Gravity Can't Do This!

reply to post by -PLB-


once again you did not listen....in darks the view is not able to see the antena at the time when you would be able to see the occurance.....you know what...i leave it out there for people with some common sense...and understanding of what is being said and shown because once again you drag it out as though you have a clue....there was no tilting at the time and that is what dark was trying to convey when he presented the vid....the angle he showed was better able to show that tilting was not occuring at the time the roofline was dropping....

and the one i was analyzing showed the drop of the antena....but i guess in your head maybe between the two videos they were were filiming two different collapses....that is that thank you again for showing your ignorance

I say it is upto you to show it is tilting at this point to prove your theory and yet again you throw out an idea without backing it up.

.

reply to post by plube


Actually I'm write but you ramble on belligerently as long as you want. I don't have to prove it (though my evidence is the likely scenario) you do. I'm not debunking the whole theory just the fact that this is wrong. And you are trying to make point using paint with such a slight and hardly noticeable deviation. You are wrong man stop taking it so personal your personality will turn people off to your cause cuz you are acting like a child and insulting rather than trying to see the point I made.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


well you my friend are wrong....and because i am willing to point out when some one is wrong that makes me belligerent.....i think when you call someone belligerent that says it all...also i used the term ignorant in the sense of it's definition...lack of knowledge.

did you not like the term of extrapolating the corner.

now you think that i should just back off and hold my hands up and say your correct....what did you actually add...nothing....and you are the one whom said needing two sides does not make a difference....well once again your wrong.

you don't like to be corrected then....now lets look at what dark was trying to say

I think it should be fairly apparent that the tilt start after the top had dropped some distance, but feel free to add lines or squiggles if it makes you happy.

so you see between the two vids it was being shown that there was no tilting going on at this time....which therefore negates PLB and his tilt antena illusion theory.....but if one does not look at the whole picture one does not see......

It is not being belligerent if one is correcting pure stubborness.....

and now your calling someones behavior childish because i am not succumbing to the rebuttals....PLB draws a picture and brings up the tilting to try and disprove what i have pointed out....

but then it gets shown to him at the time of this occurance there is not tilting going on...

then you my friend jump on the bandwagon.....and go oh ah what a good point PLB....and again your both now shown that no tilting was going on at the time....and your responses are to start calling people.

Is that the tactic you choose.....well well....

you see i will say it again....SHOW WHERE THE TILT WAS if your going to argue that what i am showing is wrong because there was tilting......PUT UP as they say.

reply to post by plube


Showing two sides wouldn't matter (though you don't actually see enough of that sliver of second side in your pics to judge much) you can get a tilt by removing just one corner you and I both know this and you can;t disprove it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


once again...look at darks videos is it the same collapsing building.....yes it is....

when the roofline starts it collapse in the video is the structure tilting...no it isn't

now is the antena that is shown the sauret video the one and the same antena that is in darks video....yes it is

were these two videos film of two different events on the same day at differnet times....no they weren't...

so conclusion, it is the same object filmed from different angles and in one film it shows no tilting occuring could one make a reasonable presumption that in the other video there is also no tilting going on.....yes one could.

so lets make a conclusion from what is being shown.....in this case...PLB is wrong.....is his theory wrong....not if the circumstances supported it.....but do the circumstances support it......IMHO nope

reply to post by plube


OK
I'm done arguing. You just aren't getting this or the point I'm trying to make. Which is sad because I was trying to help you. And for the sake of being taken seriously please start spelling antenna/antennae correctly.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


now lets just ask ourselves this how could having two sides not make a difference....as according to PLB's ingenius drawing in order for the antena to sink below the shown roofline it would have to pretty much be tilting straight back in order to make the illusion from the sauret video probable.....as if it was a corner just collapsing the antena would also tilt either left or right also depending upon which corner was collapsing.

so i did that one step further to illustrate that the building was not tilting from front to back as that is what would be require to achieve PLB's tilting antena hypothesis......

and i must thank Dark for giving a different perspective view that more clearly shows that tilting was not taking place......now PLB mis reads what was being said....and comes up with show me on this video of darks then...and imediately jumps in saying you can't...therefore thinking he has do some sort of great thing to debunk what was being shown.....not realizing what the logic of darks interjection in this matter was.

PLB assumes that it has to be shown in both vids even though you cannot any real reference points to the antena in relation to the structure in darks video...not realizing it was a combination of both being used to show the flaw in his thinking....and you my friend jump in and catch the fallout.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


once again do you assume all people are from one place in the world.......antena is spelled in various manners depending where you live...and if you want to pick apart spelling as a last resort....lol!

but i do appoligise...i will spell it antenna for you if it will make you happy.....i have a problem as i have lived all around the world and i do british english,canadian and american thrown in with some spanish and french spellings.

Anyways thanks for your help....




you see i answer your questions....and answered your question about two side and the reason why....

reply to post by plube


Boy I think this is the first time I've read a comment so dripping with personal incredulity, that its damn near impossible to make out what the heck you are trying to say. But I'll give it a shot:

Soory gen...your statment is only partly true....they do that with the...listen...the assumption that the building could.....listen really carefully....shhhh....it might be hard to digest....IN CASE THE BUILDING.........listen now.....TOPPLES,tilts,leans,sways,rotates......all the things one might expect to occur in a method of unknown collapse....now go read up on perimeter clearence of areas when a CD is under taken......precautions are still there but the perimeter clearence is way less.

OO-KAAYY, now, the WTCs, were not demolished through any controlled means. Nope, no charges, no C4, no magical thermites. The WTCs were in the "UNKNOWN" category of collapse. So, FFs were not aware that they were going to fall first. Some felt it may partially collapse, or what, but that is besides the point. Firefighters when engaging a building fire, set up a safety collapse zone that is at least 1 1/2 times the height of the building, to sometimes twice the height. Why? So that in case of a 90 degree wall collapse, they will be able to be safe from the falling wall section. Read more on that here:
www.firefighternation.com...
www.firerescue1.com...
ennispublicsafety.net...

The WTC had walls that were over 1000 ft tall. So, in the event that some of the exterior column sections fell over in a 90 degree fashion, some would undoubtedly impact buildings anywhere within that 1,000ft circle. No trusses went out that way though.

I dont see how a perimeter collapse zone for controlled demolition fits here, because the only demolition done at WTC is the aftermath. So, no, your first argument was weak and wrong. Lets move on:

not one of you have explained what happened to the core...yet in the sauret video that was posted shows the antena....listen...THE ANTENA was the first section falling before the block even moved.....yet nope.....lets just ignore that shall we....not one of you can say why the core compressed down with this mysterious pancake that you like to parade...yet the very NIST report says the floors did not pancake.....now lets not get confused here shall we......

You mean for the North Tower. Ok, well, for starters, didnt you notice that the top 15 floors were engulfed in flames and subjected to most intense fires the longest? What was happening to the hat truss system in all of that? However, I dont see why you brought up this anyways, since i was responding to someone else's incorrect statement that said trusses were magically being ejected outside the footprint and hitting buildings. And now, there you go and goof on what NIST said. Reread the content and the context. They were talking about the INITIATOR of the collapse. You do understand the term initiator? They were basing that on FEMA's earlier preliminary report, which stated that the initiator of the collapse was the floor truss ends separating from the exterior columns due to the heat and fires and sagging. This was thought to then have happened all around the floor slab until the floor let go and landed on the one below it, severing its truss connections, and then pancaking down to the next one. This "pancaking" effect left large gaps in between the floors and a large unsupported segment of the exterior columns, which relied on the floors to have horizontal rigidity and stability. Then the exterior columns gave way and the collapse began. NIST's investigation found this to be untrue, and discovered that the floor trusses stayed connected to the exterior columns while sagging, causing the exterior columns to bend inward until they were overloaded and failed, beginning the collapse. This is what NIST states, and debunks the "pancaking floor" theory of collapse initiation. After collapse began, of course, the floors HAD to pancake down onto each other, because they fell straight down. Let me repeat that for those hard of hearing: The floors HAD to fall STRAIGHT DOWN, inevitably "pancaking" down onto each other, shearing off the floor truss seats.

reply to post by GenRadek

The Bazant Zhou reports use a made up progressive collapse theory...NOT PANCAKING......hmmm confused here...which one do you support....come on....make it good.....you keep going on about how the floors failed....so you must subscribe to the pancaking theory....

Boy if only you understood what you read. Pancaking is what floors do when they drop onto each other. This happened after the collapse started. Geeze, reading comprehension fail. Just out of curiosity, did you and ANOK miss the same classes regarding reading comprehension?

Bazant goes on to mention "progressive collapse" to describe what occurred. The floors progressively collapsed. 15-30 floors hit one floor, then another, then another, then another. What do you call it when a stack of floors hit a floor? They pancake onto each other. What do you find at the end? The floors all stacked up, at the bottom, in a stack. Saying that there is a discrepancy between calling the floors a pancaking event and a progressive collapse, is just nitpicking over the terminology. The fact remains, the floors HAD to fall straight down. This they were observed to do, and the aftermath proved it, when workers clearing debris found 10-20 floors stacked on top of each other, compressed to a size much smaller than the original. When floors fall down, they land on top of each other. They dont hit, and then shoot off horizontally in a different direction or hit then bounce off like a superball. They hit the floor below, they stay on top of it all the way down, adding more below. Period. The failure of each floor is called the progressive collapse, the floors landing on top of each other during the collapse s called pancaking. How is that? Makes sense? I think I see your eyes glazing over.

so come on ......stop with the CR"* and show what you think...then i am sure it could be ripped apart quite well....be brave and show your OWN work....you just shot your own foot with such a ridiculous statement.....this was a straight down collapse for the most part....and yes debris would be expelled over good distances...no matter how the structure collapsed.....

did the twin towers rotate and topple like one might expect in a UNEVEN collapse.....no they didn't even though both towers showed signs of tilting yet rotation in both cases arrested...WHY?

Well how else were they suppose to fall? Up? But I can tell you have no idea of how the WTC structure even works, nor how the exterior columns worked with the floors or the trusses or the core. I really dont feel like retyping it all over again, to have it ignored by you. Use the search function on ATS, and go through earlier posts that go over how the WTC design worked.

there is only one plausible reason why.....support from the lower section of the buildings was removed....but not one little bit of this explains building 7's collapse....and i know you will go on about fires as you have at length in the past....cry me a river.....it the fires burned so hot and sooooo evenly and they cause simultaneous failure then hey we have hit a jackpot....now come put it on the line here...without a bunch of litter in between.

What support removed from the lower section? Where? How? When? Again, this just shows me how little you are aware of the WTC, and how they were designed. I'll just mention in a nutshell the design. Tube-in-tube, all steel. Floors were supported only by floor trusses connected at each end with bolts on tabs that were welded on the columns. Exterior columns did not go higher than the floors since they needed the floors. The thing that held up the towers were #1 the cores and #2 the exterior columns. Inside, the floors played no part in any vertical loading. NONE. To say otherwise is foolish. All the floors did was hold the exterior to the interior and gave horizontal support. If the floors failed, they would fall straight down the "tube" between the exterior and interior columns. Nothing would stop them on the way down. Show me how, and I'll eat my hat. Each floor was designed the same way, except for the mechanical floors and skylobbies. Which means each floor had the same truss ends connected to the same truss seats/tabs, with the same bolts, from top to bottom. These truss seats gave all the vertical support for that one floor, and NONE other.

reply to post by plube


As I said.. his ingenious diagram was dead on. What you are failing to understand is that he could have furthered his diagram to show the antenna sinking due to a corner collapse or several other possibilities.

reply to post by GenRadek


Ok, I really had to cut most of your rant short, since it was nothing more than points from personal incredulity, so lets move on:

post by plube

i will put another test to you....please explain also why,,,,,the Madrid building stayed standing...and you can spew more rubbish about the thermals of the jet fuel...but you and i know it would take more than just the jet fuel it would require longer burning combustibles as the jet fuel would expel most of its thermal energy very quickly.

Madrid. Yes. I recall it. Very well.
Important points:
#1.
No planes hit it.
#2
Did you see the large steel-reinforced concrete core?
#3
Did you notice what happened to the steel only sections?
#4
No jet fuel, just your humdrum office supplies burned. (oops red flag on the field. jet fuel? Surely you realize that the jet fuel in the WTC is what STARTED the massive fires that engulfed the buildings

Now, let us look deeper:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

I love this site. Now, as to the steel. Allow me to repost the times of fire initiation, and start of steel failing and collapsing.
23:00 Fire started at the 21st Floor
00:00 All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)
01:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
01:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
01:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
02:00 Fire spread below the 17th floor
02:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
02:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
02:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
02:15 Chunks of facade started falling off (news report)
02:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
02:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
02:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
03:30 Fire spread below 16th floor, crossing over the upper technical floor
03:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
03:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
04:00 Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)
04:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
05:30 Fire spread below the 12th floor (news report)
08:30 Fire spread below the 4th floor

Fire starts about 11PM on the 21st floor.
By 12AM all floors engulfed in flames. We can assume between 11PM and 12AM the fire spread rapidly (without any planes, bombs, thermite, etc helping it go)
So by 12AM all floors engulfed in fires.
At 1:29AM the east face of the 21st floor collapsed (site of start of fire)

First bit of math: Fire started 11AM, first collapse at 1:29AM equals about 2 1/2 hours for this to first happen. also it should be known that we do not know how long was the entire floor subjected to the flames, but by 12AM everything above the 21st floor was burning.

Next collapse: 1:37AM, south face above the 21st floor. So from fully engulfed in fires at 12AM, to first collapses at 1:29AM is about 1 1/2 hours. Notice, NO planes hit it, no bombs, no thermites, no demo charges, no 767 inside. Just a regular fire with "office supplies" and such burning.

Look at that. 2 1/2 hours for the steel to start collapsing without the aid of planes hitting it, jet fuel starting fires, or anything else. Just your average fire spreading to sources of fuel.

Now why didnt the Windsor collapse? Let's find out:

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

What saved Windsor? CONCRETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.irishconcrete.ie...
Page 13

The large concrete cores and floors are what just barely saved the building. The WTC had nothing like that. No sheer concrete walls. No steel reinforced concrete floors. No steel columns encased in concrete either in the core or exterior. Windsor did.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by plube


Plube, you really, REALLY don't get it. The thing that is relevant is not antenna movement, but it is tilt before full floor failure. You can see on Darkwings video that tilt of the full top section very likely did not happen before full floor failure. You can not see this on your video. After concluding this, tilt is no longer an issue of debate. That means the conversation moves on. I abandoned the argument. The problem is, you are completely failing at understanding simplest concepts and you even fail at reading and understanding what I write. You completely ignore the question I am asking you. It is pretty much useless talking with you, your posts are incoherent and make no sense. If you want to debate the subject, read what I write and respond to the content. If you want to go on with this "there was not tilt" madness, go ahead, I won't respond.

On a side note, my previous post was removed with a warning for unknown reason. It would be helpful if the ATS staff actually points out what was wrong with it, so I can prevent it from happening again. It seems to me my previous post was not very different from this one, except that it was less detailed. If this is also removed, consider his my last post in this thread.

reply to post by -PLB-

Plube, you really, REALLY don't get it. The thing that is relevant is not antenna movement, but it is tilt before full floor failure. You can see on Darkwings video that tilt of the full top section very likely did not happen before full floor failure. You can not see this on your video. After concluding this, tilt is no longer an issue of debate.

What?

Am I missing the point where you admit you were wrong before moving the discussion along?

Wasn't the entire question whether the antenna started moving down before the rest of the building. It did, quite clearly. The only way it could have done so was if the core failed before the floor assemblies. If the core failed first the OS is sunk, because the core failure must have been below the line of inward perimeter bowing, which is itself below the fire. Which means that the fire couldn't have caused the core failure because there was no evidence of fire at the place where the core failed, which means that something else must have caused the core to fail...

Am I missing something here?

Please enlighten me.

reply to post by GenRadek


Wow, did you even read the link? www.irishconcrete.ie...

Who wrote that? Here's a hint: The Irish Concrete Federation. What a surprise that they don't think spalling is a big problem.

In other news it appears that margarine is better than butter, need proof? www.choosemargarine.com...

See? Proof positive!

Also, smoking is really good for you apparently.

It may well be the case that concrete is better and that spalling is not such a big issue, but all the articles I could find in a quick trawl seem to refer to NIST's conclusions to support the notion that this is in fact the case.
www.specsandcodes.com...
www.buildings.com...

As such none of these articles constitute evidence for the particular question we are asking, because we are asking if NIST's conclusion were correct. You cannot use NIST's conclusions to support NIST's conclusions.

Find better sources and then maybe we can have a discussion about steel vs concrete vis-à-vis fire resistance. Until then it remains an open question as to whether a large heat sink or spalling is the salient feature to consider in this case.

reply to post by MidnightSunshine


Probably the biggest problem with that is that if you rebuilt the tower, you would have to factor in the age and deterioration thereof. Then, you would have to guess about the status of the fireproofing. I don't know if it got inspected very often, but without knowing how well the fireproofing was laid, and without knowing what joints were strong and which were showing signs of wear, building a tower completely brand new with no faults would be scientifically wrong and inconclusive.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Wow, did you even read the link? www.irishconcrete.ie...

Who wrote that? Here's a hint: The Irish Concrete Federation. What a surprise that they don't think spalling is a big problem.

In other news it appears that margarine is better than butter, need proof? www.choosemargarine.com...

See? Proof positive!

Also, smoking is really good for you apparently.

It may well be the case that concrete is better and that spalling is not such a big issue, but all the articles I could find in a quick trawl seem to refer to NIST's conclusions to support the notion that this is in fact the case.
www.specsandcodes.com...
www.buildings.com...

As such none of these articles constitute evidence for the particular question we are asking, because we are asking if NIST's conclusion were correct. You cannot use NIST's conclusions to support NIST's conclusions.

Find better sources and then maybe we can have a discussion about steel vs concrete vis-à-vis fire resistance. Until then it remains an open question as to whether a large heat sink or spalling is the salient feature to consider in this case.

edit on 3-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

Ah yes, and then when a building suffers a MASSIVE fire, that guts and causes the steel supported section to collapse, leaving behind the MASSIVE steel-reinforced concrete core, is showing, what exactly? Steel is better than concrete? Or when those investigating the fire said if it wasnt for that massive amount of concrete in Windsor, it may have also collapsed? If steel is so great, then why must it be fireproofed like no tomorrow? Better yet, explain how when the McCormick Place fire occurred, the large heavy STEEL truss roof collapsed within 20 minutes of fire ignition? No youre right, steel is way better than concrete for fire protection. I guess that is why the core of the new WTC7 building is having a MASSIVE concrete core installed.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I know you also have trouble reading, but yes, I agreed that it did not look like tilting happened before all support columns failed.

The core failed before the floor assemblies did. That is basically what NIST is saying. All supporting columns failed, making the complete upper part fall down. It fell on lower floors, and from that moment the floors started failing.

There is no reason core failure should have occurred below the impact zone, I am not sure where you are getting that from. The NIST theory is that the south wall lost its load capacity first, which was transfered to the core and other walls. It seems to me that after that the core and other walls failed more or less at the same time. Some core columns slightly earlier than the rest, explaining the movement of the mast.

Its not really a mystery, unless you want to make it a mystery.

reply to post by -PLB-

The core failed before the floor assemblies did. That is basically what NIST is saying. All supporting columns failed, making the complete upper part fall down. It fell on lower floors, and from that moment the floors started failing.

Again, correct me if I am wrong here.

Didn't NIST find that the proximate cause of the failure was the thermal expansion of the floor assemblies which created the buckling seen at the floors immediately below the fire line and immediately prior to the actual failure?

It doesn't make any sense if the core failure is above this point, because if the buckling was being caused by the floors falling in the core it can only be below the fire line, otherwise the the buckling would have obviously been higher.

Just think about it for a second. If the core failed at the floor level where the fire is visible, where would you expect to see buckling from the perimeter being pulled in by the floors?

Surely not the perimeter BELOW the fire line.

But, again, as far as I was aware that wasn't the mechanism NIST proposed, probably for that exact reason come to think of it. Thermal expansion immediately below the fire line is at least a teeny-weenie little bit plausible. If it was at the core the failure must have been BELOW the fire line and what's worse from a visceral perspective BELOW the impact damage.