WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[GlennB]

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese. Something slammed into it and made a hole in the cheese, fire erupted and the cheese started to melt around the hole. Above the hole was a big, upper block of 33 000 tons of cheese. Below the hole was a much bigger block of cheese! 250 000 tons...

Well,the hardest cheese I have encountered is Parmigiano-Reggiano (Parmesan for short).

I've been in touch with the Parmesan Architectural Society* and they confirmed my instinct that a 300m block of Parmesan would have collapsed under its own weight during the construction phase. In fact they calculate that the block would not get beyond 40m or so before beginning to become unstable and, well, just kind of increasingly goooey.

So, Heiwa, you need a different analogy.

*they have requested anonymity in this matter.

 

[Norseman]

To tsig, ~enigma~ and phunk, the passport recovered at the WTC is covered here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Satam_al-Suqami
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport

 

[~enigma~]

To tsig, ~enigma~ and phunk, the passport recovered at the WTC is covered here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Satam_al-Suqami
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport

Norseman thanks for the link but I am well aware of it. I just don't understand how otherwise rational people continue to claim it was Atta's and then they even make up reasons that it was found.

 

[Norseman]

Norseman thanks for the link but I am well aware of it. I just don't understand how otherwise rational people continue to claim it was Atta's and then they even make up reasons that it was found.

Yes, I was quiet certain that you were aware of it. I posted the link just to put an end to what looked like unnecessary noise among fellow debunkers.

 

[stateofgrace]

Heiwa you have claimed..

FYI - I just try to assist NIST to get its report right! Hopefully Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is working on that right now.

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

You have also,based on your assumptions, stated that NIST as replied to you and modified their website, soon after reading your emails.

Actually NIST, I assume Shyam, opened the link according my stat.software, soon after reading the mail. Sometimes they reply, sometimes they modify their 911 Update web page.

You have also claimed..

The peer reviewers of my article for children have requested to not to be named. You don't know them anyway.

And you have also claimed..

Actually I have never said that the 'paper' has been peer reviewed. Check back what I actually wrote. I never use words like scientific paper about an article for children.

I have asked you to clarify these claims and assumptions; you have failed to do so. At this point I no longer wish to tolerate your claims. I am requesting clarification of the claims.

You have claimed that the NIST, more specifically Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is one of your peer reviewers; please provide proof of this claim.

You have claimed that NIST have modified their website after receiving your emails, please provide proof of this.

You have claimed that NIST have replied to your emails, please provide proof of this.

You have claimed that the peer reviewers of your paper had asked for anonymity, please provide proof of this. Please also fully explain why you have decided to go against this request and name names on a public forum.

You have also claimed that, you never claimed your paper was peer reviewed; explain fully why you are now claiming that it is being peer reviewed and who by, exactly.

I trust you, as professional engineer, will be forth coming and explain in detail the anomalies in your account and I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for such anomalies. I look forward to you explaining and offering proof of your claims. You have stated quite clearly that Shyman Saunder is a peer reviewer of your paper, you have stated quite clearly that NIST have replied to you and updated their website based on the information you have provided. But you have also stated you never claimed your paper was peer reviewed.

Maybe you should take the opportunity, to dispel any doubts about your claims and put the record straight. Nobody forced you to make these claims, you made them of your own free will. It therefore follows that, there must be a perfectly reasonable explanation to them. It is perfectly reasonable to simply state that you made them up and we can move on from them or if you stand by them, then you must accept it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain them and provide evidence to back them.

In your own time, when you are ready, please do so.

 

[pomeroo]

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

You have said that if I drop the top 1/3 of a structure on the bottom 2/3 from a height of two miles, a new equilibrium will be established. Everyone sane understands that both the top and bottom parts will be completely destroyed. Do you still want to pretend that you are an engineer?

 

[phunk]

Well to be fair, an equilibrium will be established... between the rubble and the ground.

 

[pomeroo]

Well to be fair, an equilibrium will be established... between the rubble and the ground.

He simply won't concede that the bottom part gets crushed. And, insane as it is, his mulish obstinacy makes sense. Once he bows to reality, he can take his imbecilic paper and use it for what it was meant to be used (although it might not fit on a roller).

 

[tanabear]

The 7 items I listed would be the main differences.

If the charges were planted in secret and succesfully disguised so no one saw them, and if they survived the plane impacts and fires, and if they were silent explosives and had no visible flash, and if they were non-concussive and didn't blow the windows out or create seismic signatures, and if everythign went perfectly according to plan, and if there existed a group willing to set up a never-before-attempted demolition style on a building taller than any ever succesfully imploded before* with no guarantee it would work, but every guarantee it would kill countless innocent people, then it might look just like what you say.

By the way, do you think al-Qa'ida planned that the towers would fall?



* Current record is held by Controlled Demolition Inc for the implosion of the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Michigan. The building was 439 feet tall. Clicky
For comparison, WTC 1 and 2 were more than 1,700 feet tall. Or, to put it another way: more than 3 times taller than the world record for imploding a building.

My question has to do with what happened after what NIST termed "collapse initiation." You are asserting that the towers were not destroyed by explosive charges. Alright, so tell me what the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 would look like if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down? Discussing what happened before collapse initiation is in no way relevant to the question that I'm asking.

You write, "then it might look just like what you say." So you are saying that if explosive charges were used to destroy the towers from the top down it would look pretty much like what actually happened on 9/11? If a building is pancaking, pile-driving, or exploding then it looks the same regardless. Interesting.

I think that the 1993 bombers(Yousef, Abouhalima, Salameh) attempted that. I believe their goal was to get WTC1 to topple onto WTC2 causing horrific damage and a massive loss of life. They placed their bomb in the B-2 parking level beneath the North Tower. If you wish to compromise the integrity of a structure, it is better to strike at its bottom than at the top.

Of course my example was oversimplified - when you add more scientists and more experiments, it gets even more complicated! Some scientists replicate it, others don't; many theories and reasons are thrown about.

Again, how do we know when the evidence is 'in?' 10 experiments? 100? 1000?

Of course. But you're attacking a straw man here. Who in the debunking side/NIST has done this, and when?

Some scientists will obviously require more evidence before they will accept certain theories(e.g. Einstein with aspects of quantum theory, Fred Hoyle the "Big Bang" etc.) than others. This is true in all the sciences. The difference is that even when a certain theory is predominant over another one, those that favor the most widely accepted theory should appeal to the evidence to win over the skeptics, not to the fact that most people agree with them. However, Niels Bohr may have had it right when he stated,

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light. But rather because its opponents eventually die."

tanabear: "Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science."

Of course. But you're attacking a straw man here. Who in the debunking side/NIST has done this, and when?

"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center." Shankar Nair, Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001.

He simply won't concede that the bottom part gets crushed. And, insane as it is, his mulish obstinacy makes sense. Once he bows to reality, he can take his imbecilic paper and use it for what it was meant to be used (although it might not fit on a roller).

So you now agree with the pile-driver explanation for the destruction of the towers? Previously you had stated,

"Are you suggesting that there is someone outside a mental institution who doesn't think the floors pancaked? What would that mythical person say about all the videos showing the floors, uh, pancaking?...Once the global collapse ensued, the floors necessarily pancaked. What else could they be expected to do?"

 

[pomeroo]

My question has to do with what happened after what NIST termed "collapse initiation." You are asserting that the towers were not destroyed by explosive charges. Alright, so tell me what the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 would look like if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down? Discussing what happened before collapse initiation is in no way relevant to the question that I'm asking.

You write, "then it might look just like what you say." So you are saying that if explosive charges were used to destroy the towers from the top down it would look pretty much like what actually happened on 9/11? If a building is pancaking, pile-driving, or exploding then it looks the same regardless. Interesting.

I think that the 1993 bombers(Yousef, Abouhalima, Salameh) attempted that. I believe their goal was to get WTC1 to topple onto WTC2 causing horrific damage and a massive loss of life. They placed their bomb in the B-2 parking level beneath the North Tower. If you wish to compromise the integrity of a structure, it is better to strike at its bottom than at the top.



Some scientists will obviously require more evidence before they will accept certain theories(e.g. Einstein with aspects of quantum theory, Fred Hoyle the "Big Bang" etc.) than others. This is true in all the sciences. The difference is that even when a certain theory is predominant over another one, those that favor the most widely accepted theory should appeal to the evidence to win over the skeptics, not to the fact that most people agree with them. However, Niels Bohr may have had it right when he stated,

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light. But rather because its opponents eventually die."

tanabear: "Attempting to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion, would be bad science."



"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center." Shankar Nair, Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001.




So you now agree with the pile-driver explanation for the destruction of the towers? Previously you had stated,

"Are you suggesting that there is someone outside a mental institution who doesn't think the floors pancaked? What would that mythical person say about all the videos showing the floors, uh, pancaking?...Once the global collapse ensued, the floors necessarily pancaked. What else could they be expected to do?"

Like so many of your fellow liars, you dance around endlessly without ever saying anything of substance. Once the collapse began, there was nothing that could possibly impede it. Yes, the floors necessarily pancaked: you can watch them pancake on any video of the collapses. If you want to call the totality of collapsing floors that increases its mass as it plummets inexorably downward a pile-driver, I have no objection.

Understandably, you steered well clear of Heiwa's insane notion that the top third of a building dropped onto the bottom two-thirds won't crush the whole structure. Care to comment? Has Heiwa overturned our understanding of Newton?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think that the 1993 bombers(Yousef, Abouhalima, Salameh) attempted that. I believe their goal was to get WTC1 to topple onto WTC2 causing horrific damage and a massive loss of life. They placed their bomb in the B-2 parking level beneath the North Tower. If you wish to compromise the integrity of a structure, it is better to strike at its bottom than at the top.

Except that they made a slight miscalculation and the truck-sized bomb, which BTW, injured 1,000 occupants of the tower, and knocked out power, stranding people in elevators... failed to collapse the towers, let alone compromise the structural integrity.

How strong would your bombs have needed to be to remove the structure? I'd really like to know. It's quite surprising that the TM claims that there were bombs detonating in the basement... yet there weren't at least a couple hundred people injured by them? Strange logic...

 

[~enigma~]

Could any truther do an experiment for me. Tip a 500 pound soda machine onto it's corner which is an easy task....now hold it there. Ready....now let go so it starts falling towards you. Hopefully you jumped out of the way because after it moves about 2 feet and it's forward velocity is about 5 MPH and is exerting about 1 ton of force and there isn't anyone that can stop it, so I really hope you jumped out of the way. The same thing happened at the WTC only the force was not from a 500 pound vending machine but was from a 15 story chunk of skyscraper. After the collapse started (meaning that first 1/2 second of downward slip), there was no power on earth that could arrest the collapse. If someone in the truth movement can show (with scientific evidence) that there is a power that could have arrested the collapse, they can simply show it otherwise I am through with this idiotic thread and I strongly suggest you all follow suit.

 

[John Blonn]

"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center." Shankar Nair, Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001.

In what way is this quote an attempt "to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion," aka 'bad science'? I see one scientist making one comment to one newspaper 8 days (!) after the event. What does this have to do with NIST and other scientists investigations and through the following years?

 

[gumboot]

Except that they made a slight miscalculation and the truck-sized bomb, which BTW, injured 1,000 occupants of the tower, and knocked out power, stranding people in elevators... failed to collapse the towers, let alone compromise the structural integrity.

How strong would your bombs have needed to be to remove the structure? I'd really like to know. It's quite surprising that the TM claims that there were bombs detonating in the basement... yet there weren't at least a couple hundred people injured by them? Strange logic...

I believe the FBI concluded that if the 1993 bomb had detonated in the right (wrong?) place it would indeed have caused the tower to topple.

 

[X]

My question has to do with what happened after what NIST termed "collapse initiation." You are asserting that the towers were not destroyed by explosive charges. Alright, so tell me what the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 would look like if they were destroyed by explosive charges from the top down? Discussing what happened before collapse initiation is in no way relevant to the question that I'm asking.

You write, "then it might look just like what you say." So you are saying that if explosive charges were used to destroy the towers from the top down it would look pretty much like what actually happened on 9/11? If a building is pancaking, pile-driving, or exploding then it looks the same regardless. Interesting.

After collapse initiation, then yes, it would have looked pretty much like what you saw. With the possible (and likely) exception of having charges go off below to ensure destruction during collapse, which would have been seen and heard.
Gravity acts downwards, and thus buildings collapse downwards. There isn't much room for variation, so all collapses are going to look similar.

It is important to note, however, that this does not mean explosives are a valid explanation. Anyone positiing the use of explosives would still need to account for everything else I listed (or, more correctly, the lack of the telltales I listed). Therefore, I think describig what happened immediately prior to collapse initiation is indeed relevant. Otherwise some people will jump on the statement "it might look just like what happened" as an admission that I think explosives were used, even though it is nothing of the sort.

I think that the 1993 bombers(Yousef, Abouhalima, Salameh) attempted that. I believe their goal was to get WTC1 to topple onto WTC2 causing horrific damage and a massive loss of life. They placed their bomb in the B-2 parking level beneath the North Tower. If you wish to compromise the integrity of a structure, it is better to strike at its bottom than at the top.

Wonderful. But my question was referring to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

 

[BenBurch]

I believe the FBI concluded that if the 1993 bomb had detonated in the right (wrong?) place it would indeed have caused the tower to topple.

Yes, I recall that as well. Needed to be a few feet from where they had it in order to couple to the structure properly.

 

[pomeroo]

A bump to make an obvious point.

Heiwa's idiotic contention that dropping the top third of a tall building onto the bottom two-thirds won't crush the whole structure has received the ridicule it deserves. BUT--please note that he hasn't abandoned the lunatic notion. He has merely vanished.

HE WILL ASSUREDLY RESURFACE SOONER OR LATER TO MAKE THE SAME INSANE CLAIMS. HE WILL CONTINUE TO CITE HIS WORTHLESS, INCOMPETENT "PAPER" AND LIE ABOUT THE SERIOUS RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE "PEER-REVIEWED" IT.

 

[GlennB]

A bump to make an obvious point.

Heiwa's idiotic contention that dropping the top third of a tall building onto the bottom two-thirds won't crush the whole structure has received the ridicule it deserves. BUT--please note that he hasn't abandoned the lunatic notion. He has merely vanished.

HE WILL ASSUREDLY RESURFACE SOONER OR LATER TO MAKE THE SAME INSANE CLAIMS. HE WILL CONTINUE TO CITE HIS WORTHLESS, INCOMPETENT "PAPER" AND LIE ABOUT THE SERIOUS RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE "PEER-REVIEWED" IT.

Like a wounded rat, retreated, curled up in its lair.

Eating cheese to regain strength.

 

[tanabear]

Like so many of your fellow liars, you dance around endlessly without ever saying anything of substance. Once the collapse began, there was nothing that could possibly impede it.

Nothing could impede it? There was tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete beneath the area of impact. It sounds like you are promoting the "no building theory" when it comes to the destruction of WTC1 and 2, at least no structure beneath the area of impact.

Yes, the floors necessarily pancaked: you can watch them pancake on any video of the collapses. If you want to call the totality of collapsing floors that increases its mass as it plummets inexorably downward a pile-driver, I have no objection.

Show me video of the floors pancaking? Shyam Sunder stated, "When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have. Suddenly the columns snapped, and, as a result, the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall, because kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge."

You might want to show these videos to Shyam Sunder as well.

The pancaking explanation and the pile-driver explanation are different. Pancaking supposedly occurs when the trusses break free from the perimeter columns and one floor falls on top of the other one. The pile-driver collapse is initiated by column failure. The upper block comes down as one piece onto the lower block crushing it.

Arguing with the debunkers is difficult because they seem to have their own meaning for words and phrases. Alice ran into the same problem while talking with Humpty Dumpty.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking-Glass belong to a genre known as nonsense literature. The official explanation for the collapse of the towers belongs to a genre known as "nonsense science"

Understandably, you steered well clear of Heiwa's insane notion that the top third of a building dropped onto the bottom two-thirds won't crush the whole structure. Care to comment? Has Heiwa overturned our understanding of Newton?

How was the upper block dropped onto the lower block? The majority of the core and perimeter columns were still connected. Did a giant walk by and pick up the upper block and then drop it onto the lower block? You might want to explain how this happened.

In what way is this quote an attempt "to create a consensus before the evidence points to a conclusion," aka 'bad science'? I see one scientist making one comment to one newspaper 8 days (!) after the event. What does this have to do with NIST and other scientists investigations and through the following years?

Charles Thornton, one of the initial leaders of the ASCE team, stated to Karl Koch, "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." How did he know this before he had examined any of the evidence? Why should someone who claims to already know what caused the collapse be placed on a team to investigate this collapse? So what does this have to do with NIST and other scientists investigations? Well, based on the fact that some scientists already claimed to know how the towers collapsed, the decision was made to recycle much of the steel from WTC1,2 and 7. Create a consensus and then destroy much of the evidence. Representative Joseph Crowley(D) called the destruction of evidence, "borderline criminal."

After collapse initiation, then yes, it would have looked pretty much like what you saw. With the possible (and likely) exception of having charges go off below to ensure destruction during collapse, which would have been seen and heard.
Gravity acts downwards, and thus buildings collapse downwards. There isn't much room for variation, so all collapses are going to look similar.

Wonderful. But my question was referring to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Okay, so if explosive charges are destroying a building top down, this looks the same as if the building was collapsing? So what is your explanation for what happened after initiation? Did the upper block crush the lower block in a pile-driver like effect? Did this upper block remain largely undamaged during this crush down, only to be destroyed when it hit the rubble pile? Or was this upper block being destroyed while it was crushing the lower block? Should all of this look the same regardless?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think tanabear just filled an entire years quota of stundies.