianni or those Israeli captives? not sure) about how the planes had hit the correct areas/floors.

Originally posted by Vinci
So according to this theory then, hypothetically they would of had to place the explosives/thermate close to the impact zones, correct?

Actually, since the mechanical/sky lobby floors were in the 70's, as long as they hit above that, the buildings would still collapse (on the exterior) at the impact zones.

I'd even take it a step farther and say that (without seeing the structural documents) IMO they still would have initiated collapse on the exterior at the impact zones even if the core was only taken out at the base. I could definately be wrong there without seeing the documents though.

I'm working on some AutoCad drawings from the leaked arch. drawings. Hopefully, they will help me illustrate my point better. But if not, it will still give me some great information. It may take awhile though.

Griff -

There is a problem with your post:

The outer columns could hold 50% of the weight (I've heard less but this makes it easier). Now, factor in that about 15% were damaged. I believe there were 207 outer columns. That leaves it with 175 columns holding 50% of the weight.

Let's assume the weight as 1 ton just to make it easy.

So, .5 tons were being held by the outer columns.

The fact that you've heard less is extremely important. If it's oly 30% or even 25%, that is a major difference and would change all the calculations.

To assume that the outer columns supported 50% of the weight and assuming and ~15% were damanged and assuming there were 207 outer columns is irresponsible and COULD be construded that you are picking numbers to support your view and NOT basing the calculations on fact.

Originally posted by ferretman2
The fact that you've heard less is extremely important. If it's oly 30% or even 25%, that is a major difference and would change all the calculations.

Yes, it would change the calcs. But, it would change the calcs in my theory's favor. If it was 40% then it could only hold .8 tons with the factor of safety and would fail easier.

To assume that the outer columns supported 50% of the weight and assuming and ~15% were damanged and assuming there were 207 outer columns is irresponsible

The assumption is from government sources. The 15% is directly from NIST. I was wrong about the 207 (which actually has nothing to do with my simple calculation) and it's actually a total of 236 exterior columns (59 per facade).

and COULD be construded that you are picking numbers to support your view and NOT basing the calculations on fact.

Only to a die hard denier. Nothing in my assumptions changes the fact that without the core's strength and the added weight of the "hanging" core columns would initiate collapse in the impact zones.

Since you feel I am biased in my calculations and such, why don't you get another engineer in here to dispute. Nice try.

BTW. The fact that you have tried (and failed miserably) at attempting to refute my simple calculations, shows me that you really aren't getting what I'm saying. The calculations were very crude. But, if you want, I can be more specific. I'm almost positive the results would be the same.

There is a thread out there that is titled "One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth". I have tried to search for it but when it comes up, the link takes me to another thread. The point though is that we have some uneducated among us. Not specifically you ferretman2.


[edit on 7/12/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by ferretman2
The fact that you've heard less is extremely important. If it's oly 30% or even 25%...

Then it still falls when the core goes. It wouldn't change a damned thing in regards to what Griff is saying, and like he just pointed out.


I agree completely with what's in the first post and I'll add that I think it goes to show how shallow most debunker logic goes into these issues (ie whether or not explosives had to be planted around the impacted floors and/or didn't go off). Go past a certain level of detail and you leave them behind. They like their facts vague and generalized.

Time for some more speculation.

I was thinking what if whatever they used to take down the core was set off during the other towers plane crash?

Say, tower 2's thermate started when the plane struck tower 1 and vice versa. It might explain why tower 2 fell first. Because the impact was close to the upper (weaker) mechanical floor, it started to topple and they had to finish it before it toppled onto the street? Of course, this is just me thinking aloud.

Hi Griff... Sorry, I'm just in here reading and trying to learn a little about the physics and engineering of your hypothisis....

First of all, as you know I don't believe in the CD stuff. But thats not to say I won't listen to someone when they have a legit point. Which it appears you do.

Let me see if I get this right... There was thermite at the base of the core that was detonated at the same time as the oppsite impact?

Do you know if it is possible to know how long it would take for this thermite to "eat" through the core? since I can't tell you that your physics and engineering are incorrect, i go for the more obvious....

How much thermate?....how long does it take to do the damage that is claimed?, how does it go unnoticed?, since thermate burns vertically,how does it get harnessed?, and if it's "possible" for dogs to pick up the scent of thermate, how could that go unnoticed by the dogs that actually had a kennel in the basement?

Sorry if i "derailed" just curious if you took into consideration these aspects. Other than that, good job in your hypothisis.

CO