• 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.

Failure mode in WTC towers

Newtons Bit said:
I think the upper block being rotated and striking the lower block in an angle might produce axial strikes that are not concentric, don't you? And of course, it's entirely reasonable that with even a minor rotation of the upper block, the upper block columns will not be striking the lower block columns at all.

Can you really not understand that?
Click to expand...

Crazy thread eh? We've got one who can't understand how the exterior columns are being peeled away and another that can't understand why these peeled away columns are falling with different trajectories and velocities.
 
DGM said:
I congratulate your patience in your response. I look at what they ask and say "are you stupid". Us laymen appreciate your patience and learn from your expertize.
Click to expand...

If only I was more grammatically inclined.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I think the upper block being rotated and striking the lower block in an angle might produce axial strikes that are not concentric, don't you? And of course, it's entirely reasonable that with even a minor rotation of the upper block, the upper block columns will not be striking the lower block columns at all.

Can you really not understand that?
Click to expand...

How would you characterize this image of the North Tower in terms of "rotation" and "peel"?

wtcsmall1050or7.jpg
 
Newtons Bit said:
I think the upper block being rotated and striking the lower block in an angle might produce axial strikes that are not concentric, don't you? And of course, it's entirely reasonable that with even a minor rotation of the upper block, the upper block columns will not be striking the lower block columns at all.

Can you really not understand that?
Click to expand...

What is it do you think ?

1) wedging effect
2) released elastic energy
3) highly compressed air that blows the metal away
 
bofors said:
How would you characterize this image of the North Tower in terms of "rotation" and "peel"?

[qimg]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4907/wtcsmall1050or7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


bofors, you're imagining a much more rigid structure than was there. think more along the lines of "crumbling" than "upper block" and "lower block". this may help you.
 
Major Tom it is good to see that you finally understood the fact that large perimeter wall sections in both WTC 1 and WTC 2 pealed off and pivoted out when the towers collapsed. As we have tried to tell you several times both in this thread and in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" thread, the upper block of both towers were funneled inside the lower block. On their way down inside the towers the upper blocks ripped the floors loose from their column connections while they at the same time pushed the perimeter wall sections out. The perimeter wall sections pivoted out or broke loose directly. Among the many posts, I pointed out this to you regarding WTC 2 in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" thread here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3352625#post3352625

To what extent this can be regarded as a progress in your understanding of the WTC collapses I am unsure, as usual you have not posted any point.
 
Just to be clear, I've said that:


Curioso #2: The west facade, WTC 1, peeled away from the building basically as a single intact sheet, the side boundaries being near the 2 corners and the upper boundary being floors 90 to 94. In the videos shown it was not in freefall but actually still attached to the building lower down through this intact sheet and falling away.



Curioso #3: The east facade, WTC 2, peeled away from the building largely as one single intact sheet. The side boundaries of this sheet were near the corners and the upper boundary is above the mechanical room floors, at floors 78 to 81. In the video shown it was not in freefall but actually still attached to the building lower down through this intact sheet and falling away.



For me this is pretty big news, but not for NB, who says this is "expected". Norseman considers me a bit of a simpleton for not understanding this before.


Great, so we are in agreement on those 2 points.




Bofors, thanks for posting the magnified image of the falling object. It doesn't seem to be a 3 column perimeter section with 3 spandrel plates.

It is either a corner section or a perimeter section which is not the customary 3x3 pattern. It is from floors 88 to 94 and was clearly the first visible column section to go into freefall.
 
Major_Tom said:
Just to be clear, I've said that:
Curioso #2: The west facade, WTC 1, peeled away from the building basically as a single intact sheet, the side boundaries being near the 2 corners and the upper boundary being floors 90 to 94. In the videos shown it was not in freefall but actually still attached to the building lower down through this intact sheet and falling away.
Curioso #3: The east facade, WTC 2, peeled away from the building largely as one single intact sheet. The side boundaries of this sheet were near the corners and the upper boundary is above the mechanical room floors, at floors 78 to 81. In the video shown it was not in freefall but actually still attached to the building lower down through this intact sheet and falling away.

For me this is pretty big news, but not for NB, who says this is "expected". Norseman considers me a bit of a simpleton for not understanding this before.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was in your presentation of the facts as an oddity? I'm just trying to figure out why this is pretty big news to you? I can only imagine others are as well. In any event it's good to see you're beginning to understand.
 
Major_Tom said:
Curioso #3: There is evidence that the east facade of WTC 2 from the 80th floor downwards fell as an interconnected single sheet of unbuckled perimeter column sections. The spandrel plate connections and column-to-column bolt connections remained largely intact until far into it's fall or upon hitting the ground.

Proof:

In the following photo please notice the location of the mechanical room relative to floor 81 where the inward belding will form.

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_math/mech_room.jpg[/qimg]

The mechanical room has noticably higher ceilings than the other floors both above and below.

I believe I have located where a number of perimeter columns of this mechanical room were found in the rubble, shown below.


mech_room_perimeter.jpg


These perimeter columns are clearly speared into the earth.

They were pushed outwards and fell close to 80 floors. They were then speared into the earth with obvious extreme force.

Despite this, they held up well and exhibit no noticable buckling along their lengths.

etc.....
Click to expand...

Major Tom there is a significant detail in that picture I did not notice when you posted it in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" thread. There is a steel cable hanging from the top of the right hand column in the exterior wall section. If you look closer it looks like there are two other steel cable nooses hanging from the top of the wall section. That led me to suspect that the wall section was not in its original position after the collapse. Something that is confirmed by this crop from a high resolution arial of the WTC GZ:

1814147a259ad25f97.jpg

Complete original photo here, 14 MB.

The section in the picture you posted above Major Tom was lifted there from some where else in the pile. The sections that landed in front of that part of WTC 4 has already been removed. In the arial there are sections on the roof that also have been removed.

I should also have noted that the aluminum cladding is facing the wrong way to be consistent with the section pivoting out from WTC 2.

So no column speared into the ground, just lifted nicely into position by crane for later removal.

As I wrote in my last post Major Tom, I pointed out the pivoting exterior wall sections to you in my response to a similar post from you in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3352625#post3352625

As usual you give us no point with your post, why should we respond to it at all? That is if there is a point left in view of what I pointed out above.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Congratulations on your first substantial post.

The floors in general were designed for max 100 psf plus their own weight, giving approximately 4,200,000 pounds. The floors can probably hold twice that, but you are giving them a safety factor of 7.
Click to expand...
That figure comes from NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

GregoryUrich said:
Being a skeptic, I would need to see calculations regarding propagation of the air pressure to account for this:

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/squibWtc2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Air pressure propagates with the speed of sound, sound is just pressure changes. So when a floor start to move down it will push on the air molecules next to it, they again will push on the next molecule and so on. That push will travel with the speed of sound. So within less than 1 second after collapse initiation air will start to move out the broken window in that photo you posted. Air pressure is a scalar force, in other words it pushes in all directions. The escaping air will move out of window openings, down staircases, down elevator shafts, through ventilation shafts and whatever other openings the air can find in that tower regardless of direction.

Simple, but maybe that's the problem for many, it is to simple in their mind.

Just to wrap up some lose ends for GregoryUrich since this thread got bumped again.
 
Crungy said:
Ah, got louvers?

For the 90 story beaut that I'm workin' on, I've helped spec out louver requirements for mechanical rooms on floors 1, 2, 28, 66 & 88.
Click to expand...

What for? Combustion air, or ventilation?
 
bofors said:
Frankly, as Major Tom's video library shows, what is notable in the North tower "collapse" is the lack of substantial pivot: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=56&MMN_position=142:142
Click to expand...
Wow, Major Tom's stuff! You have proven you are pure truth on this point. Pure 9/11 false information. It is funny when a 9/11 truth person picks the dumbest ideas from another real research challenged truther whose web site debunks him and more.

This is called double secret self debunking.
 
Wow, Major Tom's stuff!
Click to expand...

CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC... I just link to them.

They are photos and video clips. I don't make them.


Major Tom there is a significant detail in that picture I did not notice when you posted it in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" thread. There is a steel cable hanging from the top of the right hand column in the exterior wall section. If you look closer it looks like there are two other steel cable nooses hanging from the top of the wall section. That led me to suspect that the wall section was not in its original position after the collapse. Something that is confirmed by this crop from a high resolution arial of the WTC GZ:
Click to expand...


In the photo album of damage to surrounding buildings, linked below, you can see those objects were there when the firemen were walking abound dazed on 9-11-01.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...p=view&PHPWS_Album_id=27&MMN_position=139:139


Nice try, Norseman. Your the only one who even tries.


Notice that you are the only one trying to use the "pressure wave" excuse concerning curioso #1.


I've never noticed this pivoting of the upper "block" of the North Tower to the west.


Could one of you show us this pivoting?
 
Norseman said:
Major Tom there is a significant detail in that picture I did not notice when you posted it in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" thread. There is a steel cable hanging from the top of the right hand column in the exterior wall section. If you look closer it looks like there are two other steel cable nooses hanging from the top of the wall section. That led me to suspect that the wall section was not in its original position after the collapse. Something that is confirmed by this crop from a high resolution arial of the WTC GZ:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1814147a259ad25f97.jpg[/qimg]
Complete original photo here, 14 MB.

The section in the picture you posted above Major Tom was lifted there from some where else in the pile. The sections that landed in front of that part of WTC 4 has already been removed. In the arial there are sections on the roof that also have been removed.

I should also have noted that the aluminum cladding is facing the wrong way to be consistent with the section pivoting out from WTC 2.

So no column speared into the ground, just lifted nicely into position by crane for later removal.

As I wrote in my last post Major Tom, I pointed out the pivoting exterior wall sections to you in my response to a similar post from you in the "RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted" here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3352625#post3352625

As usual you give us no point with your post, why should we respond to it at all? That is if there is a point left in view of what I pointed out above.
Click to expand...

After looking at some more pictures, I have to conclude that the arial photo was taken after the picture that shows the wall section in the photo Major Tom posted. Especially since they in the complete arial were covering up the neighboring buildings to prevent broken glass from falling. In some of the pictures of the exterior wall section this had been done yet. And that the wall sections visible on the roof in the aerial is not visible from the angle the ground photo was taken. So the changes in aerial is most likely due to the process of cutting up the wall section for transport.

But I still think it is possible that that the wall section could have been laying across the street with the cladding down. Then it was lifted up to get it out of the way.

But on the other hand we have a photo taken by Bill Biggart showing exterior sections pierced in to the ground in front of the Mariott hotel after WTC 2 collapsed. He was killed when WTC 1 collapsed.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart20.htm

So it also entirely possible this could be the case in front of WTC 4 to. Especially considering the fact that the collapse of WTC 2 initiated at about 300 meters above ground, while the position of the exterior wall section in front of WTC 4 is just 120 meters from the east face of WTC 2. So it easy to imagining a wall section breaking lose while it is pivoting out with the wall sections below it, then flipping in the air before it spears itself into the ground. It would be high above the ground when this happened. If the east wall of WTC 2 had not broken up it could theoretically have reached another 180 meters out, very likely causing very serious damage to the building across the street, but this did not happen.

So I was bit quick on the trigger in my initial analysis. But I still can not see the significance of that wall section Major Tom.

ADDED AFTER POSTING:
After looking at this photo from your website Major Tom, I conclude with the last explanation I gave above in this post as the most likely explanation. It would have saved me some time if I had looked at your website for more pictures instead of looking elsewhere. Yet another night wasted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom