QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 09:12 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 08:40 PM)
What happened to the friggin paper?????
What paper?
Gordon.
By the way. Your theory falls down on one basic observation. The core failed first, evidenced by the early movement of the antennae. There is no way for your theory to hold up with this factor.
Gordon.
That seems to be debated quite a bit. This was an error in Jones paper for a while until he realized NIST did address the early movement of the antennae.
NIST went back and after rereviewing the data stated:
NIST dispute this claim stating "that observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation. When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Here's the full quote"
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
...and after reviewing some other angles myself, I tend to agree with NIST's observation
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/911.w...n.northwest.mpg
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...north_tower.mpg
What paper?
Gordon.
By the way. Your theory falls down on one basic observation. The core failed first, evidenced by the early movement of the antennae. There is no way for your theory to hold up with this factor.
Gordon.
That seems to be debated quite a bit. This was an error in Jones paper for a while until he realized NIST did address the early movement of the antennae.
NIST went back and after rereviewing the data stated:
NIST dispute this claim stating "that observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation. When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Here's the full quote"
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
...and after reviewing some other angles myself, I tend to agree with NIST's observation
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem6/911.w...n.northwest.mpg
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...north_tower.mpg
.
What the heck!? What's happened overnight (here), somebody put this thread in a time machine and wound the clock backwards?!
gordon What's with the obtuseness/forgetfulness? I expected better from you. Didn't I point out quite some pages back that any lateral stresses from the floor/expansion/sagging/contraction was NOT IN ITSELF enough to buckle the columns...but WERE ENOUGH TO BIAS them so that THE VERTICAL LOADS FROM THE BUILDING TOP SECTION ABOVE would NO LONGER act in the normal/static straight-down AXIAL loads manner....but be RE-DIRECTED RADIALLY at the point of bias? Cheers!
Others When the top section (including HEAVY-DUTY HAT TRUSS) collapsed onto lower core/floors, the impacts would be REVERBERATING STRONGLY and TRANSFER at the SPEED OF SOUND to weak points (in comparison to forces present at collapse-impacts), so many connections would compromise/fail just prior to actual contact at that specific point. That is CHAOS. Live with it. The forces present were acting in MANY modes and directions/sequences. Irrespective of which parts fell first or got hit first, once the mass above got moving, any hesitation on the mass 'front'at lower floor impacts-front would tend to accumulate the FULL MASS behind the falling mass 'front'....so acting like a piston IRRESPECTIVE OF CHURNING/MAKEUP. And remember, as gordon pointed out, the upper box included the hat truss structure as well as floors, so the weight/momentum was SUBSTANTIAL and REMORSELESS....and would be INCREASING by the second....NOT decreasing, as some STILL think!
Foxx When you NOW say that some of the accumulated ash/chunks/dust of the fire/impact floor material would be expelled out the side, are you NOW also saying that there WAS 'explosive expulsion' due to SUDDEN gravity-accelerating MASS COMPRESSION of air WITHIN-PERIMETER-TUBE as INNER-MASS fell inside during collapse?.....so that the resulting force of all that explosively-escaping-air and combustion gases could destroy/eject OUTER-WALL SECTIONS as observed? Ciao!
Guest For your information, according to Foxx (who gave me this info) the hat truss was eventually to support approx. 10% of the outer-wall weight when the floors were fully 'finished/loaded' at completion. And while under construction, the core/perimeter walls could NOT be too far in advance of each other and the floor trusses that connected them, and through which core/perimeter got their mutual support. Again, the hat truss was crucial UPON COMPLETION because the full loads on the perimeter walls were then 10% greater than those perimeter columns could take. In other words, the outer wall could only barely support ITSELF. And the core structure was ONLY designed to take STATIC and well-defined loads, NOT the distortions and impacts and extreme vibrations/oscillations which eventuated. Arrivederci!
RC.
.
What the heck!? What's happened overnight (here), somebody put this thread in a time machine and wound the clock backwards?!
gordon What's with the obtuseness/forgetfulness? I expected better from you. Didn't I point out quite some pages back that any lateral stresses from the floor/expansion/sagging/contraction was NOT IN ITSELF enough to buckle the columns...but WERE ENOUGH TO BIAS them so that THE VERTICAL LOADS FROM THE BUILDING TOP SECTION ABOVE would NO LONGER act in the normal/static straight-down AXIAL loads manner....but be RE-DIRECTED RADIALLY at the point of bias? Cheers!
Others When the top section (including HEAVY-DUTY HAT TRUSS) collapsed onto lower core/floors, the impacts would be REVERBERATING STRONGLY and TRANSFER at the SPEED OF SOUND to weak points (in comparison to forces present at collapse-impacts), so many connections would compromise/fail just prior to actual contact at that specific point. That is CHAOS. Live with it. The forces present were acting in MANY modes and directions/sequences. Irrespective of which parts fell first or got hit first, once the mass above got moving, any hesitation on the mass 'front'at lower floor impacts-front would tend to accumulate the FULL MASS behind the falling mass 'front'....so acting like a piston IRRESPECTIVE OF CHURNING/MAKEUP. And remember, as gordon pointed out, the upper box included the hat truss structure as well as floors, so the weight/momentum was SUBSTANTIAL and REMORSELESS....and would be INCREASING by the second....NOT decreasing, as some STILL think!
Foxx When you NOW say that some of the accumulated ash/chunks/dust of the fire/impact floor material would be expelled out the side, are you NOW also saying that there WAS 'explosive expulsion' due to SUDDEN gravity-accelerating MASS COMPRESSION of air WITHIN-PERIMETER-TUBE as INNER-MASS fell inside during collapse?.....so that the resulting force of all that explosively-escaping-air and combustion gases could destroy/eject OUTER-WALL SECTIONS as observed? Ciao!
Guest For your information, according to Foxx (who gave me this info) the hat truss was eventually to support approx. 10% of the outer-wall weight when the floors were fully 'finished/loaded' at completion. And while under construction, the core/perimeter walls could NOT be too far in advance of each other and the floor trusses that connected them, and through which core/perimeter got their mutual support. Again, the hat truss was crucial UPON COMPLETION because the full loads on the perimeter walls were then 10% greater than those perimeter columns could take. In other words, the outer wall could only barely support ITSELF. And the core structure was ONLY designed to take STATIC and well-defined loads, NOT the distortions and impacts and extreme vibrations/oscillations which eventuated. Arrivederci!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 05:07 PM)
Well this one has me baffled.
What does that look like to you? Is it some kind of mold growing on the wall?
The original file is very large 1200 by something...
Very Large File
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten002.jpg
Reduced---
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
Its water leaching through fractures in the concrete. Reinforcing bar or other iron caused the rust color. The bright orange color is a mold or algae that lives in the moisture.
What does that look like to you? Is it some kind of mold growing on the wall?
The original file is very large 1200 by something...
Very Large File
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten002.jpg
Reduced---
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
Its water leaching through fractures in the concrete. Reinforcing bar or other iron caused the rust color. The bright orange color is a mold or algae that lives in the moisture.
The core failed at the impact zone. Evidenced by the inward pulling of the south wall
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static. How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns? If not the lower section then how could the upper section act on them? The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static. How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns? If not the lower section then how could the upper section act on them? The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 09:54 PM)
The core failed at the impact zone. Evidenced by the inward pulling of the south wall
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static. How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns? If not the lower section then how could the upper section act on them? The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. Just to get this straight....what PRECISELY do you imply by "intact and relatively static"? Thanks.
RC.
.
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static. How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns? If not the lower section then how could the upper section act on them? The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Hi gordon. Just to get this straight....what PRECISELY do you imply by "intact and relatively static"? Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 04:40 PM)
What happened to the friggin paper?????
What paper?
Gordon.
What paper?
Schneibster
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
...
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. ..It will be posted in due course.
As for CD, NOTHING you have shown in that debris pile in ANY WAY bolsters your assumption that THERMITE had ANYTHING to do with the fall of the towers.
Arthur
What paper?
Gordon.
What paper?
Schneibster
Good to see you back and my apologies for the lack of response.
...
However, with the work that I have been doing specifically with BZ I have formulated some work which may make our previous discussions moot. With your permission I will pm a copy to you (about 20 pages) I don't want to go public for the present since its quite new and needs other eyes. ..It will be posted in due course.
As for CD, NOTHING you have shown in that debris pile in ANY WAY bolsters your assumption that THERMITE had ANYTHING to do with the fall of the towers.
Arthur
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorner2exc.gif
Different angle and day, the same light spot is seen and its continuity with the grey mass right of it is shown.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorner2exc.gif
Different angle and day, the same light spot is seen and its continuity with the grey mass right of it is shown.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 05:54 PM)
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Well, apparently you were wrong.
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Arthur
Gordon.
Well, apparently you were wrong.
QUOTE
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Arthur
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
Look at page 27 Fig 2-6 of the NIST final report and you can see one of those columns decked out to look pretty.
You can see another wall where a bunch are probably hiding.
Arthur
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
Look at page 27 Fig 2-6 of the NIST final report and you can see one of those columns decked out to look pretty.
You can see another wall where a bunch are probably hiding.
Arthur
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns?
You sound like you are thinking I'm saying the floors are falling perfectly straight down as if the bolts just gave way then down to the next. (Or wanting people to think that's what I'm saying) It's a jumbled mess we are talking about. It's the guts of a fully occupied office building. It's not going to fall in a perfectly flat manor. It's going to push massive weight all over the place. But the only place it can go is down and out. It can only go in the core so much before it ceases to become the path of least resistance. That energy is finding some relief going down but the floors ARE slowing it down as evidenced by it not falling at free fall. Where else can it go but out to the sides?
We KNOW the core isn't the weakest link. It's the heaviest steel in the building. That leaves the floor bolts/connections and perimeter column bolts and connections. That's where the energy of the debris which couldn't go down (Because of the debris collecting and falling in the tube) found it's easiest usage.
Again, I'm no rocket scientist but I would think the energy/falling mass would go into whatever it could go into the easiest. Path of least resistance.
No it does not.
No it does not.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Same as what I said.
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns?
You sound like you are thinking I'm saying the floors are falling perfectly straight down as if the bolts just gave way then down to the next. (Or wanting people to think that's what I'm saying) It's a jumbled mess we are talking about. It's the guts of a fully occupied office building. It's not going to fall in a perfectly flat manor. It's going to push massive weight all over the place. But the only place it can go is down and out. It can only go in the core so much before it ceases to become the path of least resistance. That energy is finding some relief going down but the floors ARE slowing it down as the fact that it's not falling at free fall. Where else can it go but out to the sides?
We KNOW the core isn't the weakest link. It's the heaviest steel in the building. That leaves the floor bolts/connections and perimeter column bolts and connections. That's where the energy of the debris which couldn't go down (Because of the debris collecting and falling in the tube) found it's easiest usage.
Again, I'm no rocket scientist but I would think the energy/falling mass would go into whatever it could go into the easiest. Path of least resistance.
No it does not.
No it does not.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Same as what I said.
You stated: "The core failed first."
I believe this is incorrect based on the information I presented.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
[i]QUOTE (gordon @ Mar 7 2006, 05:54 PM)
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Well, apparently you were wrong.
QUOTE
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Arthur
No Arthur. I was right. I said it moved. It did move. If that is not correct perhaps you can enlighten us as to how something, anything, can tilt without moving.
Gordon.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Gordon.
Well, apparently you were wrong.
QUOTE
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."
Arthur
No Arthur. I was right. I said it moved. It did move. If that is not correct perhaps you can enlighten us as to how something, anything, can tilt without moving.
Gordon.
QUOTE
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static |
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns?
You sound like you are thinking I'm saying the floors are falling perfectly straight down as if the bolts just gave way then down to the next. (Or wanting people to think that's what I'm saying) It's a jumbled mess we are talking about. It's the guts of a fully occupied office building. It's not going to fall in a perfectly flat manor. It's going to push massive weight all over the place. But the only place it can go is down and out. It can only go in the core so much before it ceases to become the path of least resistance. That energy is finding some relief going down but the floors ARE slowing it down as evidenced by it not falling at free fall. Where else can it go but out to the sides?
We KNOW the core isn't the weakest link. It's the heaviest steel in the building. That leaves the floor bolts/connections and perimeter column bolts and connections. That's where the energy of the debris which couldn't go down (Because of the debris collecting and falling in the tube) found it's easiest usage.
Again, I'm no rocket scientist but I would think the energy/falling mass would go into whatever it could go into the easiest. Path of least resistance.
QUOTE
The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
No it does not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory. |
No it does not.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Same as what I said.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 10:48 PM)
QUOTE
Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Absolutely wrong. If the core failed at the impact point, this means that from the impact point downwards the core was intact and relatively static |
Absolutely! And the proof of this is the 40-50 story core left a few seconds after collapse.
How then could the remaining lower section act on the perimeter columns?
You sound like you are thinking I'm saying the floors are falling perfectly straight down as if the bolts just gave way then down to the next. (Or wanting people to think that's what I'm saying) It's a jumbled mess we are talking about. It's the guts of a fully occupied office building. It's not going to fall in a perfectly flat manor. It's going to push massive weight all over the place. But the only place it can go is down and out. It can only go in the core so much before it ceases to become the path of least resistance. That energy is finding some relief going down but the floors ARE slowing it down as the fact that it's not falling at free fall. Where else can it go but out to the sides?
We KNOW the core isn't the weakest link. It's the heaviest steel in the building. That leaves the floor bolts/connections and perimeter column bolts and connections. That's where the energy of the debris which couldn't go down (Because of the debris collecting and falling in the tube) found it's easiest usage.
Again, I'm no rocket scientist but I would think the energy/falling mass would go into whatever it could go into the easiest. Path of least resistance.
QUOTE
The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory.
No it does not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The evidence of inward pulling which you are trying to use to justify your position, does in fact contradict your theory. |
No it does not.
I stated that the core moved. Any statements of how it moved, do not contradict my position but do in fact support it.
Same as what I said.
You stated: "The core failed first."
I believe this is incorrect based on the information I presented.
Sorry that post was meant to go to Gordon.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 10:54 PM)
Sorry that post was meant to go to Gordon.
That'll teach you to use a guest account.
But in all honesty I did think the core fell first in that building before you posted that. Nice work.
That'll teach you to use a guest account.
But in all honesty I did think the core fell first in that building before you posted that. Nice work.
When I have more time I'll have to set myself up here at work. 
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Very raw and very deceptive. You have labeled things as fact knowing there is great doubt. But then it is a CT site...
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Very raw and very deceptive. You have labeled things as fact knowing there is great doubt. But then it is a CT site...
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
QUOTE
Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection). The amount of the gypsum enclosure in contact with the column varried depending on the location of the column within the core. SFRM (BLAZE-SHIELD D and DC/F) was applied to those faces that were not protected by the gypsum enclosure......
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 10:57 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 10:54 PM)
Sorry that post was meant to go to Gordon.
That'll teach you to use a guest account.
But in all honesty I did think the core fell first in that building before you posted that. Nice work.
Watch for it. This is a big one among CTers and a common mistake.
The collapse started with buckling on the south face, so the south face dropped first.
That'll teach you to use a guest account.
But in all honesty I did think the core fell first in that building before you posted that. Nice work.
Watch for it. This is a big one among CTers and a common mistake.
The collapse started with buckling on the south face, so the south face dropped first.
Hi and Help!
I am, as yet, still undecided as to the cause of collapse - Im a floating voter who still needs convincing by either NIST or CD proponents.
Im not a qualified scientist or architect or demolition expert...just an asker of questions.
I try to seperate the politics from structural failures of buildings, I agree there is a lot of stuff out there regarding US Foreign and Domestic policy - but physics isn't politics and this is a physics site.
Questions:
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air?
4) From the construction photo it doesnt look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
5) I personally think it remarkable the buildings withstood such forces of impact from the aircraft....the structures wobbled considerably as the impact was absorbed and distributed. Does this mean that the building is more flexible nearer the top but not that strong?
Apologies if this has already been covered, however I would greatly appreciate peoples thoughts.
Thanks
I am, as yet, still undecided as to the cause of collapse - Im a floating voter who still needs convincing by either NIST or CD proponents.
Im not a qualified scientist or architect or demolition expert...just an asker of questions.
I try to seperate the politics from structural failures of buildings, I agree there is a lot of stuff out there regarding US Foreign and Domestic policy - but physics isn't politics and this is a physics site.
Questions:
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air?
4) From the construction photo it doesnt look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
5) I personally think it remarkable the buildings withstood such forces of impact from the aircraft....the structures wobbled considerably as the impact was absorbed and distributed. Does this mean that the building is more flexible nearer the top but not that strong?
Apologies if this has already been covered, however I would greatly appreciate peoples thoughts.
Thanks
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 06:35 PM)
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 06:19 PM)
Many of the box columns in the rubble pile didn't look like they were welded at their ends. There are many seen with their four or six bolt holes empty. Most of the bolts and even welds wouldn't have stood up to the type of impacts that occurred during the collapse. It's rather surprising that the spire was able to remain standing. And even it collapsed in about 10 seconds after it oscillated a bit.
I am no conspiracy theorist (check my previous posts) but check out this video of the "spire" from another angle:
From West Village
While the video is shaky that doesn't look like the core still standing to me, it looks like the facade.
It was most definately the core.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Look at the photo from the link and expand in IE if that's your image viewer.
Note the perimeter columns are in a tree configuration and could not have created one ten story column. The building had no corner column.
I am no conspiracy theorist (check my previous posts) but check out this video of the "spire" from another angle:
From West Village
While the video is shaky that doesn't look like the core still standing to me, it looks like the facade.
It was most definately the core.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8870/sp...200x16009as.jpg
Look at the photo from the link and expand in IE if that's your image viewer.
Note the perimeter columns are in a tree configuration and could not have created one ten story column. The building had no corner column.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 06:39 PM)
No Arthur. I was right. I said it moved. It did move. If that is not correct perhaps you can enlighten us as to how something, anything, can tilt without moving.
Gordon.
You GOTTA be KIDDING ME.
All this time you have been talking about the CORE COLLAPSING due to thermite eating away at the bottom of the towers, resulting in the heat in the debris pile etc etc.
Are you going to say you were NOT????
Otherwise, please explain:
By the way. Your theory falls down on one basic observation. The core failed first, evidenced by the early movement of the antennae. There is no way for your theory to hold up with this factor.
How TILTING of JUST THE TOP invalidates my theory????
Arthur
Gordon.
You GOTTA be KIDDING ME.
All this time you have been talking about the CORE COLLAPSING due to thermite eating away at the bottom of the towers, resulting in the heat in the debris pile etc etc.
Are you going to say you were NOT????
Otherwise, please explain:
By the way. Your theory falls down on one basic observation. The core failed first, evidenced by the early movement of the antennae. There is no way for your theory to hold up with this factor.
How TILTING of JUST THE TOP invalidates my theory????
Arthur
QUOTE (Secular+Mar 7 2006, 11:15 PM)
Hi and Help!
I am, as yet, still undecided as to the cause of collapse - Im a floating voter who still needs convincing by either NIST or CD proponents.
Im not a qualified scientist or architect or demolition expert...just an asker of questions.
I try to seperate the politics from structural failures of buildings, I agree there is a lot of stuff out there regarding US Foreign and Domestic policy - but physics isn't politics and this is a physics site.
Questions:
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air?
4) From the construction photo it doesnt look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
5) I personally think it remarkable the buildings withstood such forces of impact from the aircraft....the structures wobbled considerably as the impact was absorbed and distributed. Does this mean that the building is more flexible nearer the top but not that strong?
Apologies if this has already been covered, however I would greatly appreciate peoples thoughts.
Thanks
Bush is an idiot, that said I haven't seen evidence of CD in over 400 pages of this thread.
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
You just answered your own question. As they stack up they get heaver and heaver right? As the stack becomes heaver do you think it becomes easier or harder to destroy the next floor?
You just answered your own question. As they stack up they get heaver and heaver right? As the stack becomes heaver do you think it becomes easier or harder to destroy the next floor?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
Note those jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps happens AFTER the building is already on it's way down.
I suggest there are more possible places than elevator shafts for air to rush downward. And even if it did go down the shaft, I suspect some of the doors were already open. Elevator shafts, stairways, conduits, They were all in the core.
I suggest there are more possible places than elevator shafts for air to rush downward. And even if it did go down the shaft, I suspect some of the doors were already open. Elevator shafts, stairways, conduits, They were all in the core.
4) From the construction photo it doesn't look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
IMHO the weak points are the bolts. NIST said most of the failure was in the bolts.
It's been said the steel below was stronger but the fact is the building was designed to sway in high winds to absorb the energy.
I am, as yet, still undecided as to the cause of collapse - Im a floating voter who still needs convincing by either NIST or CD proponents.
Im not a qualified scientist or architect or demolition expert...just an asker of questions.
I try to seperate the politics from structural failures of buildings, I agree there is a lot of stuff out there regarding US Foreign and Domestic policy - but physics isn't politics and this is a physics site.
Questions:
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air?
4) From the construction photo it doesnt look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
5) I personally think it remarkable the buildings withstood such forces of impact from the aircraft....the structures wobbled considerably as the impact was absorbed and distributed. Does this mean that the building is more flexible nearer the top but not that strong?
Apologies if this has already been covered, however I would greatly appreciate peoples thoughts.
Thanks
Bush is an idiot, that said I haven't seen evidence of CD in over 400 pages of this thread.
QUOTE
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground?
You just answered your own question. As they stack up they get heaver and heaver right? As the stack becomes heaver do you think it becomes easier or harder to destroy the next floor?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1) Is it possible that the continued dropping of floors (pancaking/stacking) sped up as the collapse got nearer the ground? |
You just answered your own question. As they stack up they get heaver and heaver right? As the stack becomes heaver do you think it becomes easier or harder to destroy the next floor?
2) What energy forces are created by this? I saw jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps.
Note those jets of compressed air/smoke/debris exiting gaps happens AFTER the building is already on it's way down.
QUOTE
3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air?
I suggest there are more possible places than elevator shafts for air to rush downward. And even if it did go down the shaft, I suspect some of the doors were already open. Elevator shafts, stairways, conduits, They were all in the core.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3) Could these air compression forces affect the central core?, just as air is pushed out of the building presumably the same force would also have an effect on the core - would the lift shaft been blown apart by compressed air? |
I suggest there are more possible places than elevator shafts for air to rush downward. And even if it did go down the shaft, I suspect some of the doors were already open. Elevator shafts, stairways, conduits, They were all in the core.
4) From the construction photo it doesn't look like much steel is supporting the concrete floors in the first place...was this a weak point in the final design?
IMHO the weak points are the bolts. NIST said most of the failure was in the bolts.
QUOTE
5) I personally think it remarkable the buildings withstood such forces of impact from the aircraft....the structures wobbled considerably as the impact was absorbed and distributed. Does this mean that the building is more flexible nearer the top but not that strong?
It's been said the steel below was stronger but the fact is the building was designed to sway in high winds to absorb the energy.
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 11:00 PM)
When I have more time I'll have to set myself up here at work.
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 11:00 PM)
When I have more time I'll have to set myself up here at work.
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
I'm at work now, too lazy to get my password from home.
I keep telling myself I'm not going to waste time posting here from work.
But I do it anyway.
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
I'm at work now, too lazy to get my password from home.
I keep telling myself I'm not going to waste time posting here from work.
But I do it anyway.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
Yea, what happened to the perimeter walls, the interior box columns and the concrete core?
And since there is nothing left above the core, what brought it down. Why didn't it topple?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
Yea, what happened to the perimeter walls, the interior box columns and the concrete core?
And since there is nothing left above the core, what brought it down. Why didn't it topple?
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 11:48 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (ScottS.+Mar 7 2006, 11:00 PM)
When I have more time I'll have to set myself up here at work.
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
I'm at work now, too lazy to get my password from home.
I keep telling myself I'm not going to waste time posting here from work.
But I do it anyway.
If you forget to take it with you to work just use the "Forgot password". Your username should be ScottS. That is if you have an ISP with web mail. You can use it to retrieve the password.
If that helps.
Just curious, Why was it you can't you the same login from home again?
I'm at work now, too lazy to get my password from home.
I keep telling myself I'm not going to waste time posting here from work.
But I do it anyway.
If you forget to take it with you to work just use the "Forgot password". Your username should be ScottS. That is if you have an ISP with web mail. You can use it to retrieve the password.
If that helps.
How TILTING of JUST THE TOP invalidates my theory
Arthur
Your theory relies on an inward pulling forces on the perimeter columns. Without significant downward movement of the core there would be no force other than the horizontal component of the floor mass.
How much downward movement have you allowed and from whence did it come?
Please note that this should also have regard for the differential thermal expansion of the core and perimeter columns, as well as the thermal expansion of the floors.
How would it be possible for those floors, connected at or about the fulcrum, to pull inwards on the perimeter, a phenomenon which was concentrated at the impact level? There is little or no moment through which the force can be transferred.
Gordon.
Arthur
Your theory relies on an inward pulling forces on the perimeter columns. Without significant downward movement of the core there would be no force other than the horizontal component of the floor mass.
How much downward movement have you allowed and from whence did it come?
Please note that this should also have regard for the differential thermal expansion of the core and perimeter columns, as well as the thermal expansion of the floors.
How would it be possible for those floors, connected at or about the fulcrum, to pull inwards on the perimeter, a phenomenon which was concentrated at the impact level? There is little or no moment through which the force can be transferred.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 11:52 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
Yea, what happened to the perimeter walls, the interior box columns and the concrete core?
And since there is nothing left above the core, what brought it down. Why didn't it topple?
This coming from a guy who's so far out there not even the CTers believe him. Heh!
I see you're stepping up the insults so I'm going to ratchet it up myself. OK with you?
Your dishonest. You don't have one photo of a concrete core yet you post worse BS than Colin Powell at the UN.
I guess everything looks like concrete when you roll your eyes to the back of your head.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
Yea, what happened to the perimeter walls, the interior box columns and the concrete core?
And since there is nothing left above the core, what brought it down. Why didn't it topple?
This coming from a guy who's so far out there not even the CTers believe him. Heh!
I see you're stepping up the insults so I'm going to ratchet it up myself. OK with you?
Your dishonest. You don't have one photo of a concrete core yet you post worse BS than Colin Powell at the UN.
I guess everything looks like concrete when you roll your eyes to the back of your head.
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
This image shows what can only be a concrete core. Structural steel would leave protruding columns.
I'm not really talking steel encased in concrete. The above image is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete tube. It is the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.
The base of the interior core columns, under the image seen below, was encased, but that was just the base and it didn't extend upwards.
The site,
http://concretecore.741.com/
has a number of photos that show concrete, the above is one of them. Admittedly, the photos are not like you might find on a National Geographic documentary that show all in perfect detail. You will have to use your mind here to analyze what is seen.
For example, this photo shows the base of the core, part of one corner. The structure from left to right is. Interior box column, concrete core then stairwell. No steel core columns occupy the inner core area. There were none. If they existed the would be seen inside the stairwell and to the right of it. No pictures of them in place are ever seen.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
QUOTE
Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection). The amount of the gypsum enclosure in contact with the column varried depending on the location of the column within the core. SFRM (BLAZE-SHIELD D and DC/F) was applied to those faces that were not protected by the gypsum enclosure......
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
This image shows what can only be a concrete core. Structural steel would leave protruding columns.
I'm not really talking steel encased in concrete. The above image is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete tube. It is the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.
The base of the interior core columns, under the image seen below, was encased, but that was just the base and it didn't extend upwards.
The site,
http://concretecore.741.com/
has a number of photos that show concrete, the above is one of them. Admittedly, the photos are not like you might find on a National Geographic documentary that show all in perfect detail. You will have to use your mind here to analyze what is seen.
For example, this photo shows the base of the core, part of one corner. The structure from left to right is. Interior box column, concrete core then stairwell. No steel core columns occupy the inner core area. There were none. If they existed the would be seen inside the stairwell and to the right of it. No pictures of them in place are ever seen.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 08:02 PM)
How TILTING of JUST THE TOP invalidates my theory
Arthur
Your theory relies on an inward pulling forces on the perimeter columns. Without significant downward movement of the core there would be no force other than the horizontal component of the floor mass.
How much downward movement have you allowed and from whence did it come?
Please note that this should also have regard for the differential thermal expansion of the core and perimeter columns, as well as the thermal expansion of the floors.
How would it be possible for those floors, connected at or about the fulcrum, to pull inwards on the perimeter, a phenomenon which was concentrated at the impact level? There is little or no moment through which the force can be transferred.
Gordon.
First, its not MY theory, its the result of NISTs extensive modeling of the collision and subsequent fires.
Second it relies on ALL the things modeled, not just the pulling in forces on the columns. Thus its a combination of ALL things, sagging floors, failing truss seats, redistributed loads due to other failure etc etc.
The NIST tests DO show that under the modeled conditions that the inward force per truss seat was 14 kip, which given their heating and added load, would cause them to bow inward.
Interestingly they bowed in (in WTC 1) 43 inches in the model and 51 inches in reality as derived from the photographic evidence.
Arthur
Arthur
Your theory relies on an inward pulling forces on the perimeter columns. Without significant downward movement of the core there would be no force other than the horizontal component of the floor mass.
How much downward movement have you allowed and from whence did it come?
Please note that this should also have regard for the differential thermal expansion of the core and perimeter columns, as well as the thermal expansion of the floors.
How would it be possible for those floors, connected at or about the fulcrum, to pull inwards on the perimeter, a phenomenon which was concentrated at the impact level? There is little or no moment through which the force can be transferred.
Gordon.
First, its not MY theory, its the result of NISTs extensive modeling of the collision and subsequent fires.
Second it relies on ALL the things modeled, not just the pulling in forces on the columns. Thus its a combination of ALL things, sagging floors, failing truss seats, redistributed loads due to other failure etc etc.
The NIST tests DO show that under the modeled conditions that the inward force per truss seat was 14 kip, which given their heating and added load, would cause them to bow inward.
Interestingly they bowed in (in WTC 1) 43 inches in the model and 51 inches in reality as derived from the photographic evidence.
Arthur
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1. Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of the core. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center of the South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resulted in redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2. Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A. Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep) was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percent more loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
B. Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3. Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1. Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of the core. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center of the South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resulted in redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2. Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:
A. Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep) was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percent more loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening.
B. Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.
C. Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3. Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8ş) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 12:10 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:38 PM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 10:15 PM)
What looks like concrete, a light colored surface against the inside of the interior box column is on the left of the core corner just below the crane boom.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
This image shows what can only be a concrete core. Structural steel would leave protruding columns.
I'm not really talking steel encased in concrete. The above image is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete tube. It is the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.
The base of the interior core columns, under the image seen below, was encased, but that was just the base and it didn't extend upwards.
The site,
http://concretecore.741.com/
has a number of photos that show concrete, the above is one of them. Admittedly, the photos are not like you might find on a National Geographic documentary that show all in perfect detail. You will have to use your mind here to analyze what is seen.
For example, this photo shows the base of the core, part of one corner. The structure from left to right is. Interior box column, concrete core then stairwell. No steel core columns occupy the inner core area. There were none. If they existed the would be seen inside the stairwell and to the right of it. No pictures of them in place are ever seen.
Hi Christophera.
Do you not think that the 'leverage' and 'impact' stresses placed on the WHOLE LENGTH of the core structure would damage the 'steelwork inter-connections' to some degree? Do you not think that all that heavy concrete IN THE CORE FLOORING would be 'driven' DOWN and ACCUMULATE (along with any 'drywall') INSIDE the core space while the core is prevented from 'bursting' by the outer floor struts/walls, at least until THEY are destroyed/srtipped away to reveal that damaged lower core and its accumulations INSIDE IT? See that 'mounded' shape on top of the remnant core?...What do you think it is, other than accumulated material from core-flooring, upper-core/hat-truss steel etc.? Such 'head' pressure from that internal accumulation would be putting great strain on that core-remnant structure which doubtless has by then many damaged inter-connections (if any such are left at that height). Wouldn't you think that core will eventually 'burst/strip' FURTHER because of the NON-designed weight loads/stresses and oscillations, vibrations, buckling and twisting which would still be going on as a result of collapse chaos as well as the earthquake-proportion ground-impact-effects from the falling mass around it?
Why is it so unusual to find concrete bits/dust/ash etc mounded inside the remnant core? Why is it so unusual that such obviously damaged and asymmetrically-stressed remnant (which at such a height was never designed to stand alone anyway) should collapse after the rest of its lateral supports/bracings are gone?
Really, I am intrigued. Please explain.
RC.
.
I do not have plan or elevation views of the ground/atrium level of the WTC towers but it would not be uncommon to have concrete encased columns at the lower levels. Either concrete or CMU.
Why are you even asking these questions if you have a "preliminary set of plans for WTC?" They should show, architecturally, which columns are concrete encased or not.
The plans are by no means complete. The only sections show the elevator scheme. They are the set that would be required to design the towers structural aspects. The plans only give rough over all dimensions.
Here is a site that compiles data on the concrete core of the towers using raw evidence.
http://concretecore.741.com/
I don't believe that they were incased in concrete. That site has no concrete (no pun intended) evidence that they were incased in concrete. And in a lot of cases their conclusions are flat out incorrect.
Further from the NIST Final report page 73:
QUOTE
Those core columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in boxes of gypsum wallboard (and thus were inaccessible for inspection). The amount of the gypsum enclosure in contact with the column varried depending on the location of the column within the core. SFRM (BLAZE-SHIELD D and DC/F) was applied to those faces that were not protected by the gypsum enclosure......
Why would they need SFRM if they were incased in concrete?
This image shows what can only be a concrete core. Structural steel would leave protruding columns.
I'm not really talking steel encased in concrete. The above image is a rectangular, tubular, steel reinforced, cast concrete tube. It is the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction.
The base of the interior core columns, under the image seen below, was encased, but that was just the base and it didn't extend upwards.
The site,
http://concretecore.741.com/
has a number of photos that show concrete, the above is one of them. Admittedly, the photos are not like you might find on a National Geographic documentary that show all in perfect detail. You will have to use your mind here to analyze what is seen.
For example, this photo shows the base of the core, part of one corner. The structure from left to right is. Interior box column, concrete core then stairwell. No steel core columns occupy the inner core area. There were none. If they existed the would be seen inside the stairwell and to the right of it. No pictures of them in place are ever seen.
Hi Christophera.
Do you not think that the 'leverage' and 'impact' stresses placed on the WHOLE LENGTH of the core structure would damage the 'steelwork inter-connections' to some degree? Do you not think that all that heavy concrete IN THE CORE FLOORING would be 'driven' DOWN and ACCUMULATE (along with any 'drywall') INSIDE the core space while the core is prevented from 'bursting' by the outer floor struts/walls, at least until THEY are destroyed/srtipped away to reveal that damaged lower core and its accumulations INSIDE IT? See that 'mounded' shape on top of the remnant core?...What do you think it is, other than accumulated material from core-flooring, upper-core/hat-truss steel etc.? Such 'head' pressure from that internal accumulation would be putting great strain on that core-remnant structure which doubtless has by then many damaged inter-connections (if any such are left at that height). Wouldn't you think that core will eventually 'burst/strip' FURTHER because of the NON-designed weight loads/stresses and oscillations, vibrations, buckling and twisting which would still be going on as a result of collapse chaos as well as the earthquake-proportion ground-impact-effects from the falling mass around it?
Why is it so unusual to find concrete bits/dust/ash etc mounded inside the remnant core? Why is it so unusual that such obviously damaged and asymmetrically-stressed remnant (which at such a height was never designed to stand alone anyway) should collapse after the rest of its lateral supports/bracings are gone?
Really, I am intrigued. Please explain.
RC.
.
I remember reading in one of the articles that the towers were mostly air and thus collapsing straight down was not unexpected.
This picture kind of brings that home:
Arthur
This picture kind of brings that home:
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
I remember reading in one of the articles that the towers were mostly air and thus collapsing straight down was not unexpected.
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Well, .............. it's not done falling.
What is notable is that is the southside. The sheared perimeter box columns are on the OTHER side of the building. The building fell the wrong way.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Well, .............. it's not done falling.
What is notable is that is the southside. The sheared perimeter box columns are on the OTHER side of the building. The building fell the wrong way.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explotions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
Note how his hands go down as he explains what he saw...
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
...like the sound of each floor hitting another.
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
Christopher Brown's logic...
Government covers up freight train accidents…
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
Evidence a frieght train ran over their head!
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
Frieght tran on public roads! OUTRAGOUS!
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
A frieght train ran through thier home!
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
Heh!
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explotions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
Note how his hands go down as he explains what he saw...
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
...like the sound of each floor hitting another.
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
Christopher Brown's logic...
Government covers up freight train accidents…
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
Evidence a frieght train ran over their head!
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
Frieght tran on public roads! OUTRAGOUS!
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
A frieght train ran through thier home!
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
Heh!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Okay, they just fell way too fast for a collapse (sic).
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Okay, they just fell way too fast for a collapse (sic).
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explotions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
Note how his hands go down as he explains what he saw...
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
...like the sound of each floor hitting another.
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
Christopher Brown's logic...
Government covers up freight train accidents…
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
Did a fright train pass over their head?
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
Heh!
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Yeah, They aren't CTers but the CTers took those quotes out of context. I write about the sound of explotions here...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm
Note how his hands go down as he explains what he saw...
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
boom (Hand moves down)
...like the sound of each floor hitting another.
watch this video and lesson to the explotion before the collapse...
Christopher Brown's logic...
Government covers up freight train accidents…
"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php
Did a fright train pass over their head?
“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html
It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess.
http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906
It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."
http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm
“It sounded like a freight train”.
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954
Heh!
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:35 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 01:30 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Just to refresh everyones memory on what the NIST found.
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Okay, they just fell way too fast for a collapse (sic).
You mind showing some proof of that? Of are you just going to point to a picture again and anoint it as evidence...
What NIST found did not explain free fall.
Yes, free fall basically happened and so did total pulverization. The character of the event was a series of explosions and the firefighter video,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
shows that emergency professionals who have seen demolitions compare it to one.
Some parts of NIST reports may have some value, but for anyone interested in finding out the facts of how the towers came down, it is a total waste of time to try and glean anything of value.
AUTHORITY IS IN QUESTION.
Our people have been murdered and authority violated laws and due process that would have helped to apprend the guilty parties.
That's because FREE FALL DIDN'T HAPPEN.
The firemans video is taken out of context and I showed you exactly why.
Okay, they just fell way too fast for a collapse (sic).
You mind showing some proof of that? Of are you just going to point to a picture again and anoint it as evidence...
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:39 AM)
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
HEHE. You have no idea what Christopher thinks. He thinks Native Americans medicine people hypnotised physicians.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
Heh!
RC.
.
HEHE. You have no idea what Christopher thinks. He thinks Native Americans medicine people hypnotised physicians.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
Heh!
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 09:23 PM)
I remember reading in one of the articles that the towers were mostly air and thus collapsing straight down was not unexpected.
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
Actually Gordon, the sillouette picture makes the whole 45 records on a spindle analogy seem spot on.
Arthur
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
Actually Gordon, the sillouette picture makes the whole 45 records on a spindle analogy seem spot on.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 01:23 AM)
I remember reading in one of the articles that the towers were mostly air and thus collapsing straight down was not unexpected.
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
Hi gordon. Again, would you mind explaining PRECISELY what you are implying here? It doesn't seem to make any sense as is. Looking at the 'plan' view we would see two tubes. The main 'inwards constrainer' until their progressive destruction would be the perimeter walls. Can you see any other falling route but down in between the outer walls until the latter are 'blown out' by the escaping air/combustion-gases?
RC.
.
So the logic that they were mostly air explains why they fell straight down rather than any other possible route, but every other possible route had an even greater air/anything else ratio. They actually chose the route with the smallest proportion of air.
Gordon
Hi gordon. Again, would you mind explaining PRECISELY what you are implying here? It doesn't seem to make any sense as is. Looking at the 'plan' view we would see two tubes. The main 'inwards constrainer' until their progressive destruction would be the perimeter walls. Can you see any other falling route but down in between the outer walls until the latter are 'blown out' by the escaping air/combustion-gases?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 02:11 AM)
I have a question which can only be understood if I illustrate it.
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can [edit: the wieght of] 32 floors coming down on one stop? The fact they they are connected to columns and such only adds wieght.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
*Crickets*
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
You mean before the next clown car comes to town?
Hard to say.
Could you IMAGINE if all these CT'ers were in the SAME ROOM?????
Would THAT be a HOOT?????
I'd almost pay good money to see that slice of crazyness.
Toss in some liquor (or for some a bong) and just watch the madness feed on itself.
Arthur
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can [edit: the wieght of] 32 floors coming down on one stop? The fact they they are connected to columns and such only adds wieght.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
*Crickets*
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 09:39 PM)
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
You mean before the next clown car comes to town?
Hard to say.
Could you IMAGINE if all these CT'ers were in the SAME ROOM?????
Would THAT be a HOOT?????
I'd almost pay good money to see that slice of crazyness.
Toss in some liquor (or for some a bong) and just watch the madness feed on itself.
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:28 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Well, .............. it's not done falling.
What is notable is that is the southside. The sheared perimeter box columns are on the OTHER side of the building. The building fell the wrong way.
Are you alright there, Chris? I only ask because OBVIOUSLY the mast is leaning into the side that buckled/collapsed first. What do you think has already happened to the floors/levels on that other side so that THIS side could 'sink' so far down onto the lower section? Get a grip, mate!
RC.
.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Well, .............. it's not done falling.
What is notable is that is the southside. The sheared perimeter box columns are on the OTHER side of the building. The building fell the wrong way.
Are you alright there, Chris? I only ask because OBVIOUSLY the mast is leaning into the side that buckled/collapsed first. What do you think has already happened to the floors/levels on that other side so that THIS side could 'sink' so far down onto the lower section? Get a grip, mate!
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 02:04 AM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
Again, gordon, you're making little sense, mate. How do the perimeter columns come into play AT ALL in 'resisting like normally'?....when the falling section is stressing them every-which-way EXCEPT NORMALLY/STATICALLY/VERTICALLY at that stage? Please stop insulting us, or you will be soon lumped together with the 'others' (nudge nudge, wink wink). Please mate, no more.
RC.
.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
Again, gordon, you're making little sense, mate. How do the perimeter columns come into play AT ALL in 'resisting like normally'?....when the falling section is stressing them every-which-way EXCEPT NORMALLY/STATICALLY/VERTICALLY at that stage? Please stop insulting us, or you will be soon lumped together with the 'others' (nudge nudge, wink wink). Please mate, no more.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 02:04 AM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:39 AM)
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
HEHE. You have no idea what Christopher thinks. He thinks Native Americans medicine people hypnotised physicians.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
Heh!
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
You mean before the next clown car comes to town?
Hard to say.
Could you IMAGINE if all these CT'ers were in the SAME ROOM?????
Would THAT be a HOOT?????
I'd almost pay good money to see that slice of crazyness.
Toss in some liquor (or for some a bong) and just watch the madness feed on itself.
Arthur
Thankyou both. Between your respective posts, I think I get the picture only too well. Prepare to be entertained if not enlightened!....anytime now.....anytime......wait for it.....wait for it....
I just don't see how a few connections are going to stop that juggernaut from falling apart as it falls down. Maybe because I've been in the building and know how immense that is...
RC.
.
HEHE. You have no idea what Christopher thinks. He thinks Native Americans medicine people hypnotised physicians.
http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/conaffair.jpeg
Heh!
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 02:04 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 09:39 PM)
Hi CS. How many more times in one thread can the same 'concern' be repeated by CTers? And how many times does the 'rebuttal' have to be re-posted before it sinks in? This thread has descended to 'political/personal' farce. Where do they come from? Don't they have any self-respect left? Or is it the money-morive driving this farce of a "Basic Physics" thread. The Basic Physics has been and gone with nothing left for the CTers to do but cry "they done it!". How long do you think the 'next shift' of CTers will turn up? Do you think they'll revert to the good old UFO/Kennedy assassination stuff? Oh my.
RC.
.
You mean before the next clown car comes to town?
Hard to say.
Could you IMAGINE if all these CT'ers were in the SAME ROOM?????
Would THAT be a HOOT?????
I'd almost pay good money to see that slice of crazyness.
Toss in some liquor (or for some a bong) and just watch the madness feed on itself.
Arthur
Thankyou both. Between your respective posts, I think I get the picture only too well. Prepare to be entertained if not enlightened!....anytime now.....anytime......wait for it.....wait for it....
From MMC's thread, I think it is important:
A petition has been launched calling for the release of all information relating to 9/11...the link to sign the petition is available at the bottom of this post...
Please spread the word and add your support...
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:*
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11:
1. Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes, of which five frames (only) have been released via the official ASCE report, as Judicial Watch has also requested. We further demand release of the video tape seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit, from the fuel service station near the Pentagon, as well as any other videotape which shows the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon.
See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b...0_bt218-00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa...fct-videos.html
2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.
3. An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders" described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.
See http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
4. The documents generated by Vice President Cheney's energy task force have been kept from the public. A court case brought forth a few maps that display oil fields in the Middle East. We hereby put Congress on notice that there is probable cause with regard to criminal activities by the Cheney Energy Task Force involving a criminal conspiracy to launch illegal wars and/or terrorist activities. We therefore demand that Energy Task Force document that comprise, discuss, or refer to plans to invade the Middle East, including Iran, and Venezuela or other sovereign nations be released immediately.
See Cheney v. District Court 542 U.S. 367 (2004) and United States v. Nixon 418
U.S. 683 (1974).
See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33642
5. Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building. We demand an explanation for this destruction of evidence and ask that the possible existence of other copies of such tapes or perhaps of written transcripts of the interviews be pursued. All air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 should be allowed to testify during a public forum under oath.
See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...=archive:search?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/...nws-tape07.html
6. The Secret Service, which is highly trained to protect the President from danger and to move him to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached its own standard procedures by allowing President Bush to remain at a public location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack. All Secret Service personnel who were at Booker Elementary School with President Bush on 9/11 should be required to testify in public and under oath about these events.
See
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121331&page=1
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/f..._press_9-10.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov
7. On the morning of 9/11, some five "war games" or "terror drills" were being conducted by U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise employing aircraft. These drills reportedly included the injection of false radar blips onto the screens of air traffic controllers. In addition, the government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building the morning of 9/11. Who was in charge of coordinating these war games and terror drills? Who had the ability to issues orders in relation to their conduct? On which screens were "false radar blips" inserted? When did such false injects commence? When were they purged from the controllers' screens? What was the effect of these activities on standard procedures for interdicting hijacked aircraft?
See
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_do...p?article_id=92
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ranscript.shtml
http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm (6 minutes, 12 seconds into the video)
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11...ne_exercise.htm
8. It has been reported that the FBI long ago found three of four "black boxes" from the two airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, yet has consistently denied that they were ever found. Their data would be of the greatest importance to understanding the events of 9/11. This matter must be investigated and the data they provide released to the public.
See
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html
For each of the four sites under investigation, the 9/11 Commission reported that two Boeing 757s, and two Boeing 767s (FAA, Part 121, airliners) owned by United Airlines and American Airlines were hijacked by novice pilots and were subsequently crashed, resulting in an unimaginable loss of life. Approximately 3,000 people died the morning of 9/11 as the direct result of these officially reported hijackings and subsequent crashes.
These four scheduled airliners were reported to have carried a total of 266 passengers and crew members, which, under FAA and NTSB regulations, demands a comprehensive investigation of the primary and contributing causes of each. In the case of suspected criminal foul play, the NTSB would normally assign the lead investigative role to the FBI, with assistance of investigators from the NTSB and FAA. A comprehensive investigation of each aircraft crash is not a regulatory option: they would have been mandatory. Therefore, we demand public release of each comprehensive crash investigation report, including access to all physical evidence that was required to have been collected and secured at a suitable facility. Such evidence should have included a large assortment of indestructible parts, including landing gears, surface actuators, engines, black boxes, and so on. The serialized parts would be invaluable in identifying each aircraft and, contrary to some reports, could not have "vaporized" upon impact.
Considering the enormous loss of life and financial collateral damage, if no crash investigations were conducted, who made the decision to disregard the FAA, Part 121, regulatory requirement? In the absence of the Part 121 investigation reports, the identity of the responsible authorities who made the decision not to investigate must be released, and they should be made immediately available for deposition under oath.
9. In the weeks before 9/11, the US Stock market showed rather high levels of activity on companies that would subsequently be affected by the attacks. The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over trading patterns in stock options. A jump in United Air Lines some 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, for example, and 285 times higher than average the Thursday before the attack, have been reported. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal the day before the attacks has also been reported. No similar trading occurred on any other airlines appear to have occurred.
Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between Sept. 7-10, whereas the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a day. According to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News: "This would be the most extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind, if it was a coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life. It’s absolutely unprecedented."
On September 18, 2001, the BBC reported: "American authorities are investigating unusually large numbers of shares in airlines, insurance companies and arms manufacturers that were sold off in the days and weeks before the attacks. They believe that the sales were by people who knew about the impending disaster". According to the London Independent, October 10, 2001: "To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options—where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall—on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA."
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1549909.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...jsp?story=99402
The 9/11 Commission, after looking into the pre-9/11 stock trades, never denied their unusual nature. Instead, the Commission declared that al-Qaeda did not conduct the trades, and asked no further questions.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156656584...=books&v=glance
Who, if not al-Qaeda, performed the incriminating trades? This information exists, it can be easily obtained, and it needs to be made public. Moreover, illegal money transfers may have been processed through computers housed at the World Trade Center shortly before planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. We demand a disclosure of the source of the put options and that this whole sordid affair receive a complete and public investigation.
See
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry...harddrives.idg/
10. Eyewitness testimony and a substantiating photographic record suggest that a large sample of slag from the World Trade Center is being held at Hangar 17 of the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. Access to the slag sample should be made available to appropriate physicists in order to conduct non-destructive X-ray Fluorescence tests and other forms of examination, which should reveal evidence of the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Based on these tests, we further demand two small samples (about the size of a fist) be extracted from this large piece for further scientific analysis.
See http://911proof.com/resources/Slag+Sample.gif
11. Release of a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from flights 11, 77, 93 or 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to:
(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
(
a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
© a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
12. Release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal or other material from the World Trade Centers, including, but not limited to:
(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
( a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and
© a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
On behalf of the People of the United States of America, we demand that the cover-up in this case end and that the kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence described above be provided to the public for experts and scholars to evaluate and assess in their efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about events on 9/11.
FOR THE SOCIETY:
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
7 March 2006
Sign the petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...?ltl=1141667399
A petition has been launched calling for the release of all information relating to 9/11...the link to sign the petition is available at the bottom of this post...
Please spread the word and add your support...
QUOTE
Scholars Call for Release of 9/11 Information
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:*
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11:
1. Immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tapes, of which five frames (only) have been released via the official ASCE report, as Judicial Watch has also requested. We further demand release of the video tape seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit, from the fuel service station near the Pentagon, as well as any other videotape which shows the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon.
See
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b...0_bt218-00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2000/20005022a.jpg
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pa...fct-videos.html
2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.
3. An explanation from Vice President Richard Cheney regarding the "orders" described by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in his testimony before The 9/11 Commission. Secretary Mineta stated that while in an underground bunker at the White House, he watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as a plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The officer should be identified and allowed to testify at a deposition under oath.
See http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
4. The documents generated by Vice President Cheney's energy task force have been kept from the public. A court case brought forth a few maps that display oil fields in the Middle East. We hereby put Congress on notice that there is probable cause with regard to criminal activities by the Cheney Energy Task Force involving a criminal conspiracy to launch illegal wars and/or terrorist activities. We therefore demand that Energy Task Force document that comprise, discuss, or refer to plans to invade the Middle East, including Iran, and Venezuela or other sovereign nations be released immediately.
See Cheney v. District Court 542 U.S. 367 (2004) and United States v. Nixon 418
U.S. 683 (1974).
See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33642
5. Audio tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 were intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building. We demand an explanation for this destruction of evidence and ask that the possible existence of other copies of such tapes or perhaps of written transcripts of the interviews be pursued. All air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 should be allowed to testify during a public forum under oath.
See
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...=archive:search?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/...nws-tape07.html
6. The Secret Service, which is highly trained to protect the President from danger and to move him to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached its own standard procedures by allowing President Bush to remain at a public location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack. All Secret Service personnel who were at Booker Elementary School with President Bush on 9/11 should be required to testify in public and under oath about these events.
