Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Tony Szamboti]

The columns were not crushed they were leveraged until they failed,
that was clear from the buckling and weld failure then heating in the
Core was not symmetrical, causing a leveraged effect as I remember.

Can you do some calculations and provide a more detailed explanation of your proposed failure mechanism?

 

[GlennB]

The columns below could not be bypassed, that is an enormous leap without a basis, as there is no mechanism to shift the upper section laterally and inertia will cause it to fall in place.

No need for such a mechanism. Column connections fail, the remains of the columns spring sideways and subsequent impacts are non-axial. Some of those ends will next impact - and quite possibly penetrate - floor pans, some will impact girders with varying degrees of 'glance',some will impact the remains of lower column sections (intact and otherwise) also with varying degrees of glance.

Should relatively clean column ends happen to meet - having shed the busted column parts that were once attached to them - then junk between them will tend to soften the impact in varying degrees.

You, meanwhile, rely on Bazant's "knees" to achieve axial impact. Which is utterly laughable.

eta: If you're right, where were the neatly folded column sections with "knees" in the debris? I see no knees. Nobody has seen WTC knees. It was a knee-free zone. Kneeless, in fact.

 

[DGM]

I have shown in this thread that the NIST inward bowing minutes before is fictitious, as it has no mechanism.

Photos and police accounts faked?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have shown in this thread that the NIST inward bowing minutes before is fictitious, as it has no mechanism.

I have also shown that Bazant's overload values are enormously overestimated and fictitious, to the point where there is actually no overload at all and very likely an energy deficit.

Thus it is shown that the story we have been formally given as to how the collapse of the North Tower was initiated and vertically propagated is fictitious. Now some here will huff and puff and moan and groan about it, simply because they don't want to believe the reality that this story is pure fiction.

You have shown nothing, only that you can not understand the collapse mechanism,
I called you on your use of older Bazant papers in reference to the revised paper.
The older Bazant paper used information provided By Thomas Edgar's that was incorrect,
You did not provide the revised papers did you?

The column pull in was not a NIST Idea it was shown known
Pre NIST, it lead Thomas Edgar to propose truss sag and pancaking
As the original theory as to why collapse occurred.

Pull in is a fact you can not dispute the mechanism is a combination of floor truss failure
Loss of floor rigidity, uneven heating of floor trusses, perimeter columns, and uneven core heating, in combination with increased gravitational loading do to damage from the impact.

Too complex it seems for your over simplified models.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Photos and police accounts faked?

The photos shown in the NIST report of the inward bowing are stills taken from video of the collapse initiation when the core was removed and pulled the exterior inward.

They are just telling you it was minutes before, thinking nobody would ever question their mechanism.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have shown nothing, only that you can not understand the collapse mechanism,
I called you on your use of older Bazant papers in reference to the revised paper.
The older Bazant paper used information provided By Thomas Edgar's that was incorrect,
You did not provide the revised papers did you?

The column pull in was not a NIST Idea it was shown known
Pre NIST, it lead Thomas Edgar to propose truss sag and pancaking
As the original theory as to why collapse occurred.

Pull in is a fact you can not dispute the mechanism is a combination of floor truss failure
Loss of floor rigidity, uneven heating of floor trusses, perimeter columns, and uneven core heating, in combination with increased gravitational loading do to damage from the impact.

Too complex it seems for your over simplified models.

The fellow you seem to be alluding to is Thomas Eagar. In the animation of his proposed unzipping of the main trusses (which was shown on this thread earlier) you will see that it excludes the bridging trusses which make it impossible.

The story we have been given by NIST, Bazant, and Eagar does not explain the collapse of the North Tower in any way, shape, or form.

What observation shows had to happen was that the core was removed at the 98th floor to start it and then the three stories above it. The exterior was cut at its corners to allow it to petal outward as the mass above came down on it. This would have probably been done for at least ten stories, after which it would be self-propagating.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Can you do some calculations and provide a more detailed explanation of your proposed failure mechanism?

No need the mechanism actually matches the physical evidence,
the actual way the steel failed, as per the investigation by the City of New
York, New York State.

Who took the photos of the steel in conjunction with FEMA.

The Reason Bazant knees did not form is because the welds were not strong
enough to form them. A mistake Bazant made, The knees were in the Oridginal
Paper not in the revised paper, that shows you are not arguing the Greening, Benson,
Paper.

That shows you clearly have no actual understanding of the actual failure mechanisms.
PS. The old physics forum thread on the subject has all the calculations in it,
Except where Dr. Greening, myself, and Dr. Benson had to switch to a new
9/11 Forum to avoid the Trolls that constantly disrupted that forum.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No need the mechanism actually matches the physical evidence,
the actual way the steel failed, as per the investigation by the City of New
York, New York State.

Who took the photos of the steel in conjunction with FEMA.

The Reason Bazant knees did not form is because the welds were not strong
enough to form them. A mistake Bazant made, The knees were in the Oridginal
Paper not in the revised paper, that shows you are not arguing the Greening, Benson,
Paper.

That shows you clearly have no actual understanding of the actual failure mechanisms.
PS. The old physics forum thread on the subject has all the calculations in it,
Except where Dr. Greening, myself, and Dr. Benson had to switch to a new
9/11 Forum to avoid the Trolls that constantly disrupted that forum.

If you can't provide some level of calculation and a more detailed explanation of what you are saying then it can't be right.

One of the ways I can tell your thinking is clouded is that you are supposing buckling would occur over three stories or more. It can't as there were moment connected beams at every story in the core of the towers.

By the way, Dr. Greening now accepts that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. He sees no other way to explain it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

To answer the question of this thread simply, there are obviously several reasons to question the present official narrative for the collapses of the three high-rise buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 as they are either devoid of mechanisms to produce the observations or wildly exaggerated.

Both the NIST WTC report and Bazant's analyses (which had been accepted by the NIST WTC report) are clearly non-explanatory and should be dismissed as frauds as stated by Dr. Lynn Margulis several years ago.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The fellow you seem to be alluding to is Thomas Eagar. In the animation of his proposed unzipping of the main trusses (which was shown on this thread earlier) you will see that it excludes the bridging trusses which make it impossible.

The story we have been given by NIST, Bazant, and Eagar does not explain the collapse of the North Tower in any way, shape, or form.

What observation shows had to happen was that the core was removed at the 98th floor to start it and then the three stories above it. The exterior was cut at its corners to allow it to petal outward as the mass above came down on it. This would have probably been done for at least ten stories, after which it would be self-propagating.

The bridging trusses will not prevent truss sag, or pull in do to bolt shear, in the bridging trusses as they expand in the fires.

I asked Questions about that years ago Tony.

The pull in is simply more complex than the Ideas you are expressing,
Your modeling like in world trade 7's collapse is way to simplistically deficient.

You need to quantify you Ideas and design a model of said
Ideas and do some computer models to eliminate associated factors.

Otherwise your Ideas are simply to simplified to have
any merit to convince anyone.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The bridging trusses will not prevent truss sag, or pull in do to bolt shear, in the bridging trusses as they expand in the fires.

I asked Questions about that years ago Tony.

The pull in is simply more complex than the Ideas you are expressing,
Your modeling like in world trade 7's collapse is way to simplistically deficient.

You need to quantify you Ideas and design a model of said
Ideas and do some computer models to eliminate associated factors.

Otherwise your Ideas are simply to simplified to have
any merit to convince anyone.

The bridging trusses would not allow what is shown in the video about Thomas Eagar's proposed unzipping. Why weren't they shown there?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If you can't provide some level of calculation and a more detailed explanation of what you are saying then it can't be right.

One of the ways I can tell your thinking is clouded is that you are supposing buckling would occur over three stories or more. It can't as there were moment connected beams at every story in the core of the towers.

By the way, Dr. Greening now accepts that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. He sees no other way to explain it.

I do not doubt that Frank might believe that building 7 was a controlled demolition, but
I am not Frank Greening an I know Frank can not do his own experiments and that Frank is
Often wrong.

Weld and connection failure explains 7s fall better than thermites
and impossible silent explosives.

Because the only thing observed falling at free fall is a stone wall.

 

[GlennB]

The photos shown in the NIST report of the inward bowing are stills taken from video of the collapse initiation when the core was removed and pulled the exterior inward.

They are just telling you it was minutes before, thinking nobody would ever question their mechanism.

Nope.

Whenever it was, the stills are taken at very different angles from the same moving helicopter. The exif data indicates bowing happening for at least 19 seconds (even if collapse immediately followed the final still, which it didn't), something your theory cannot explain.

What's more, they show several storeys of bowing, being most accentuated in the middle storeys of the affected zone. Your "core-led" theory can't explain that either.

Shall I post all those photos? Is it really necessary?

 

[Seymour Butz]

The photos shown in the NIST report of the inward bowing are stills taken from video of the collapse initiation when the core was removed and pulled the exterior inward.

They are just telling you it was minutes before, thinking nobody would ever question their mechanism.

How were the core columns "removed"?

Wasn't by cutter charges, or we would see windows being blown out by the over pressure.

This leaves some form of thermite, or as you once laughably proposed, by using hydraulics as in a verinage CD.

 

[DGM]

The photos shown in the NIST report of the inward bowing are stills taken from video of the collapse initiation when the core was removed and pulled the exterior inward.

They are just telling you it was minutes before, thinking nobody would ever question their mechanism.

Thanks for this. Naturally you have more than your opinion to back up your claim that the NIST fudged the time stamps of the NYPD video to create this deception?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You want to assume the columns below only had a yield strength equivalent to the static load. That is nonsense and if you don't know it you don't belong in the conversation.

Then maybe you should issue a correction to your paper, in which you claim precisely that.

Immediately before collapse initiation, the storey below the upper block was about to fail. At the instant of failure its structural resistance fell below the static load; that is, in fact, the definition of failure. As the upper block fell through this storey, the resistance should have been about 0.3-0.4 times the static load, according to the arguments in your paper. The potential energy converted to kinetic energy is therefore about 0.6-0.7 times the product of the weight of the upper block and the distance it fell. This is the number that then has to be compared to the energy capacity of the lower block. Your attempt to overestimate it by adding a factor of safety is equivalent to claiming that the collapse never happened.

Dave

 

[Seymour Butz]

By the way, Dr. Greening now accepts that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. He sees no other way to explain it.

Then he's quite insane.

That is, if you're not outright lying about this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for this. Naturally you have more than your opinion to back up your claim that the NIST fudged the time stamps of the NYPD video to create this deception?

Yes; he has his own incredulity as well, because he can't think of a mechanism to explain what actually happened.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for this. Naturally you have more than your opinion to back up your claim that the NIST fudged the time stamps of the NYPD video to create this deception?

An investigation will determine just that as there is no mechanism for the inward bowing to occur minutes before.

 

[Animal]

I have shown in this thread that the NIST inward bowing minutes before is fictitious, as it has no mechanism.

Simply a lie.....you have shown no such thing.....you simply hand wave away the evidence that shreds your fantasy.

I have also shown that Bazant's overload values are enormously overestimated and fictitious, to the point where there is actually no overload at all and very likely an energy deficit.

And you have hamster wheeled back to Bazant <YAWN> let us know when the hamster wheel spins you back to reality instead of an abstract model.

Thus it is shown that the story we have been formally given as to how the collapse of the North Tower was initiated and vertically propagated is fictitious. Now some here will huff and puff and moan and groan about it, simply because they don't want to believe the reality that this story is pure fiction.

Your belief that the columns of the upper block would land precisely and perfectly aligned on the lower section.....to but it politely......is very bizarre.
The membership agreement prohibits me from describing what that fantasy really is.