The collapse of WTC 1 and 2

Hi all,

I was just wondering what your views are in regard to the collapses?

I know there are many theories surrounding the collapse, I am interested in views that say the towers could not have collapsed, without the use of explosives or some kind of additional assistance (thermite) maybe? I believe that the collapse happened due to plane impacts and fire induced collapse. A short opening but I hope to expand once engaging in discussion.

There are thousands of threads on this subject...

There's nothing wrong with the way they collapsed, many engineering schools have studied it, the maths work out.

There are a billion threads on this, and I'm not sure why you would want to know peoples views if you have already made your mind up what happened.

So a question, how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns, and if they could pull on the columns to failure why didn't the trusses themselves, or the connections, fail first?

Originally posted by ANOK
There are a billion threads on this, and I'm not sure why you would want to know peoples views if you have already made your mind up what happened.

So a question, how do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns, and if they could pull on the columns to failure why didn't the trusses themselves, or the connections, fail first?

Just curious is all.

The perimeter columns are visibly pulled inward at collapse initiation, what causes this in your view?

It is a reasonable hypothesis in my opinion, that it was the sagging trusses that pulled on them. Why would the connections or trusses themselves fail before the columns?

Collapse implies direct gravitational force acting on a falling body.

The WTC Tower demolitions were just that, explosive pulverization.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Collapse implies direct gravitational force acting on a falling body.

The WTC Tower demolitions were just that, explosive pulverization.

So you are saying the 'pulverization' can only occur as a result of explosives and not naturally?

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
The perimeter columns are visibly pulled inward at collapse initiation, what causes this in your view?

Well not sure what is causing that, but it isn't sagging trusses.

It is a reasonable hypothesis in my opinion, that it was the sagging trusses that pulled on them. Why would the connections or trusses themselves fail before the columns?

But why is it a reasonable hypothesis to you?

The connections would fail first because they would not be stronger than the massive cross braced columns, even the trusses themselves were not as strong as the columns. The columns were not the weak point.

But sagging trusses couldn't pull in the columns, there is no mechanism for that. Just because the sagging might put the connections at a different angle it doesn't mean it puts any more force on the columns. That doesn't even make logical sense.

So again please explain the physics that allowed that to happen, that you believe makes it a reasonable hypothesis. I don't know you from Adam, so just your word for it means nothing to me.

Well not sure what is causing that, but it isn't sagging trusses.

reply to post by ANOK


So you cannot think of another mechanism which could cause this?

But why is it a reasonable hypothesis to you?

Because it is logical.

The connections would fail first because they would not be stronger than the massive cross braced columns, even the trusses themselves were not as strong as the columns. The columns were not the weak point.

But the connections did fail first, the connections connecting the columns. The columns were not the weak point it was their connections that were.

But sagging trusses couldn't pull in the columns, there is no mechanism for that. Just because the sagging might put the connections at a different angle it doesn't mean it puts any more force on the columns. That doesn't even make logical sense.

No mechanism? If the floor truss starts to sag it will pull on what it is connected to, you know they are connected to the perimeter columns.

I have to agree with others here...If your views are already preconceived then why would you want to know what others think, i myself have been having some discussions with you on this already....and i think you pick and choose to fit your preconceived viewpoints.....like when you ask about Bazants Calcs and i showed how they were averaged throughout the structure to come up with a number for the mass.....Which of course makes it wrong...the upper part of the towers were less in mass by a factor of four compared to the lower part up to the 40th floor mechanical levels....so you have a weaker part of the structure collapsing onto the lower structure....and this somehow destroys the lower structure....Also you feel the connections failed...but when you look through the STEEL DOWN thread you can see many many many of the connections held....but for some reason the steel itself fails.
My viewpoints are and always have been clear...I do not know that fires were responsible for the collapses on the day...but i do know that the collapses should have been arrested after time....and also speaking of time....breaking apart connections....floors separating ....concrete breaking up...all requires energy ...and time...you yourself stated somewhere the resistance would slow or stop the Axial rotation of the south tower..and also as the towers drop there would be a slowing...but was this the observed behavior in any of the collapses...i dont believe so.
I know i said the way you present it appears that you might not be as new as you say....but i gladly retract that because of the fact you have started this thread when a search would have shown the many thread under this same vain that there have been.

reply to post by plube


Whoops newby error there .

I appreciate your view, I just like to see other people views and what lead them to that answer. I am open-minded and will always consider changing my mind if there is evidence which contradicts a theory I follow. I am sure you would do the same.

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14


To the extent displayed on that day, yes. Only explosives could have caused the destruction we all witnessed.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14

 

To the extent displayed on that day, yes. Only explosives could have caused the destruction we all witnessed.

What destruction did we witness, that could only be caused via explosives?

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14


Beams being ejected as far as they were. If the corner of the tower was the weakest, it would have collapsed at that corner only.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14

 

Beams being ejected as far as they were. If the corner of the tower was the weakest, it would have collapsed at that corner only.

The ejected beams does not require explosives at all, the energy produced in the collapse would make easy work of that.

Really so you think it should have just collapsed partially in that corner?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
So you cannot think of another mechanism which could cause this?

There is no mechanism to pull in the columns.

Because it is logical.

But what makes it logical to you?

I explained why it couldn't happen, I want you to explain why you think it could.

But the connections did fail first, the connections connecting the columns. The columns were not the weak point it was their connections that were.

No they didn't. If the connections failed first, then how did the trusses pull in the columns?

So you agree the columns were not the weak point, then why didn't either the trusses or the connections, 1" and 5/8" bolts, fail before the trusses could pull the columns in? The pulling force would first effect the truss, then the connections and finally the columns. So why didn't the truss or connections fail first?

No mechanism? If the floor truss starts to sag it will pull on what it is connected to, you know they are connected to the perimeter columns.

Why would the trusses pull because they sagged? And again it will also pull on itself and the connections, so were the connections stronger than the columns? You've already said they weren't, so then why did the connections or the truss itself fail before it could cause the columns to be pulled in?

Just saying you think it's logical does not answer the question. If you can't answer this question then why are you so sure the OS is correct? Faith?

The 22 degree tilt of the top of the south tower makes the two collapses different.

For the Physics Profession to not discuss the location of the center of mass of that tilted top portion is one of the most obvious scientific travesties ever. It is not discussed in the NIST report either.

Accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete should also have been determined and put in human readable form. There were about 2800 perimeter wall panels on each tower. We should know the number and weights of every different grade of panel that went onto the towers. Gregory Urich did a linear interpolation of the weight distribution so we do not really have accurate data on the tower.

Personally I think the north tower collapse was impossible and the top of the south tower should have fallen down the side due to the tilt.

The Physics Profession should be laughed at for the next 1000 years. And then our educators have the nerve to talk about STEM.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14

Is this only a hypothesis or the trusses saved form the rubble were visibly bent?

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14

Here's a good article published in 2008 by THE JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS. Check it out:

What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?