Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[einsteen]

IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. Isn't it better
to concentrate on the facts only and try to explain them without rants and raves. I'm not
interested whether a flight got 444 passengers or 443, whether the collapse is 8.4 seconds
or 15 seconds, I would like to have proper explanations. The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.
The problem that we are having is that such a collapse is not something you can reproduce each day to
check your pancake or inverse CD theory. I'm always a pro-America guy, but if you are skeptical about
the pancake collapse you aren't automatically a ufo believer or think that Elvis is alive. I think that's
the medieval way of burning people who disagree with the offical thing. I don't believe in UFOs,
I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

 

[T.A.M.]

Einsteen, welcome to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your views, regardless of what they are, will be allowed, if not accepted.

I appreciate your post, and what it has to say. Here on the JREf you will find all sorts of people posting. I think what you are seeing is the result of frustration. Most of the people who post here have been doing so for a long time. Much longer than I. As a result, I tend to be a little more benign when the repeat offenders come in here and begin to throw their theories all over the place.

A skeptic, by definition, requires evidence to prove a theory or hypothesis. When certain Consipracy "Nuts" as you (and others) have dubbed them, come in here making all sorts of claims, people here will call them on it, and demand evidence. When they cannot provide reliable evidence, their theories are called "speculation".

This place is far from a "love in". If you have a theory, than present it, but be prepared (1) to back it up with SOLID EVIDENCE, or if unable to do so, then be prepared to (2) have it called "speculation" or worse.

You mention the "pancake theory". Interesting point. Earlier, perhaps about a month ago, I used it in a debunking of the CTers and got called on it by my fellow Debunkers. Most here do not believe in the "classical" pancake theory, as it is too simple a theory to explain the complexity of what occured. NIST itself has come out not in favor of it. The top part of the buildings were heavy enough, and accelerating enough, that the floors underneath the area of collapsed were collapsed almost like paper, offering little resistence. This is the reason why the buildings fell in "NEAR" Freefall speed, at least the majority of the building (part of the core seems to have stood for 10-20seconds longer than the building that surrounded it).

Anyone else with any thoughts?

TAM

 

[Woody-]

First of all welcome to the forum

I also don't believe in a pancake collapse,

Its not a question of belief, its a question of what the evidence and the laws of physics tell us.

I have several reasons for that which I will write down later.

Please do.

I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.

You do know that a "theory" in the scientific sense means something that is well documented and supported by nearly all the experts. It doesnt mean just a guess.

in physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable

Try reading the NIST report, they tested it throughly.

 

[WildCat]

IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. (etc etc)

First of all, welcome to the forun einsteen.

It will be easier if you just throw out your best evidence for con trolled demolition, if that's the CT you subscribe to. Too hard to handle 35 things at once. So what in your opinion is the single best piece of evidence?

 

[Brainache]

G'day Einsteen, welcome.
I have only been posting here for a month or so, but I did learn early on that this place is not like the Loose Change Forum. There is no moderator here hovering over a ban button waiting to silence dissenting points of view. There are however a large number of short tempered people who have spent months already debunking all of the main CTs around 9/11. So please don't be offended if someone jumps down your throat for proposing a "theory" which has been thoroughly discredited several times.
It is probably a good idea to try reading some of the threads about these ideas and if you find something that you feel hasn't already been addressed, by all means tell everyone about it.
These guys love to debate and none of them will flame you for holding an honest opinion no matter how much they disagree with you. They will however expect you to support that opinion with more than a video and a few comments of the-"It doesn't look right to me"-kind.
Anyway that's how I see it.
Cheers.

 

[einsteen]

I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction but if you have conduction you also have thermodynamic equillibrium which will keep the frame strong (and what about those people who say that the wtc is 6 times stronger than needed and the temperature at which steel weakens) The opposite is that there is no heat conduction which will certainly keep the steel frame strong and each floor will remain strong enough to carry the whole building

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

(and here I cannot post a youtube vid)

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible. In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ? Did they solve a coupled set of nonlineair PDVs to explain what happened or did they present a nice picture with a nice pancake story...

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

- I think there are tons of other things even when not looking at the other strange things surrounding the event (wtc7, strange ploom at bottom before collapse,
anomalies at the bottom of the planes etc)

But I think the last words are not said about this

 

[Z]

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

This just demonstrates that you really don't know what goes into controlled demolition. "Some explosives" would require so much work and so many people to plant - and if you're going to use explosives, why bother hijacking aircraft?

I'm afraid, at least on this point, that Ockham's Razor favors the official theory, not explosives.

 

[kevin]

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

The building didn't collapse immediately on impact because the forces pushing down on the building (i.e. the weight of the upper floors) was redistributed to other columns.

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on.

The floors don't carry the weight of the building, the building is designed to carry the weight of the floors. The world trade center had two sets of columns designed to carry the weight of the building. The outer skin was actually hundreds of columns, and a set of columns in the interior core space. The floors were attached to these columns and it was the columns that supported the building and floors.

Floors in buildings are designed to carry 2 loads, dead load and live load. Dead load is weight of office equipment and other inanimate objects. Live load is people moving around. The floors are not designed to hold up against an immense object (like the top 20 floors of a building) being dropped on them.

The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction)

Not sure what you mean by symmetry of construction, but in putting in columns for a building you size them for the load they have to carry. This means as the world trade center went up the columns got smaller. So the columns at the top could support less load than those at the bottom. By the time the collapse reached the first floor it was no longer the force of just the top 20 floors that hit, but the force of 109 floors.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?)

No.

, but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

Seeing people only proves that it was cooler in the area where there were people. Here's an analysis of the column temperatures in the north tower after 5400 seconds. You'll notice the area around the opening is fairly cool while many of the columns are over 800 C (the missing columns are ones severed by the crash).

And here is the analysis for the floor trusses. Again cool in some areas, over 800 C in others.

- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction

No. In addtion to heat many columns were severed and the forces they were holding were distributed to other columns. So the frame was also weakened from the crash, plus the remaining columns were carrying additional loads, further weakening them.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

Computer models. Scale models were used in wind loading tests before the towers were built, and again for an insurance renewal (I forget the year that occured, it was recently though).

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

The official explanation for the collapse is this: Planes hit WTC, severed and damaged many columns (including removing the fireproofing from many of these columns). Jet fuel exploded igniting many fires of office equipment, carpet, wood desks, paper, computers, etc.... These fires further weakened the structure. The top floors then collapsed striking the floors and causing them to collapse too.

Controlled Demo explanation is: Wait for planes to hit, sneak people and thousands of pounds into WTC at floors of impact, work around fires, install thousands of pounds of explosive and escape from building. This of course includes at least foreknowledge that planes would be hijacked and many people killed when crashed into the building on a particular date. Not one person could reveal this knowledge before or after.

I believe I know which one occam's razor would find simpler.

 

[Woody-]

I'll hit a few of these, I'm sure others will be by later and give more evidence.

I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

All floors are not as strong as the first floor, as height increased the strength/size of the steel was reduced since there was not as much building to hold up. IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.

The twenty or thirty stories that fall one story have several times the energy that any one floor can support. This is the difference between a live load and a dead load. The best analogy I know of this is to take a 5 pound hammer and set it on your toe, that is no problem. Now take that 5 pound hammer and drop it on your toe from 10 feet up, now you have a problem.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.

The whole floor appeared to weaken all at once because it was like the straw that broke the camel's back. There was a gradual weakening as the steel heated up and then at some point the building system could no longer support the load. Then the top of the towers tilted to the side that failed first and that broke the remaining support structures and started the collapse.

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

You could always go read the report, its pretty detailed on how they tested.

Short version the tested recovered samples of steel, reviewed thousands of videos and photos, and ran a FAE (finite element analysis) computer model.

I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.

Try reading the NIST report, its much better than crude approximations.

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

No, what is complex is the effort needed to plant thousands of pounds of explosives with nobody noticing.

 

[T.A.M.]

Kevin and Woody...

Now look what you've gone and done...now there is nothing left for me to do...oh well, maybe next time...

 

[Christophera]

IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.

Core columns, if they existed, were of the strongest structural elements in the towers. Why do no images of the demolition show these toppling outwards?

The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.

Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html

 

[Woody-]

Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html

No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yeah, I had a problem with it too. Certainly worth a read later.

What the hell happened to El Bucho?!

 

[Pardalis]

I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.

The NIST report reevaluated the "pancake theory", as noted in their FAQ page

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Anyways, to even consider the CD theory is a complete waste of time. It is such an improbable theory, it goes beyond the realm of possibilities (the amounts of explosives needed, the time of preparation, the damage to the buildings required for rigging everything, the labourforce, the secrecy of the operation considering the WTC towers are working offices, etc.).

As one of the posters called Manny once said, let's focus on preventing these events from ever happening again by changing our ways of building scyscrapers.

Also, let the professional engeneers do it.

 

[Christophera]

No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.

You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.

core​

 

[T.A.M.]

He has proven there are steel columns in the core through his series of pictures Christophera, however, you have not proven there is a concrete core within, based on your one smoke obscured pic. You are the one claiming there is a concrete core, so it is up to you to prove it. That picture does not.

 

[Pardalis]

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

I don't remember seeing explosions, you must be refering to the fire that was expelled by the collapse initiation process.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible.

How so?

In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ?

Remember that the NIST investigation concentrated on the events leading up to the collapse, and the collapse initiation. They did not make a study of the actual collapse sequence (the collapse all the way down). This is a mistake all CTists do.

 

[Pardalis]

core​

I much prefer this Core

 

[Woody-]

You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.

core​

Yes, I can say that. Your pic shows "something" in the cloud of dust that formed when WTC2 collapsed. It might be your "inviscrete" core, it might be the some or all of the 47 columns that were in the real core, or it might just be a thick dust cloud that looks like something solid.

There simply is not enough information in that pic to make a definite statement about what it shows. So I can't "explain what this is" and neither can you. Even the Hi-res version of that pic doesnt give us a better view.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc18.JPG

 

[Gravy]

Christophera,
Do you now agree that what you've been calling "3" rebar on 4' centers" is not that at all, but huge steel columns where you believed a concrete core to be?