See
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121331&page=1
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/f..._press_9-10.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov
7. On the morning of 9/11, some five "war games" or "terror drills" were being conducted by U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise employing aircraft. These drills reportedly included the injection of false radar blips onto the screens of air traffic controllers. In addition, the government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building the morning of 9/11. Who was in charge of coordinating these war games and terror drills? Who had the ability to issues orders in relation to their conduct? On which screens were "false radar blips" inserted? When did such false injects commence? When were they purged from the controllers' screens? What was the effect of these activities on standard procedures for interdicting hijacked aircraft?
See
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_do...p?article_id=92
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ranscript.shtml
http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm (6 minutes, 12 seconds into the video)
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11...ne_exercise.htm
8. It has been reported that the FBI long ago found three of four "black boxes" from the two airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, yet has consistently denied that they were ever found. Their data would be of the greatest importance to understanding the events of 9/11. This matter must be investigated and the data they provide released to the public.
See
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html
For each of the four sites under investigation, the 9/11 Commission reported that two Boeing 757s, and two Boeing 767s (FAA, Part 121, airliners) owned by United Airlines and American Airlines were hijacked by novice pilots and were subsequently crashed, resulting in an unimaginable loss of life. Approximately 3,000 people died the morning of 9/11 as the direct result of these officially reported hijackings and subsequent crashes.
These four scheduled airliners were reported to have carried a total of 266 passengers and crew members, which, under FAA and NTSB regulations, demands a comprehensive investigation of the primary and contributing causes of each. In the case of suspected criminal foul play, the NTSB would normally assign the lead investigative role to the FBI, with assistance of investigators from the NTSB and FAA. A comprehensive investigation of each aircraft crash is not a regulatory option: they would have been mandatory. Therefore, we demand public release of each comprehensive crash investigation report, including access to all physical evidence that was required to have been collected and secured at a suitable facility. Such evidence should have included a large assortment of indestructible parts, including landing gears, surface actuators, engines, black boxes, and so on. The serialized parts would be invaluable in identifying each aircraft and, contrary to some reports, could not have "vaporized" upon impact.
Considering the enormous loss of life and financial collateral damage, if no crash investigations were conducted, who made the decision to disregard the FAA, Part 121, regulatory requirement? In the absence of the Part 121 investigation reports, the identity of the responsible authorities who made the decision not to investigate must be released, and they should be made immediately available for deposition under oath.
9. In the weeks before 9/11, the US Stock market showed rather high levels of activity on companies that would subsequently be affected by the attacks. The afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over trading patterns in stock options. A jump in United Air Lines some 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, for example, and 285 times higher than average the Thursday before the attack, have been reported. A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal the day before the attacks has also been reported. No similar trading occurred on any other airlines appear to have occurred.
Between September 6-10, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch were bought between Sept. 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought between Sept. 7-10, whereas the previous days had seen averages of 212 contracts a day. According to Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg News: "This would be the most extraordinary coincidence in the history of mankind, if it was a coincidence. This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life. It’s absolutely unprecedented."
On September 18, 2001, the BBC reported: "American authorities are investigating unusually large numbers of shares in airlines, insurance companies and arms manufacturers that were sold off in the days and weeks before the attacks. They believe that the sales were by people who knew about the impending disaster". According to the London Independent, October 10, 2001: "To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options—where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall—on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA."
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1549909.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...jsp?story=99402
The 9/11 Commission, after looking into the pre-9/11 stock trades, never denied their unusual nature. Instead, the Commission declared that al-Qaeda did not conduct the trades, and asked no further questions.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156656584...=books&v=glance
Who, if not al-Qaeda, performed the incriminating trades? This information exists, it can be easily obtained, and it needs to be made public. Moreover, illegal money transfers may have been processed through computers housed at the World Trade Center shortly before planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. We demand a disclosure of the source of the put options and that this whole sordid affair receive a complete and public investigation.
See
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry...harddrives.idg/
10. Eyewitness testimony and a substantiating photographic record suggest that a large sample of slag from the World Trade Center is being held at Hangar 17 of the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. Access to the slag sample should be made available to appropriate physicists in order to conduct non-destructive X-ray Fluorescence tests and other forms of examination, which should reveal evidence of the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Based on these tests, we further demand two small samples (about the size of a fist) be extracted from this large piece for further scientific analysis.
See http://911proof.com/resources/Slag+Sample.gif
11. Release of a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from flights 11, 77, 93 or 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to:
(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
(
a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and © a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
12. Release of a complete inventory of any steel, other metal or other material from the World Trade Centers, including, but not limited to:
(a) the location (whether warehouses or otherwise) of all such items;
(
a catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any and all such items; and © a list of all tests and examinations concerning any and all such items, including reports of such tests or examinations.
On behalf of the People of the United States of America, we demand that the cover-up in this case end and that the kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence described above be provided to the public for experts and scholars to evaluate and assess in their efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about events on 9/11.
FOR THE SOCIETY:
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
7 March 2006
Sign the petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...?ltl=1141667399
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 02:43 AM)
Are you saying there was only Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
Are you saying there was only horizontal forces on the spandrels as 32 stories chaotically on each floor?
Ever throw a water balloon? When it hits something it can't move it expands outward then pops. We aren't talking about water here but we are talking about tons and tons of debris which is compacted on it's leading edge. It's looser trailing edge would want to keep going down which it can't because the leading edge is still compacting ahead of it. I am talking about after initial collapse. And just like the water it will want to spread out if it can't go down.
Am I explaining it right RC? Do you know what I'm saying?
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
Are you saying there was only horizontal forces on the spandrels as 32 stories chaotically on each floor?
Ever throw a water balloon? When it hits something it can't move it expands outward then pops. We aren't talking about water here but we are talking about tons and tons of debris which is compacted on it's leading edge. It's looser trailing edge would want to keep going down which it can't because the leading edge is still compacting ahead of it. I am talking about after initial collapse. And just like the water it will want to spread out if it can't go down.
Am I explaining it right RC? Do you know what I'm saying?
Once the collapse begins, the geometric alignment of the columns above and below the collapse initiation area is already lost. So all of those assertions about how much load and energy absorption the columns can take when the building is standing normally are not really valid anymore. Columns on one side are buckled and those on the opposite side are probably fractured at their splices since they got bent and pulled apart from one another (tension as opposed to compression on the buckled face).
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
I would also point out I have been saying "Bolts" in the general sense. The bolts failed above the impact zone more while the spandrel bolt holes sheared below.
Same difference to me. The connections failed.
Same difference to me. The connections failed.
I mentioned earlier all of the free pieces of perimeter wall that were seen falling with no floor sections still attached, which indicates it was relative easy to break those connections. Basically, gravitational energy that could have gotten used up in plastic deformation of the metal didn't have a chance to get used up that way. It was converted to kinetic energy in all the pieces that disconnected. Not surprising that the global collapse looked so chaotic. Not unlike a race car that crashes and the pieces go all over the place, compared with a regular car that hits a wall, plastically deforms, and stays in one piece.
I just don't see how a few connections are going to stop that juggernaut from falling apart as it falls down. Maybe because I've been in the building and know how immense that is...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 03:16 AM)
I would also point out I have been saying "Bolts" in the general sense. The bolts failed above the impact zone more while the spandrel bolt holes sheared below.
Same difference to me. The connections failed.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.asp?ID=34
Here's a nice close up of a distorted bolt hole
Same difference to me. The connections failed.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.asp?ID=34
Here's a nice close up of a distorted bolt hole
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 07:08 PM)
Once the collapse begins, the geometric alignment of the columns above and below the collapse initiation area is already lost. So all of those assertions about how much load and energy absorption the columns can take when the building is standing normally are not really valid anymore. Columns on one side are buckled and those on the opposite side are probably fractured at their splices since they got bent and pulled apart from one another (tension as opposed to compression on the buckled face).
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
How do the core columns get out of registry? The core columns were tied together by large girders and I beams.
Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
How do the core columns get out of registry? The core columns were tied together by large girders and I beams.
Cross-Bracing
Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
clown car. oh, i get it! that's how you see people you're involved in a LONG, LONG debate with.
clown groupies.
once the tower tilts, all the connections of the upper mass are the weakest link. the steel is less massive, they have also been heated, and they are unsupported as opposed to being embedded in bedrock, (twitch, twitch). nearly the entire caps observed in both collapses disintegrate before the uppermost floors start collapsing.
this means that the upper floors resisted the brunt of the assault of the cap, and then gave out, similiar to the 'last straw' in a 'camel back-breaking'.
so, the lower floors dissipate the kinetic energy of the majority of the crushing cap, in fact bringing them to a halt(they didn't fall inside, arthur, because if they did, there would be no lateral support holding the perimeter trees in place. once the floors give, the perimeters give. we don't see this)
so, it is then the proverbial 'straw' of david, bringing down the goliath of the lower COMPLETELY INTACT, COMPLETELY UNDEFORMED lower portion of the building, with no discernable acceleration OR decceleration, no visible stutter, and an inches thick layer of ultra fine powder is created that blankets lower manhatten for blocks in all directions.
the powder is made up of paper, plastic, concrete, gypsum, humans, glass, etc.
i'm squeezing my big red nose, honk, honk.
clown groupies.
once the tower tilts, all the connections of the upper mass are the weakest link. the steel is less massive, they have also been heated, and they are unsupported as opposed to being embedded in bedrock, (twitch, twitch). nearly the entire caps observed in both collapses disintegrate before the uppermost floors start collapsing.
this means that the upper floors resisted the brunt of the assault of the cap, and then gave out, similiar to the 'last straw' in a 'camel back-breaking'.
so, the lower floors dissipate the kinetic energy of the majority of the crushing cap, in fact bringing them to a halt(they didn't fall inside, arthur, because if they did, there would be no lateral support holding the perimeter trees in place. once the floors give, the perimeters give. we don't see this)
so, it is then the proverbial 'straw' of david, bringing down the goliath of the lower COMPLETELY INTACT, COMPLETELY UNDEFORMED lower portion of the building, with no discernable acceleration OR decceleration, no visible stutter, and an inches thick layer of ultra fine powder is created that blankets lower manhatten for blocks in all directions.
the powder is made up of paper, plastic, concrete, gypsum, humans, glass, etc.
i'm squeezing my big red nose, honk, honk.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:47 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
This strikes me as yet another "proof by implausible analogy" by RC, which again, strikes me as so implausible that one wonders why he doesn't state his idea with lots of caveats, since he chooses to state his idea, at all.
Well, whatever.
RC: Since you are a scientist* , why don't you elaborate you idea in such a way that you can present it to your fellow scientists? I can well imagine that they would like to know the source of the "spark" (i.e., what is your theory of the WTC spark plug?) Something quantitative would be nice - you know how scientists are. Also, don't forget to enlighten us as to how this spark isn't squashed before it gets going by tons of building falling on it. Is the spark so fast that it beats the collapsing top? Again, your quantitave argument is the one that might actually convince any skeptic.
Also, is it just me or does the smoothness of the fireballs imply that gypsum laden office materials wouldn't burn in a fashion reminiscent of a chemical fireball, if they even could burn this quickly, at all?
Plus, what is your explanation of the apparent contradiction between been not being oxygen starved before collapse (hence the "raging fires", be they ever so shy), but also being so oxygen deficient that they need a collapse to burn up in a fireball. (You do see the conflict, don't you?)
Also, kindly point out to us where in the NIST report these fireballs are explained. Or is this another piece of inconvenient evidence that they didn't want to draw attention to?
* So you say...
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
This strikes me as yet another "proof by implausible analogy" by RC, which again, strikes me as so implausible that one wonders why he doesn't state his idea with lots of caveats, since he chooses to state his idea, at all.
Well, whatever.
RC: Since you are a scientist* , why don't you elaborate you idea in such a way that you can present it to your fellow scientists? I can well imagine that they would like to know the source of the "spark" (i.e., what is your theory of the WTC spark plug?) Something quantitative would be nice - you know how scientists are. Also, don't forget to enlighten us as to how this spark isn't squashed before it gets going by tons of building falling on it. Is the spark so fast that it beats the collapsing top? Again, your quantitave argument is the one that might actually convince any skeptic.
Also, is it just me or does the smoothness of the fireballs imply that gypsum laden office materials wouldn't burn in a fashion reminiscent of a chemical fireball, if they even could burn this quickly, at all?
Plus, what is your explanation of the apparent contradiction between been not being oxygen starved before collapse (hence the "raging fires", be they ever so shy), but also being so oxygen deficient that they need a collapse to burn up in a fireball. (You do see the conflict, don't you?)
Also, kindly point out to us where in the NIST report these fireballs are explained. Or is this another piece of inconvenient evidence that they didn't want to draw attention to?
* So you say...
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Just one question: how do you suppose that the man with the blue jeans and blow torch managed to suspend himself from 90 or so storeys in the air?
One can well imagine what Goldilocks would have to say, in this situation.:
I'll bet the man with the blow torch was simultaneously using two amazing bellows to create these fireballs!
The plot just thickens all the time! Woo-hoo!!
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Just one question: how do you suppose that the man with the blue jeans and blow torch managed to suspend himself from 90 or so storeys in the air?
One can well imagine what Goldilocks would have to say, in this situation.:
QUOTE
Gee, Grandma, what a big blowtorch you have!
I'll bet the man with the blow torch was simultaneously using two amazing bellows to create these fireballs!
The plot just thickens all the time! Woo-hoo!!
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 11:08 PM)
The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
Agreed,
And the bolts were only 5/8ths of an inch. Two on each end of the Truss. Two more but only to the bottom visco damper, thus not holding the truss up.
NIST 1-3C Fig 1-6 Pg 9
Arthur
Agreed,
And the bolts were only 5/8ths of an inch. Two on each end of the Truss. Two more but only to the bottom visco damper, thus not holding the truss up.
NIST 1-3C Fig 1-6 Pg 9
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:47 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
This strikes me as yet another "proof by implausible analogy" by RC, which again, strikes me as so implausible that one wonders why he doesn't state his idea with lots of caveats, since he chooses to state his idea, at all.
Well, whatever.
RC: Since you are a scientist* , why don't you elaborate you idea in such a way that you can present it to your fellow scientists? I can well imagine that they would like to know the source of the "spark" (i.e., what is your theory of the WTC spark plug?) Something quantitative would be nice - you know how scientists are. Also, don't forget to enlighten us as to how this spark isn't squashed before it gets going by tons of building falling on it. Is the spark so fast that it beats the collapsing top? Again, your quantitave argument is the one that might actually convince any skeptic.
Also, is it just me or does the smoothness of the fireballs imply that gypsum laden office materials wouldn't burn in a fashion reminiscent of a chemical fireball, if they even could burn this quickly, at all?
Plus, what is your explanation of the apparent contradiction between been not being oxygen starved before collapse (hence the "raging fires", be they ever so shy), but also being so oxygen deficient that they need a collapse to burn up in a fireball. (You do see the conflict, don't you?)
Also, kindly point out to us where in the NIST report these fireballs are explained. Or is this another piece of inconvenient evidence that they didn't want to draw attention to?
* So you say...
Oh metamars, metamars, metamars. Christophera, may be wrong about some questions of 'interpretation' of pictures, but HE is OBVIOUSLY WAY AHEAD OF YOU in the knowledge/intelligence stakes when it comes to ignition processes, especially the difference between conventional (sparked) and diesel (unsparked) engines!
Mate, what is the "DIESEL" ignition process in Diesel engines? COMPRESSION of fuel-air mix....THERE IS NO SPARK PLUG REQUIRED!
Get that yet? EVERYONE ELSE has but YOU, mate. What does that tell you about your 'qualifications' in "Basic Physics" and combustion/thermodynamics?
Mate, I "call it as I see it" from here whenever someone posts information/images from which I can draw 'basic physics' hypotheses. What do YOU do? Nothing but present laughable/ignorant comments/speculations that are not of this world.
Please, before you cast any more smartass aspersions on others, look to your own ignorance and lazyness (amply and consistently demonstrated throughout this thread...as often pointed out by adoucette).
Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
WOW!! And so much for the fires being 'small' or 'almost out', heh? If those flames can be seen through such HUGE and very sooty-dusty smokeclouds, just how BIG and HOT is what's DEEP INSIDE those plumes before all that stuff from above snuffs them out?!
Yes, for a moment there is a fireball. There are detonations in the core and fuel laden materials, starved of oxygen are being blown out into the air, ignited, where they are burning.
You might want to repeat that for newton, brian, Foxx et al. You see, Chris, MANY MANY PAGES BACK I also pointed all that out (and summed it up as a 'hot crunch' situation). I pointed out that it would have been much like the 'diesel ignition' principle (where fuel-air was suddenly compressed to 'ignition' temps and EXPLODED) while everything was being 'hot crunched' across/down those floors.
It is NOW perfectly obvious that you have not read this whole thread, or you would have known this. Also, you would have known that Schneibster put 'paid' to that 'freefall' rubbish early on using PHYSICS and not your handwaving. So before posting further, how about reading this whole thread and THEN tell us what we have NOT refuted with reasonably Basic Physics? Cheers!
RC.
.
This strikes me as yet another "proof by implausible analogy" by RC, which again, strikes me as so implausible that one wonders why he doesn't state his idea with lots of caveats, since he chooses to state his idea, at all.
Well, whatever.
RC: Since you are a scientist* , why don't you elaborate you idea in such a way that you can present it to your fellow scientists? I can well imagine that they would like to know the source of the "spark" (i.e., what is your theory of the WTC spark plug?) Something quantitative would be nice - you know how scientists are. Also, don't forget to enlighten us as to how this spark isn't squashed before it gets going by tons of building falling on it. Is the spark so fast that it beats the collapsing top? Again, your quantitave argument is the one that might actually convince any skeptic.
Also, is it just me or does the smoothness of the fireballs imply that gypsum laden office materials wouldn't burn in a fashion reminiscent of a chemical fireball, if they even could burn this quickly, at all?
Plus, what is your explanation of the apparent contradiction between been not being oxygen starved before collapse (hence the "raging fires", be they ever so shy), but also being so oxygen deficient that they need a collapse to burn up in a fireball. (You do see the conflict, don't you?)
Also, kindly point out to us where in the NIST report these fireballs are explained. Or is this another piece of inconvenient evidence that they didn't want to draw attention to?
* So you say...
Oh metamars, metamars, metamars. Christophera, may be wrong about some questions of 'interpretation' of pictures, but HE is OBVIOUSLY WAY AHEAD OF YOU in the knowledge/intelligence stakes when it comes to ignition processes, especially the difference between conventional (sparked) and diesel (unsparked) engines!
Mate, what is the "DIESEL" ignition process in Diesel engines? COMPRESSION of fuel-air mix....THERE IS NO SPARK PLUG REQUIRED!
Get that yet? EVERYONE ELSE has but YOU, mate. What does that tell you about your 'qualifications' in "Basic Physics" and combustion/thermodynamics?
Mate, I "call it as I see it" from here whenever someone posts information/images from which I can draw 'basic physics' hypotheses. What do YOU do? Nothing but present laughable/ignorant comments/speculations that are not of this world.
Please, before you cast any more smartass aspersions on others, look to your own ignorance and lazyness (amply and consistently demonstrated throughout this thread...as often pointed out by adoucette).
Oh, and since there is PLENTY of hot smoke-air mix (ie, hot but unburnt fuel and air), those ALREADY HOT mixtures trapped between steel-steel/steel-concrete/concrete collision points will heat up MORE, and ENOURMOUSLY so as to 'ignite' in the 'diesel' ignition manner. OK? And besides, are you saying that scraping steel/aluminium/concrete etc will NOT 'spark' (if that were needed at all?).
Go and learn something, mate...until THEN, "don't come the raw prawn" with me (another colourful Aussie saying, hehehe).
RC.
.
QUOTE (engineer+Oct 11 2005, 11:26 AM)
Bowing of the external structural beams - F*CKING OBVIOUS on the film footage - were obviously going to be responsible for some kind of failures; as it happens, disconnection of the floors, causing their failure onto the floors below them.
Failure times of floors under the falling juggernaut are obviously going to offer no significant increase in time to the duration of the collapse. The first floor to fail was hit with 45,000 tons of the failed structure above it. The floor designs were for 1500 tons. The exterior columns were held in place by the floors and to each other, so the floors failure disconnected the exterior columns.
The large volumes of air expelled propelled a cloud of debris out - but only at mechanically-induced speeds. (Go look at the collapse videos again and think of the volume of air in a floor being squeezed out in ~1/20th of a second per floor).
Rather than more IDIOTIC conspiracy theories, what should be thought about is what improved design requirements should be legislated (increasing the costs of buildings) and who should foot the bill.
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
Failure times of floors under the falling juggernaut are obviously going to offer no significant increase in time to the duration of the collapse. The first floor to fail was hit with 45,000 tons of the failed structure above it. The floor designs were for 1500 tons. The exterior columns were held in place by the floors and to each other, so the floors failure disconnected the exterior columns.
The large volumes of air expelled propelled a cloud of debris out - but only at mechanically-induced speeds. (Go look at the collapse videos again and think of the volume of air in a floor being squeezed out in ~1/20th of a second per floor).
Rather than more IDIOTIC conspiracy theories, what should be thought about is what improved design requirements should be legislated (increasing the costs of buildings) and who should foot the bill.
engineer,
Where are the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns in this photo of the WTC 2 core?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 08:14 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
Depends on the type of explosive and its purpose. A fireball certainly does not support an office fire being the source.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
Depends on the type of explosive and its purpose. A fireball certainly does not support an office fire being the source.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
So are we to conclude that no other chemical combustible could possibly create these fireballs and also cut through steel columns? Squashed cubicles and burning carpets are really a better explanation, are they?
To tell you the truth, the fireballs are so large that, for a "controlled" demolition, the "control" seems to be lacking.
I certainly don't claim to understand, 100%, what I'm looking at. Furthermore, I find it odd, indeed, that such a telling picture just appears now. Where was this picture in '01 or '02? For that matter, where was it 1 or 2 weeks ago? Is the picture even legitimate?
Regardless of the authenticity of the picture, the notion that I'm looking at basically one piece of a building falling on another, with the conditions "just right" to make fireballs, strikes me as silly.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
So are we to conclude that no other chemical combustible could possibly create these fireballs and also cut through steel columns? Squashed cubicles and burning carpets are really a better explanation, are they?
To tell you the truth, the fireballs are so large that, for a "controlled" demolition, the "control" seems to be lacking.
I certainly don't claim to understand, 100%, what I'm looking at. Furthermore, I find it odd, indeed, that such a telling picture just appears now. Where was this picture in '01 or '02? For that matter, where was it 1 or 2 weeks ago? Is the picture even legitimate?
Regardless of the authenticity of the picture, the notion that I'm looking at basically one piece of a building falling on another, with the conditions "just right" to make fireballs, strikes me as silly.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 8 2006, 12:32 AM)
Depends on the type of explosive and its purpose. A fireball certainly does not support an office fire being the source.
This should be good.
What type of explosive creates a FIREBALL????
For what purpose????
After the tower is already coming down???
Arthur
This should be good.
What type of explosive creates a FIREBALL????
For what purpose????
After the tower is already coming down???
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 12:35 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
So are we to conclude that no other chemical combustible could possibly create these fireballs and also cut through steel columns? Squashed cubicles and burning carpets are really a better explanation, are they?
To tell you the truth, the fireballs are so large that, for a "controlled" demolition, the "control" seems to be lacking.
I certainly don't claim to understand, 100%, what I'm looking at. Furthermore, I find it odd, indeed, that such a telling picture just appears now. Where was this picture in '01 or '02? For that matter, where was it 1 or 2 weeks ago? Is the picture even legitimate?
Regardless of the authenticity of the picture, the notion that I'm looking at basically one piece of a building falling on another, with the conditions "just right" to make fireballs, strikes me as silly.
I got it off a CT'ers site so authanticity might be an issue.
But feel free to ask Christophera where HE got it as I got it off his site
(right click on a picture, select PROPERTIES)
It ONLY strikes you as silly because it IN ONE CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGE destroys years of carefully constructed CD BULLSHIIT.
Arthur
Pretty awesome.
So much for the top being PULVERIZED before it fell.
Any idea how many floors have now fallen into the main tower?
Arthur
Yes, this is an awesome picture! We actually agree on something.
Yeah, we agree that it shows that the collapse had nothing to do with a CD as High Explosives don't create those kind of fireballs, and High Explosives would have gone off WELL before the tower started to fall. .
Arthur
So are we to conclude that no other chemical combustible could possibly create these fireballs and also cut through steel columns? Squashed cubicles and burning carpets are really a better explanation, are they?
To tell you the truth, the fireballs are so large that, for a "controlled" demolition, the "control" seems to be lacking.
I certainly don't claim to understand, 100%, what I'm looking at. Furthermore, I find it odd, indeed, that such a telling picture just appears now. Where was this picture in '01 or '02? For that matter, where was it 1 or 2 weeks ago? Is the picture even legitimate?
Regardless of the authenticity of the picture, the notion that I'm looking at basically one piece of a building falling on another, with the conditions "just right" to make fireballs, strikes me as silly.
I got it off a CT'ers site so authanticity might be an issue.
But feel free to ask Christophera where HE got it as I got it off his site
(right click on a picture, select PROPERTIES)
It ONLY strikes you as silly because it IN ONE CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGE destroys years of carefully constructed CD BULLSHIIT.
Arthur
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 8 2006, 03:04 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 8 2006, 02:43 AM)
Are you saying there was only Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
Are you saying there was only horizontal forces on the spandrels as 32 stories chaotically on each floor?
Ever throw a water balloon? When it hits something it can't move it expands outward then pops. We aren't talking about water here but we are talking about tons and tons of debris which is compacted on it's leading edge. It's looser trailing edge would want to keep going down which it can't because the leading edge is still compacting ahead of it. I am talking about after initial collapse. And just like the water it will want to spread out if it can't go down.
Am I explaining it right RC? Do you know what I'm saying?
Do you mean will the bolts absorb the energy of the downward falling section, including floors hat truss and columns, in your example. The forces will not primarily act on these bolts since they are resistive in shear to the horizontal component of the force arising from the floor mass. The downward motion would tend to be arrested by the elastic and plastic strain energy capacity of the columns, which would necessarily outweigh the potential energy of the towers. The position of the arrest is of course dependent on how high you lifted the upper section before dropping it, or the parameters of any other method by which you intend to inject energy within your theoretical model.
Gordon
Are you saying there was only horizontal forces on the spandrels as 32 stories chaotically on each floor?
Ever throw a water balloon? When it hits something it can't move it expands outward then pops. We aren't talking about water here but we are talking about tons and tons of debris which is compacted on it's leading edge. It's looser trailing edge would want to keep going down which it can't because the leading edge is still compacting ahead of it. I am talking about after initial collapse. And just like the water it will want to spread out if it can't go down.
Am I explaining it right RC? Do you know what I'm saying?
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 8 2006, 03:08 AM)
Once the collapse begins, the geometric alignment of the columns above and below the collapse initiation area is already lost. So all of those assertions about how much load and energy absorption the columns can take when the building is standing normally are not really valid anymore. Columns on one side are buckled and those on the opposite side are probably fractured at their splices since they got bent and pulled apart from one another (tension as opposed to compression on the buckled face).
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
Hi CS, shagster. Between you two you have covered the point. The core/perimeter columns/spandrels could ONLY 'come into play' if the 'connectors' HELD. Since these did NOT, that means the forces being transmitted through them were TOO QUICK for 'full transfer' and/or TOO OVERWHELMING to be sustained by said connectors....and so they DISCONNECTED. And as soon as that happened, there was nothing to restrain the outer walls from being broken/ejected as seen...both by the 'falling mass expansion' (as you noted, CS) AND the COMPRESSED-AIR ESCAPING EXPLOSIVELY.
Gordon doesn't seem to be thinking on all cylinders today....or he wouldn't be coming up with such stuff. Obviously the connectors/bolts failed BOTH in shear AND in tension.
RC.
.
The floor has a wide area to catch the fall of the upper part of the building that's coming down on it, whereas the columns above and below the collapse initiation area are already out of registry with each other and unable to transfer loads to each other like they used to. The floor would likely be your only hope. The floor itself is connected to the core and perimeter with bolts, so those bolts would have to take up the dynamic loading of the upper floors falling down on it and convey it to the columns below. The chances of one-inch bolts doing that are pretty slim.
Hi CS, shagster. Between you two you have covered the point. The core/perimeter columns/spandrels could ONLY 'come into play' if the 'connectors' HELD. Since these did NOT, that means the forces being transmitted through them were TOO QUICK for 'full transfer' and/or TOO OVERWHELMING to be sustained by said connectors....and so they DISCONNECTED. And as soon as that happened, there was nothing to restrain the outer walls from being broken/ejected as seen...both by the 'falling mass expansion' (as you noted, CS) AND the COMPRESSED-AIR ESCAPING EXPLOSIVELY.
Gordon doesn't seem to be thinking on all cylinders today....or he wouldn't be coming up with such stuff. Obviously the connectors/bolts failed BOTH in shear AND in tension.
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 04:45 AM)
I got it off a CT'ers site so authanticity might be an issue.
But feel free to ask Christophera where HE got it as I got it off his site
(right click on a picture, select PROPERTIES)
It ONLY strikes you as silly because it IN ONE CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGE destroys years of carefully constructed CD BULLSHIIT.
Arthur
that fireball can be seen in many videos and pictures. it is the explosion that initiates the collapse.
you see a clear picture of an explosion, but need to call it something else to save face. well, face off, it's an explosion(fireballs are a common side effect of explosions, arthur, just so's you know.)
look how far out the dust cloud of pulverised gypsum(from the core) is already, look at the sheer volume of it.
and you say that this picture is evidence AGAINST controlled demolition?
HAHAHA!
BOOOOMMMM!!!
But feel free to ask Christophera where HE got it as I got it off his site
(right click on a picture, select PROPERTIES)
It ONLY strikes you as silly because it IN ONE CRYSTAL CLEAR IMAGE destroys years of carefully constructed CD BULLSHIIT.
Arthur
that fireball can be seen in many videos and pictures. it is the explosion that initiates the collapse.
you see a clear picture of an explosion, but need to call it something else to save face. well, face off, it's an explosion(fireballs are a common side effect of explosions, arthur, just so's you know.)
look how far out the dust cloud of pulverised gypsum(from the core) is already, look at the sheer volume of it.
and you say that this picture is evidence AGAINST controlled demolition?
HAHAHA!
BOOOOMMMM!!!
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 10:04 PM)
The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
Since you are talking about something I know little about I have to address this logically.
According to you:
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY THE TOWERS COULD HAVE COLLAPSED based upon just the plane crash and fire.
IN FACT, the numbers you throw out are pretty CONVINCING:
the towers are "only loaded to 4% of their potential absorption"
and
the "plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300" .
So the LOGICAL question is:
IF YOU know this then why does no one else know it as well?????
One would think that SOME OTHER ENGINEER SOMEWHERE would say, Hey, them towers are only loaded to 4% .....What are them NIST fellas tryin to pull.....
How come NO ONE BUT YOU are making these claims?????
(I don't even think Jones and co are making these claims)
What do you know that apparently no one else knows????
Arthur
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
Since you are talking about something I know little about I have to address this logically.
According to you:
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY THE TOWERS COULD HAVE COLLAPSED based upon just the plane crash and fire.
IN FACT, the numbers you throw out are pretty CONVINCING:
the towers are "only loaded to 4% of their potential absorption"
and
the "plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300" .
So the LOGICAL question is:
IF YOU know this then why does no one else know it as well?????
One would think that SOME OTHER ENGINEER SOMEWHERE would say, Hey, them towers are only loaded to 4% .....What are them NIST fellas tryin to pull.....
How come NO ONE BUT YOU are making these claims?????
(I don't even think Jones and co are making these claims)
What do you know that apparently no one else knows????
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 04:26 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 8 2006, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:47 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 8 2006, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 8 2006, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 8 2006, 01:21 AM)
Hadn't ever seen this pic before.