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

[William Rea]

That's not what they describe. Have you read the report?

Yes, the question mark at the end of my post should be noted. If that is not what they are saying then where have I gone wrong?

I'll quote verbatim...

"As the temperature of the column steel increases, the yield strength and modulus of elasticity degrade and the critical buckling strength of the columns will decrease, potentially initiating buckling, even if lateral support is maintained. The effect is most likely to have been significant in failure of the interior core columns"

"...while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner."

"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building..."

 

[William Rea]

Will,

For the structure to topple monolitically the strength of the structural joints/hinge points would have to be significantly greater than the ensuing shear loads placed on them.

Feel free to crunch some figures, but trust me - there's no way that they'd be capable of taking such loadings. They'd also fail pretty damend quickly, which is why any horizontal movement is negligible within the context of the overall collapse.

Incidentally, I think that you're trying at times to describe the middle third rule (look it up), a general rule of thumb we use when considering stability of structures.

Monolithically? I don't believe I have made a proposal for monolithic collapse.

Sure, you're right about the middle third, I was trying not to use jargon and imply that the building was not freestanding.

 

[Architect]

Monolithically? I don't believe I have made a proposal for monolithic collapse.

.

Perhaps I misunderstood:

There is a technical difference between a topple (Your phrase) and a collapse failure; the former would be comparable to (say) a telegraph pole keeling over, i.e. monolithic,albeit that it is possible to have a partial topple. This is not possible at WTC because the shear strengths of the joints aren't sufficient to counter such load paths.

So whilst there may be an initial sideways vector, the rapid failure of the underlying structure means that the downwards forces are the key player.

Fair enough?

 

[William Rea]

Perhaps I misunderstood:

There is a technical difference between a topple (Your phrase) and a collapse failure; the former would be comparable to (say) a telegraph pole keeling over, i.e. monolithic,albeit that it is possible to have a partial topple. This is not possible at WTC because the shear strengths of the joints aren't sufficient to counter such load paths.

So whilst there may be an initial sideways vector, the rapid failure of the underlying structure means that the downwards forces are the key player.

Fair enough?

I understand what you are saying but are you surmising that shear failure at the joints is the only way the macrostucture can fail? I don't think even FEMA are saying this.

Perhaps my use of the word topple is the confusion here? I am not implying that a simplistic topple of the top of the structure around a single fulcrum point is at work. I was using the sawn tree top as an anology of the macrostuctural failure of the building, of course at a microstructural level there were probably buckles, fractures and sheared joints but the net effect of these would lead to a visual appearance of the top of the building toppling. Can you suggest another word to describe the phenomena?

PS did you look at both of my pictures.

 

[Architect]

Can you suggest another word to describe the phenomena?

PS did you look at both of my pictures.

Progressive collapse. Well, okay, that's two words.

We don't use the term macrostructural, btw, so I'd avoid it if you want to avoid confusion.

Lets be clear; do we agree that a topple, i.e. substantially monolithic around a central fulcrum isn't going to happen because the steel is going to fail pretty much immediately under the induced loads and thereafter it will continue a plain, old fashioned downwards trajectory?

 

[Belz...]

If you are like belz you are conditoned unconsciously to think that science already knows enough and that everything else is there to ridicule.

Do you have any actual evidence that I, personally, have been conditioned ? And how was I conditioned, exactly ? When ?

To protect our environment by creating behaviors that are sustainable rather than ones that feed corporatons the profits they want.

I'm confused. It's a corporate thing ? Why isn't there a monopoly, then ? Wouldn't that be the logical end result ?

The individuals have not blown their cover. The idea is that folks like you realize that we do not know everything about the mind and that it is what we don't know that is the problem.

You're not answering my question: what possible reason would these people have to trigger events at those specific dates ? Or, what could lead those crazies to go berserk at those specific dates ? So far, you're just connecting unrelated dots.

Four on the exact same day of the month, all within five days of the month. This society is conditioned to think that things like this can only be coincidence.

This is the kind of BS that I really hate. You speak of "society" and "people" as though they were a monolithic entity that you could describe as a whole. There are MILLIONS of people around the world who DON'T interpret things like this as coincidence. Look at all those baseball and hockey players and their ridiculous superstitions. You're not only not making sense, what you're saying that does make grammatical sense isn't even true.

When flight 11 hit a 110 story tower on september 11, then another plane hit the other 110 story tower and the two towers fell on the 22 story Vista International hotel

If you disregard the 3rd digit there is too much numeric alignment for coincidence. No consider there were 21,800 windows that were spaced 22 inches apart.

Uh-huh. I can also find interesting coincidences about any building in Saguenay or Montréal if I look hard enough. Doesn't mean it's correlation.

We do not know who did it and we don't know why those numerics exist. Consider, maybe there is more to life than meets the eye.

Key word highlighted.

This society has far to little concept of what the truth is to provide jusgement of me.

That's signature line material, chris.

The sight of the disarry of our cultural lives and the spiritual morass of our degenerated society,

Well, at least you didn't call it the great satan.

then the lack of respect for justice as it is supported by the principles of this nation deserve a truly shocking, animated avatar that has motherhood watching its children destroyed, their blood wasted

That's somewhat poetic, but I'm even more worried about you, now.

 

[Belz...]

They wanted a death ritual to create the deepest fear possible in the masses to paralyze them and make them afraid of each other so that any desire to confront the truth would be squelched in fearful ridicule. A way to create obiedience tin a rush to war and finally, ...... a numbness to the parasite killing the host.

Can you think of a better way to get those things done?

Yes. Yes I can. You said that people were conditioned. If they are, such a complicated event wouldn't be needed. They would wire the buildings WHILE people are working there and nobody would notice. What do you think ?

 

[Belz...]

I thought about this one and figured out one reasonable scenario.

In the case of damage to the structure (not necessarily terrorist damage) a suitable designed and controlled failure would result in far less risk of damage to the surrounding real estate and potentially reduced loss of life.

I wouldn't even think it unreasonable that despite knowing that people were alive up there then someone ultimately had to make a decision to cut the losses and bring it down.

It doesn't have to have any sinister conspiracy overtones.

Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds ? Do you think other buldings were wired in this way ? Do you think any explosive would still work after 30 years ?

 

[William Rea]

Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds ? Do you think other buldings were wired in this way ? Do you think any explosive would still work after 30 years ?

No, it sounds quite reasonable and prudent and I don't know if other buildings are wired this way or not, that's not my concern and neither is the potency of the explosives.

Why do you ridicule the logic of having a mechanism for making safe a very tall building that could devastate its surroundings? You may not like the idea or find it distasteful but it would preserve a lot of real estate and lives if it were in place. A controlled collapse enacted prior to a potentially devastating free collapse is logical and humane.

It also doesn't need to have a sinister CT attached to it.

 

[William Rea]

Progressive collapse. Well, okay, that's two words.

We don't use the term macrostructural, btw, so I'd avoid it if you want to avoid confusion.

Lets be clear; do we agree that a topple, i.e. substantially monolithic around a central fulcrum isn't going to happen because the steel is going to fail pretty much immediately under the induced loads and thereafter it will continue a plain, old fashioned downwards trajectory?

Progressive collapse is good but it doesn't describe what I am putting forward as a model for collapse.

You are not making it clear you are distorting what I am saying, I will make clear what I am saying...

The way that the structure is designed (FEMA agrees with me on this) is a strong central core made of a steel framework upholding 60% of the gravitational force and an outer ring of steel pillars bearing 40% of the gravitational force and resisting wind and other transverse forces by fact of it's wider footprint or moment. The two structures are joined primarily by trusses in the roof and by a stronger interlocking frame on the lower floors and secondarily by the floor trusses.

FEMA admits it does not know and may never know the extent of the damage to the central core, so like me it is surmising. It also states that the lost load bearing capacity of the outer pillars was undermined meaning that more stress was placed on the remaining pillars and that the roof trusses became in effect Vierendeel trusses. To a large extent I don't disagree with any of these statements.

FEMA says that the central core was undermined to such an extent that it collapsed more or less vertically into its own footprint. This is where I fundamentally disagree.

I say that if the central core was undermined to any extent then it would be reasonable and logical to conclude that the majority of that damage would be on the side that impact occurred. The top of the building above the damage would fall over the largely sound central core beneath it into the weaker outer wall structure, giving the appearance of "toppling".

We can go into how each individual member in the structure failed but on the scale of the building that is my model. I can accept that this is not a simple fulcrum and monolith situation but attacking the application of my analogy does not undermine the underlying principles of my argument that I have outlined in great detail in the sketches provided.

 

[Z]

But that's the problem - from the available evidence (which, admittedly, isn't great), the central core was NOT largely sound. Not by a long shot.

After all, simple observation - that the top did, in fact, flatten/collapse - should bear out that the central core failed.

It's kind of funny - you're looking at two different situations: in one, the central core fails, and the top pancakes down onto the bottom, causing catastrophic failure; in the other, the core remains sound, the top topples onto the damaged side of the building, and that side undergoes partial collapse or damage. You're arguing that the second is what should have happened, and assuming that the core was sound; while a rational person would, instead observe what did happen, and infer that the core, in fact, failed.

In other words, you're trying to fit the facts to your theories, rather than the other way around.

Tell me, Willie, in your diagrams, which represents what we observed happen that day?

 

[Christophera]

Yes. Yes I can. You said that people were conditioned. If they are, such a complicated event wouldn't be needed. They would wire the buildings WHILE people are working there and nobody would notice. What do you think ?

Not everybody is conditioned to that degree, only key people.

The powerdown was done while people were working, or some anyway, it was over the weekend.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

After the buildingd were leased there were reports of people having to wait in long lines at elvators because lower floor elevators were getting "maintenance". People had to travel over their floors then come back down on other elevators causing a backup. Otis guaranteed the motor commutators maintenance free for 50 years.

I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract."

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

 

[Christophera]

Not everybody is conditioned to that degree, only key people.

The powerdown was done while people were working, or some anyway, it was over the weekend.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

After the buildingd were leased there were reports of people having to wait in long lines at elvators because lower floor elevators were getting "maintenance". People had to travel over their floors then come back down on other elevators causing a backup. Otis guaranteed the motor commutators maintenance free for 50 years.

I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract."

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Of course there are other aspects of elevators that need maintenance but gereally that sort of work does not take very long and can be done at night when people are not working.

 

[twinstead]

Not everybody is conditioned to that degree, only key people.

The powerdown was done while people were working, or some anyway, it was over the weekend.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

After the buildingd were leased there were reports of people having to wait in long lines at elvators because lower floor elevators were getting "maintenance". People had to travel over their floors then come back down on other elevators causing a backup. Otis guaranteed the motor commutators maintenance free for 50 years.

I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract."

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Chris how do you explain that the powerdown was only in one building. Remember they had more than one building to 'wire up'

 

[Christophera]

Chris how do you explain that the powerdown was only in one building. Remember they had more than one building to 'wire up'

It is implied that the entire WTC had undergone a cable upgrade. The south tower was mostly private corporations, hence a report, a leak of the powerdown. The other tower was mostly governmental, hence no report or leak of the powerdown there.

The reason the south was mostly private corporations was because it was easier to rent. It had 2 hallways in each direction on each floor. The north only had one hallway on each floor in one direction, The government was able to occupy the north and use it up in that way.

 

[twinstead]

It is implied that the entire WTC had undergone a cable upgrade. The south tower was mostly private corporations, hence a report, a leak of the powerdown. The other tower was mostly governmental, hence no report or leak of the powerdown there.

In fact, only one WTC actually had a powerdown. And was it also 'implied' that WTC7 was included in this global powerdown?

And what do you have to say about this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

 

[Christophera]

In fact, only one WTC actually had a powerdown. And was it also 'implied' that WTC7 was included in this global powerdown?

And what do you have to say about this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

I can only say that concrete exploding MUST have an explanation, and of course the word "collapse" does not do that no matter how it is used.

Since what is seen twice, almost identically, to the ground, cannot be anything but a high speed series of explosions, detonators had to have been set. Therefore Forbes story is fully credible.

As far as no others reporting a power down, many are dead, the rest are afraid. I've communicated with Forbes directly and he is sincere, he lost many friends on 9-11.

 

[Belz...]

No, it sounds quite reasonable and prudent

Sir, if this means that you'd consider wiring a building in this fashion, I suggest that you seek professional help as this would be an indication of possible psychosis.

What if the explosives blow while there are people working in the building ?

Have you considered the useful life of explosives ?

Why do you ridicule the logic of having a mechanism for making safe a very tall building that could devastate its surroundings? You may not like the idea or find it distasteful but it would preserve a lot of real estate and lives if it were in place. A controlled collapse enacted prior to a potentially devastating free collapse is logical and humane.

No, it's not. When does a high-rise building collapse on its own ? That's why they do controlled demolitions, by the way. Because that's the way to do it.

1) It's much safer than wiring it beforehand.
2) Wiring the buildings during construction is somewhat conspicuous and someone would have noticed.
3) If it were "reasonable" or "logical", people would do it more often, engineers would learn about that in school and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Belz...]

Not everybody is conditioned to that degree, only key people.

Am I a key person ? You said I was conditioned.

 

[Belz...]

FEMA says that the central core was undermined to such an extent that it collapsed more or less vertically into its own footprint. This is where I fundamentally disagree.

I say that if the central core was undermined to any extent then it would be reasonable and logical to conclude that the majority of that damage would be on the side that impact occurred. The top of the building above the damage would fall over the largely sound central core beneath it into the weaker outer wall structure, giving the appearance of "toppling".

No, the remaining supports would take the load until they failed due to heat. From what knowledgeable people here have said, it would be a long way from the necessary conditions for a "toppling". Or haven't you been reading ?