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

Status
Not open for further replies.
zaayrdragon said:
William, here's what I'm trying to understand:

Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

As I understand it - and I fully admit I might be mistaken - the aircraft destroyed several support columns from the inner box, while creating a hole in the outer support. From the diagrams and photographs, my guess is that the total damage on the interior was proportionally larger than the total damage to the exterior. Since the interior was designed to support more weight than the exterior, it's fairly safe to suggest that the exterior facing could not be expected to hold the upper stories safely in place; but at the same time, since the interior was seriously compromised by initial impact and subsequent plasticizing due to fire, the interior was not likely to support the upper stories for long, either.

Now, bear with me here... if the interior supports did give - and, from reading and watching about other building collapses, it's safe to assume that the time between initial column failure and final column failure for the interior was one or two seconds apart at best - then what's keeping the upper floors from sagging in the middle and collapsing into the damaged region? You've made the suggestion, whether intentional or not, that each floor is like a rigid plate that would stay whole whether falling, sliding, or tilting; when, in fact, each floor is made of a variety of materials and, once free from its support, would be likely to suffer torsion damage and failure of cross members in numerous places.

So the interior columns fail. The floors, no longer supported, begin to sag and, ultimately, collapse downward. The outer columns, receiving less damage proportionally, hold up the outer edges of the floors momentarily, but also fail due to increased stress. The result would be a cave-in, essentially. The upper sections, it seems to me, would simply drop into the damaged area - not whole, but as a collection of debris of fairly large size.

The images we see of the collapse are misleading in one way: as the collapse begins, we see what we think are entire, whole floors dropping in sync into the damage zone; but what are we really witnessing? The drop of outer support members, as stresses in the damage zone cause catastrophic failure of those outer supports at that level, allowing those above it to slide down, into the damaged area.

In your concept, if I understand correctly, you suggest that the weight of the upper portions remains evenly distributed around the building in spite of the loss of columns, and that the upper sections remain fixed and rigid during structural failure; that those columns not damaged could continue to support their share of the load even as the building top fell, causing it to hinge into the damaged area, and slide through the damage, toward the ground, without significantly damaging the lower portions of the building. Is that about right? I hope you'll correct me, because that makes no sense at all - but that seems to me to be what you're claiming.

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids. :D
Click to expand...

OK, I'm back again for a few weeks so I will answer soon.

I think I will maybe start a new thread to continue this because this one seems to have deteriorated into a rant at Christophera thread now.

Laters.
 
Christophera said:
I answered all your questions here.

NO YOU FKN DIDN'T!!!!!
Click to expand...

you answered NONE of the questions.
you DODGED the questions.
you CANNOT answer the questions.
you show a high degree of moral cowardice under fire. your assertion on your site that the basement walls exploded around mike pecarao on the sub-levels by a controlled demolition down there has been shown to be a complete fabrication.
YOU LIE!

Also, you have not acknowledged that I provided 2 more accounts supporting the exploding wall scenario.
Click to expand...

once again i ask you. answer the SPECIFIC questions i ask HERE

don't simply spam us with a link to your badly researched, fully discredited, glory-hunting, BLINKERED site. please no link to a totally different account to the one involving mike pecararo. simply answer the reasonable questions i asked about HIM and what he saw.

answer coward.......

BV
 
bonavada and ERROR and FABRICATION

bonavada said:
your assertion on your site that the basement walls exploded around mike pecarao on the sub-levels by a controlled demolition down there has been shown to be a complete fabrication.
YOU LIE!
Click to expand...

Anyone that can read can see that you are the conducting deception simply by reading this paragraph,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

I do not say walls exploded around Pecarao, you do, then you try to assert that I do. Meaning your entire post is a fabrication and attempt at deception.
 
Christophera said:
The fact that you tell us it looks like a torch cut is something.


The left side looks nothing like a torch cut and the right side shows a torch cut.

Sheared & Torch Cut Columns
Click to expand...
so your comparing a single image of a beam cut by a torch to an image to blurry to make out details

do all torches produce the exact same cut? do all people produce the exact same cut? was there only one guy with one torch in the cleanup crew?

and please explain how explosives could produce a cut that perfect
 
defaultdotxbe said:
so your comparing a single image of a beam cut by a torch to an image too blurry to make out details

do all torches produce the exact same cut? do all people produce the exact same cut? was there only one guy with one torch in the cleanup crew?

and please explain how explosives could produce a cut that perfect
Click to expand...

Under any hand held cutting condition, even mechanized which is not used in salvage, tiny gas jet lines are visable and masses of slag are generated on the opposite side of the tube.

The details of the image reveal that the face of the cut is so smooth that zooming it to the point where gas jet lines would be visible if they existed, only gets you to say "it is blurry.

Sheared & Torch Cut Columns
 
And, surely the fact that any steel memeber is not going to be continuous in any case... so it's going to have ends...how do you know any photographic evidence isn't just showing you the manufactured end of a beam?

And...and...and...why the hell am I drawn into adding to the debate with someone who appears, on the evidence at hand and to my layman's eye, to be, as they say in the medical proffession, totally and utterly...bonkers?
 
Christophera said:
Under any hand held cutting condition, even mechanized which is not used in salvage, tiny gas jet lines are visable and masses of slag are generated on the opposite side of the tube.

The details of the image reveal that the face of the cut is so smooth that zooming it to the point where gas jet lines would be visible if they existed, only gets you to say "it is blurry.

Sheared & Torch Cut Columns
Click to expand...

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?
 
So, Chris, have you bothered to contact anyone who was responsible for the design and construction of the twin towers? You've now had 4 days to do so.
 
uk_dave said:
And, surely the fact that any steel memeber is not going to be continuous in any case... so it's going to have ends...how do you know any photographic evidence isn't just showing you the manufactured end of a beam?

And...and...and...why the hell am I drawn into adding to the debate with someone who appears, on the evidence at hand and to my layman's eye, to be, as they say in the medical proffession, totally and utterly...bonkers?
Click to expand...

Now now,stop being logical about the cut ends. It won't make any difference to him. I stopped trying to talk sense to him an awful long time ago, it just don't work. I now just lurk here.

Another Dave from the UK
 
The image on the left has no significant blurring that will impede the determination of the finish of the face cut and determination that it is not a torch cut in comparison of the torch cut image on the right.
 
Christophera said:
The image on the left has no significant blurring that will impede the determination of the finish of the face cut and determination that it is not a torch cut in comparison of the torch cut image on the right.
Click to expand...

Christophera, is the left picture lacking details due to blurring/jpeg artifacts, YES OR NO?

Just a simple yes or no.
 
Dave_46 said:
Now now,stop being logical about the cut ends. It won't make any difference to him. I stopped trying to talk sense to him an awful long time ago, it just don't work. I now just lurk here.

Another Dave from the UK
Click to expand...

The interior box columns were 100% welded in place from delivered 40 foot long pieces. Essentially they were continuous 1300 foot columns when completed. Structural elements do not gain the designation as "core" without being one piece.
 
^^ translation. Yes, but I dont want you to concentrate on the fact that it shows nothing.
 
Christophera said:
NO.

Not for these purposes.
Click to expand...

So your answer is no. Thank you.

Since it is very clear that the blurred image failes to reveal any detail of cuts on the edge of the beam (which are seen in the right picture, since that has more detail), this clearly proves you lack the ability to analyze the pictures you provide.
 
Christophera said:
The interior box columns were 100% welded in place from delivered 40 foot long pieces. Essentially they were continuous 1300 foot columns when completed. Structural elements do not gain the designation as "core" without being one piece.
Click to expand...


I've met people like you on other blogs.

You share a common trait: The ability to imagine something and then present it as a fact.

The core of a building normally (at least in the uk) acheives that designation by being the location of services for that building, such as elevators, toilets and stairwells.

There is no law that says for a structural member to be classed as a 'core' member it has to be one piece.

And anyway, what if the steel columns were bolted together, would that not make them 'one piece'?

Silly man.

You also seem to be failing to take into account (amongst other things) that it was the connections between the floor trusses and the outer and inner columns which failed. The floor trusses depended on the columns for support, but the columns depended on the floor trusses for restraint, otherwise vertical loading is inclined to make them spread outwards. And outwards they did indeed spread AFTER the physical connection with the floor trusses failed.

And how did we get so tied up in your fantasies about reinforced concrete columns when your original question on this thread was regarding the myth of the buildings collapsing at 'free fall' speed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom