How 9/11 was done

[JoeyDonuts]

I would expect that the building would crack at the point of impact. I would expect that the upper part of the building would stay intact and collapse onto the lower part. The lower part should collapse first and once the point of impact had reached the bottom only then would the upper part be destroyed.

Given that you've postulated a very advanced CD scenario, what exactly is the paradigm for a building collapse in the manner you described? No high-rise structure had been subjected to those sorts of stresses before 9/11.

The WTC 1/2/7 collapses were the paradigm for building collapse after airliner impact and massive fuel fire.

I just don't see where you're getting that it should have collapsed in the manner you described. When the core columns gave way, it's not as if you had an intact "box like" chunk that sort of fell straight down in one piece. Those core columns were load bearing, as they were designed to be. When they failed, the entire top structure (horizontal plane) deformed as the collapse happened.

And as we've brought up before, massive air displacement is a far more believable explanation for the "mushrooming" effect of the debris field in the collapse than an explosive CD would be. The force of the explosions would have reverberated through the NYC skyline and people would have heard and noticed explosives of that magnitude being detonated.

 

[Sunstealer]

Vague site about wood with remarks like "Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

Can't you find a more credible source?

This is well known. Infact every undergraduate metallurgist in their first or second year will be performing experiments in the lab that involve the strength of steel at elevated temperatures. It's what I had to go through. I'm sure structural engineers also know this by wrote. Whilst I admit it can be difficult to find data, it's jealously guarded because it costs millions to acquire - I personally can attest for this because it's primarily what I do; produce, cost, manage test programs and then analyse the data.

If you were an investigator then you would be able to find the data because it is out there, but of course you like to be spoon fed so here it is.

This is the data from AISC Design Guide, Chapter 19, Fire Resistance Of Structural Steel Framing.


Table X.1 Steel Modulus of Elasticity and Yield Strength Reduction at Elevated Temperatures

Steel Temperature
°F [°C] Em/E Fym/Fy
68 [20] 1.00 1.00
200 [93] 1.00 1.00
400 [204] 0.90 1.00
600 [316] 0.78 1.00
750 [399] 0.70 1.00
800 [427] 0.67 0.94
1,000 [538] 0.49 0.66
1,200 [649] 0.22 0.35
1,400 [760] 0.11 0.16
1,600 [871] 0.07 0.07
1,800 [982] 0.05 0.04
2,000 [1,090] 0.02 0.02
2,200 [1,200] 0.00 0.00

Apologies for poor format I wrote it quickly and I hope it doesn't breach any copyright.

I tell you what 911/Investigator - why don't you produce a pretty excel graph for us with this data, it would show.

Even stainless steels, which are far better at resisting high temperatures, suffer considerable reduction in yield strength at elevated temperatures.http://www.outokumpu.com/pages/Page____5832.aspx

 

[9/11-investigator]

The WTC 1/2/7 collapses were the paradigm for building collapse after airliner impact and massive fuel fire.

WTC7 certainly was not since it was not hit by a plane. Buildings 3, 5 and 6 were closer to 1 & 2 and were accordingly way more damaged. But did not collapse. But let's stay with 1 & 2.

I just don't see where you're getting that it should have collapsed in the manner you described. When the core columns gave way, it's not as if you had an intact "box like" chunk that sort of fell straight down in one piece.

Yes you have. When I am holding my daughters playhouse with stretched arms out of a window of my apartment, then it does not all over sudden 'deform' just because I no longer support it with my arms. I admit it will really deform once it hits the ground, but not before.

Those core columns were load bearing, as they were designed to be.

true.

When they failed, the entire top structure (horizontal plane) deformed as the collapse happened.

They should not. The collapse should start at that point where the columns failed. Not on top. You claim that the columns gave way at the point of impact, but that mysteriously this event somehow translated in a deformation some 100 meters or more higher up while nothing in between got deformed as well. You do not believe this yourself. During the collapse the building remained in pristine compact condition while it was being eaten away from the top downwards.

And as we've brought up before, massive air displacement is a far more believable explanation for the "mushrooming" effect of the debris field in the collapse than an explosive CD would be.

What air was displaced? And if there was any overpressure (there was not) then the windows would break first to release any before concrete was sprayed in all directions (what really took place).

The force of the explosions would have reverberated through the NYC skyline and people would have heard and noticed explosives of that magnitude being detonated.

Well there was a very loud roaring sound while the building was falling apart. I agree it was not like a classic CD where you have loud isolated explosions in order to blow up concrete buildings (they cannot be brought down with thermate). But the well known hilarious video where a french car is demolished shows that you can cute steel beams without a noise.

P.S. what you see in minute 1:00 of the french car video is exactly the same as what you see happening in this video in minute 1:26. What happened there is that a thermite charge (attached to a truss connection point to an outer column) went off prematurely because it was located at the point of impact and by the subsequent heat that was developed there. The planters of the charges could not know in advance where exactly the plane would hit, otherwise they certainly would not have mounted this particular charges at that location.

 

[doobiedoright]

I want to go back to the dynamics of the implosion.

'My' theory is that the building was pre-weakened by explosives and/or thermate and that on the moment of collapse a series of explosions/thermate slicings/what ever/ took place from the top to the bottom that caused the building to collapse.

You say that WTC2 came down due to:
1. pancaking of floors onto each other
2. wet noodle core columns at the point of impact

Right?

Then why did the collapse start at the top?

I would expect that the building would crack at the point of impact. I would expect that the upper part of the building would stay intact and collapse onto the lower part. The lower part should collapse first and once the point of impact had reached the bottom only then would the upper part be destroyed.

Nothing of the sort happened.

So lets use your logic.
Show me another top down demolition anywhere in the world!
Seeing how as you cant ,that must mean it has never occurred!
There was no implosion.
Hey where can one purchase these hush bombs?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Yes you have. When I am holding my daughters playhouse with stretched arms out of a window of my apartment, then it does not all over sudden 'deform' just because I no longer support it with my arms. I admit it will really deform once it hits the ground, but not before.

First of all, you probably shouldn't use your daughter's playthings in a ham-handed attempt to prove your CT. Next, your logic is faulty. Your arms are not an integral part of the structure of the dollhouse. And we're talking about vertical supports here.

They should not. The collapse should start at that point where the columns failed. Not on top. You claim that the columns gave way at the point of impact, but that mysteriously this event somehow translated in a deformation some 100 meters or more higher up while nothing in between got deformed as well.

Wrong. The core columns, which are vertical load bearing structures for horizontal planes, failed at a given height. When that steel buckled under the weight of the top of the tower, those structures above it - which depended on the vertical support, deformed. It's right there on every single camera angle of the collapse you care to look at. At least the one's that weren't faked by Mossad.

You do not believe this yourself.

You don't have the slightest idea who I am or what I believe.

During the collapse the building remained in pristine compact condition while it was being eaten away from the top downwards.

I would hardly call the condition of the building pristine. But I digress...If the structural supports fail at a given level, why would you see deformation immediately BELOW IT?!? It stands to reason that the steel failures occured near the hottest part of the fire - the impact site and surrounding vicinity. The vertical supports fail and buckle at that point, deforming the floors above. The floors below failed because they were enduring something they weren't designed to handle. Like for instance the top portion of its own building collapsing on it.

What air was displaced?

The air that was occupying the space inside the floors prior to collapse.

And if there was any overpressure (there was not) then the windows would break first to release any before concrete was sprayed in all directions (what really took place).

Sweet Flying Spagghetti Monster - concrete's spraying in all directions again?!? Pressure wants to equalize. Pressure follows the path of least resistance. Like, the giant open expanse of sky where the top of the towers were just a second ago.

The planters of the charges could not know in advance where exactly the plane would hit, otherwise they certainly would not have mounted this particular charges at that location.

You know, your country brews some of the greatest beer and produces some of the best chocolate in the world. It boggles me to think that you are wasting your time chasing 9/11 ghosts when you could be enjoying one of the greatest places on earth.

Oh yeah, and I was military for 6 years. Are you going to call me a Zionist puppet next?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Can you explain to me how he got to this information? I am sure he was not in the building at the time and neither had a scientific conversation over the phone with people desperately trying to survive.

We still have Newtonian physics that would dictate that only columns in the flight path are likely to undergo damage.

How who got to it? Mackey? He read the NIST report. Please avoid bringing up irrelevancies such as having a "conversation over the phone with people desperately trying to survive". None of the authors of the talking points you carelessly scatter through this thread have done that either, nor have they studied the primary evidence or understood any of the work that was based on that primary evidence. Mackey may not have had access to the evidence either, but at least he understood the work based on it. Your sources authors choose to work strictly from low resolution YouTube videos and the canon of misinterpretations that form the dogma of Truther belief. That puts them one informational level removed from anyone who's read and comprehended the NIST report, the FEMA report, or any of the independent supportive studies, such as the DELTA Group's investigation, the Worchester group's analysis, etc.

"Newtonian physics" would dictate that any column meeting sufficient force would be either distorted or openly severed if hit by or otherwise experiencing sufficient force. You have nothing more than an erroneous, poorly scaled, and poorly composed diagram supporting your contention that the columns were not in the flightpath, a diagram that is not supported by any analysis of the impact angle or tower damage, nor by any evidence from the impact and fire zones.

The point is that this is the "Official Story" built from study of affected pieces from around the impact zone, from analysis of both the fires and the progression of events of the collapse initiation, and from modeling of the collapse initiation built on the parameters set by the study of those fires and events progression. Nobody had to be in the tower to get that information, it could be reconstructed by studying the evidence. Contrast that to the truther talking points, which are not built on research or a consideration of the evidence, such as the recovered steel or the progression of events witnessed during the collapse, but on misinterpretations, such as the ones you present. An example is your mistaken assertion of the core being able to freestand (it couldn't, which demonstrates you do not understand the basics of the towers construction). Another is the supposed litany of "earwitnesses" to explosions; I rebutted that falsity back in post 863.

Before you throw imprecations at others, you should demonstrate more accurate knowledge yourself. To date, you've done the opposite.

 

[Sunstealer]

But the well known hilarious video where a french car is demolished shows that you can cute steel beams without a noise.

But also shows no evidence for cutting vertical steel beams. For that I suppose you need a special kind of plant pot.

 

[A W Smith]

Wings were already shattered by the outer columns.

Human beings consists of 80% water. No exothermal 'gains' to be expected here.

Umm. what outer columns? the ones missing here after the leading surface of the wing cut them?

and if you think water has no mass perhaps you should consider that jumping off the golden gate bridge and hitting the water below has been commonly described as the equivalent of hitting concrete.

 

[gumboot]

I know this has already been pointed out, but I just thought I'd repeat that the fuselage of UA175 hit almost directly on the corner column of the core of WTC2. This is significant because the four corner columns of the core were designed to carry much greater gravity load than the other core columns - those four columns alone (representing about 8.5% of core columns) carried about 25% of the core load.

To break it down, each of the four corner columns individually carried just over 6% of the core load. Each of the other core columns individually carried about 1.7% of the core load.

Severing one of those four corner columns thus had a substantial impact on core stability.

 

[A W Smith]

Umm. what outer columns? the ones missing here after the leading surface of the wing cut them? http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowerimpacthole.jpg




and if you think water has no mass perhaps you should consider that jumping off the golden gate bridge and hitting the water below has been commonly described as the equivalent of hitting concrete.

That should be Fuel not water. I was anticipating 911 investigators hand waving of the fuel mass in the wings

 

[bynmdsue]

I think our interpid investigator is referring to the notorious difficulty in burning humans.

 

[Seymour Butz]

1 engine against a 4 feet (or how much was it) wide column. Maybe, just maybe it knocked out 1 column. 46 more to go. Buildings are over overengineered with several factors.

Besides the engine was probably already smashed by the outer columns.

An engine BTW weighs 5 tons as compared to the entire plane of 130 tons (wide variety possible depending on type, fuel, load), so a rel. small fraction.

Instead of relying on others for your info about the core columns, which you seem to have wrong, go here to get some facts.

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

 

[JoeyDonuts]

They should not. The collapse should start at that point where the columns failed. Not on top.

I've been trying to figure this one out. Is he seriously suggesting the towers fell in sections? Like when Wile E. Coyote walks over a cliff and then suddenly realizes he's not standing on anything?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The planters of the charges could not know in advance where exactly the plane would hit, otherwise they certainly would not have mounted this particular charges at that location.

There were no "planters of the charges." None. Didn't happen.

Of course you know this.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Table X.1 Steel Modulus of Elasticity and Yield Strength Reduction at Elevated Temperatures

Steel Temperature
°F [°C] Em/E Fym/Fy
68 [20] 1.00 1.00
200 [93] 1.00 1.00
400 [204] 0.90 1.00
600 [316] 0.78 1.00
750 [399] 0.70 1.00
800 [427] 0.67 0.94
1,000 [538] 0.49 0.66
1,200 [649] 0.22 0.35
1,400 [760] 0.11 0.16
1,600 [871] 0.07 0.07
1,800 [982] 0.05 0.04
2,000 [1,090] 0.02 0.02
2,200 [1,200] 0.00 0.00

You missed my earlier post. I accept that steel loses 90% of its strength at ca. 800 C.

 

[9/11-investigator]

But also shows no evidence for cutting vertical steel beams. For that I suppose you need a special kind of plant pot.

Sure. This is how the special plant pot looks like.

Watch 0:20 and later.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Umm. what outer columns? the ones missing here after the leading surface of the wing cut them? [qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/southtowerimpacthole.jpg[/qimg]




and if you think water has no mass perhaps you should consider that jumping off the golden gate bridge and hitting the water below has been commonly described as the equivalent of hitting concrete.

I see holes for the fuselage, the 2 engines but the outer tips of the wings did not slice the outer columns. Thanks for the picture to prove that.

From the same picture we can infer that the outer part of the wing did not make through the outer shield, so we can conclude that the wing was destroyed on impact and that therfore the fuel was already dispersed and that it's mass can not be added up to the impact on the core, if there was any impact at all (I understand you mean fuel rather than water).

 

[9/11-investigator]

First of all, you probably shouldn't use your daughter's playthings in a ham-handed attempt to prove your CT.

That’s very considerate of you, but it was only a thought experiment.

Your arms are not an integral part of the structure of the dollhouse. And we're talking about vertical supports here.

As long as I hold the dollhouse, my arms can be considered as an integral part of the structure. Until I get cramp and start to buckle.

Wrong. The core columns, which are vertical load bearing structures for horizontal planes, failed at a given height. When that steel buckled under the weight of the top of the tower, those structures above it - which depended on the vertical support, deformed. It's right there on every single camera angle of the collapse you care to look at.

They should deform, but not just at the top

concrete's spraying in all directions again?!?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12427&d=1228514465

You know, your country brews some of the greatest beer and produces some of the best chocolate in the world.

Your mixing up Holland with Belgium. We’re the guys from the dikes and the windmills. And of course of Peter Stuyvesant (pictured in avatar), the gentleman who from 1647 was the first to administer Nieuw Amsterdam from an office located near de Walstraat, a few minutes walking from what later would become Ground Zero.

Oh yeah, and I was military for 6 years. Are you going to call me a Zionist puppet next?

With all respect, but that phrase is reserved for a different league.

If the structural supports fail at a given level, why would you see deformation immediately BELOW IT?!?

OK, time for a thought experiment.

Question to you: may I represent the ‘core columns as wet noodles’ situation with the following hypothetical situation: the twin towers are in perfect pre-impact conditions except that somewhere halfway of the tower 47 one meter pieces of core column have been removed on the same level? If allowed by you that would mean that the upper part of the building is resting on the outer columns alone. What would happen in that situation, you think?

Would the outer columns buckle at the level where the core is sliced or what would happen else?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Question: is there any Griffin like character of any stature who is on the side of the debunkers and is not on the governments pay role?

No, we seem to be singularly lacking in dishonest theology professors with poor research skills.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

9/11-investigator are you implying that anybody who disagrees with you is on the government's payroll? There are probably thousands of people from around the world who have studied the collapses in minute detail who are immensely more qualified than Griffin who are NOT on the US government's payroll.