• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

Crazy Chainsaw said:
In any scenario, shear lag was evident in almost all the pictures of world trade center steel,
Except that which was sufficiently softened by the fires.

Shear lag is an indication of very rapid weld failure.
Click to expand...
For the floor systems maybe. For the columns, the bolts fractured or got torn out of the columns. To me, the exact mechanism isn't terribly critical as both mechanisms were observe as far as I recall
 
Grizzly Bear said:
For the floor systems maybe. For the columns, the bolts fractured or got torn out of the columns. To me, the exact mechanism isn't terribly critical as both mechanisms were observe as far as I recall
Click to expand...

The core was contiguously welded, the exterior columns were bolted and tack welded.
The core columns separated into 36 ft. Sections along the welds with very little tension restoration.
Bolts were limited in the core of the towers.

I agree the A325 bolts fractured in the exterior perimeter columns, that however does not explain the core breakage at the welds.
 
Jango said:
What 'specifically' failed? That's what you were responding to. You didn't respond with what 'specifically' failed. So, yes,
Click to expand...
In the following video, can you tell what "specifically" failed first?



But most importantly, why does it matter?

In the case of the towers, NIST investigated the events that led to the overload of the structure, so one of them failed first. Why does it matter which one failed first?
 
Jango said:
What 'specifically' failed? That's what you were responding to. You didn't respond with what 'specifically' failed. So, yes,
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was responding to at all. You claim something is missing and I told you anyone who comprehends physics beyond a 4th grade level knows how the building collapsed, including the fire experts standing right outside the building for hours.

I noticed you dodged the question in my post, care to answer this time?
 
pgimeno said:
In the following video, can you tell what "specifically" failed first?



But most importantly, why does it matter?

In the case of the towers, NIST investigated the events that led to the overload of the structure, so one of them failed first. Why does it matter which one failed first?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the video pgimeno, all truthers should watch it. You sure there wasn't thermite in there somewhere? ;)
 
DGM said:
Did you notice those weights going through the path of greatest resistance (the table). That defies the laws of physics you know. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah and the table didn't topple to one side, it collapsed straight down at freefall speed even! OMG! :jaw-dropp :D
 
Jango said:
Irrefutable facts like the equation I laid out:

What we have is like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
Click to expand...

lol, south park, engineering for 911 truth

You don't get it. A floor in the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds. Do you get it now? Did you figure out the smoke yet.

NIST covered the initiation, think 911 truth missed that part. Better read NIST again. Then point out what was left out. So far, only a failed opinion presented that NIST left out something.
 
Would there be any possibility of reverse engineering the collapse in a collaboration?

For example, and as a suggested starting point, we can assume that 8 stories worth of exterior columns vanished, or entered free-fall as the final coffin nail of the collapse, and we can try to determine exactly which columns, and why? Can we work out which supports would have to be removed simultaneously to achieve this result, and proceed backwards?

Perhaps then we can solve the biggest mystery of 9/11 together?
 
AClark said:
Would there be any possibility of reverse engineering the collapse in a collaboration?

For example, and as a suggested starting point, we can assume that 8 stories worth of exterior columns vanished, or entered free-fall as the final coffin nail of the collapse, and we can try to determine exactly which columns, and why? Can we work out which supports would have to be removed simultaneously to achieve this result, and proceed backwards?

Perhaps then we can solve the biggest mystery of 9/11 together?
Click to expand...
Why would we assume such a thing?

I don't think you understand the mechanics well enough to be a help "solving" this "mystery" as you see it.
 
DGM said:
Why would we assume such a thing?

I don't think you understand the mechanics well enough to be a help "solving" this "mystery" as you see it.
Click to expand...

Well, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

What's your problem with the assumption?

We know that there was a period of free-fall for approx 105 ft or 8 stories, or do you dispute this? It's in the NIST report. If you can't acknowledge and agree on the visible properties of the collapse, then you can't help in any way.
 
AClark said:
Well, that didn't take long :rolleyes:

What's your problem with the assumption?

We know that there was a period of free-fall for approx 105 ft or 8 stories, or do you dispute this? It's in the NIST report. If you can't acknowledge and agree on the visible properties of the collapse, then you can't help in any way.
Click to expand...
There was also a period of over "free-fall". Explain that with removing columns. The exterior columns are needed to remain in place to explain the dynamics of the collapse.

Why do you want to remove them?
 
I would submit that any discussion of G or over-G accelerations of the exterior curtain wall late in the collapse are a product of collapse progression where the OP is concerned with a specific aspect of collapse initiation. Thus this tired meme is off-topic.
 
AClark said:
Would there be any possibility of reverse engineering the collapse in a collaboration?

For example, and as a suggested starting point, we can assume that 8 stories worth of exterior columns vanished, or entered free-fall as the final coffin nail of the collapse, and we can try to determine exactly which columns, and why? Can we work out which supports would have to be removed simultaneously to achieve this result, and proceed backwards?

Perhaps then we can solve the biggest mystery of 9/11 together?
Click to expand...

This sounds like a reasonable proposition to me Mr. Clark.

I have repeatedly asked for a plausible engineering hypothesis which would account for the observed period of free fall acceleration.

You will note that the usual 'gate-keeping' posters are already applying the meaningless 'over acceleration' based on a few data points hand waving.
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
I would submit that any discussion of G or over-G accelerations of the exterior curtain wall late in the collapse are a product of collapse progression where the OP is concerned with a specific aspect of collapse initiation. Thus this tired meme is off-topic.
Click to expand...
Exactly.............:thumbsup:
 
AClark said:
Would there be any possibility of reverse engineering the collapse in a collaboration?

For example, and as a suggested starting point, we can assume that 8 stories worth of exterior columns vanished, or entered free-fall as the final coffin nail of the collapse, and we can try to determine exactly which columns, and why? Can we work out which supports would have to be removed simultaneously to achieve this result, and proceed backwards?

Perhaps then we can solve the biggest mystery of 9/11 together?
Click to expand...

No 2 stories of columns supporting the moment frame of the perimeter did not collapse or were made to disappear... vanished etc.

If you examimed the structure beneath the moment frame which "BEGAN" at floor 8 you will note"

a - the south side of the building had a 5 story high lobby with no lateral bracing for the columns supporting the moment frame. floors 5-7 were the mech floors.

b - the north side of the building had columns 42-57 a.. but only 4 of them went to bedrock the others were resting on the end of cantilevers at floor 7

c - column 1-14 on the west side (3 of them were truss members of the braced frame)

Long story short... the moment frame was supported on the east and west on braced frames up to floor 7 and the north on the end of cantilevered girders... and the south had laterally unsupported columns for 5 floors.

When the core collapsed (first)... the structure beneath the moment frames on all 4 sides collapsed... inward on the east and west and south.

And the moment came down with no significant resistance for 8 stories.

d - columns 28-42 (6 of them were truss members of the braced frame)
 
Mark F said:
I would submit that any discussion of G or over-G accelerations of the exterior curtain wall late in the collapse are a product of collapse progression where the OP is concerned with a specific aspect of collapse initiation. Thus this tired meme is off-topic.
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested reverse engineering to see if we could work back to initiation, therefore I don't think it is as invalid as you claim.
 
DGM said:
There was also a period of over "free-fall". Explain that with removing columns. The exterior columns are needed to remain in place to explain the dynamics of the collapse.

Why do you want to remove them?
Click to expand...

Then keep them. Lets work out what, where and why of any g and over-g and see what is needed to make that happen, and work that backwards.

I'm open to whatever can be made to work.
 
JSanderO said:
When the core collapsed (first)... the structure beneath the moment frames on all 4 sides collapsed... inward on the east and west and south.

And the moment came down with no significant resistance for 8 stories.
Click to expand...

So, lets see if we can represent that, and what it is connected to, and make that work to support the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom