Momentum Transfer in WTC

[Mercutio]

Take a handful of dry gravel and dry sand. (If you can add some pulverized dry cement to the handful, so much the better.) Throw it into the air. The difference in wind resistance on the way down will ensure that the gravel hits first, the powder last. Eyewitness and videotaped accounts of GZ show us that the dust cloud was settling for quite some time, and that a fine cloud of ash and dust was spread out over quite some area. It looked, eerily, a bit like the aftermath of a grey snowfall.

Ah...snowfall. It makes the whole world look like a wedding cake. My back yard, where in summer there are bare patches, rocks, grass, garden...under the snow, it is all the same.

Truthseeker, the pictures you are showing could not possibly be evidence of complete pulverization; they are completely consistent with any number of other possibilities as well. A layer of ash and dust on top of chunks of concrete would look exactly the same. And that, of course, has the added benefit of being consistent with the testimony of the rescue and recovery teams, the people sorting through the rubble for remains, and the testimony of survivors.

If you are going to bring photographic evidence, you must bring photos that are not only consistent with your claims, but inconsistent with the official story.

 

[kevin]

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

I see no photographs of cross bracing on that page. I see a very far away shot of the core but no details indicting the massive cross bracing. I do see a claim that the actual column layout is unknown, but I didn't have any problems finding it.

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

You've forgotten to indicate what bracing you're talking about again. If you're referring to the z-shaped bracings those are, once again, the supports for the kangaroo cranes and were removed when the cranes were no longer needed.

Here's a couple of shots clearly showing the cranes and their supports, and the straight bracing used on the majority of the floors.

Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place?

Yes. They needed it on the next job, and they had to put the elevators in the shafts the cranes were using.

3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.

Of course they're made of structural steel, they have to hold the crane up, plus whatever the crane is lifting, and that's live load not dead load like the building mostly carries. Funny how things made from the same materials are the same color.

4) They are welded

In sections, the sections are then assembled to build a support of any height they need.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I stated

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much [explosive would be required to bring down a tower]. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

kevin then retorted

and you would be wrong. According to NIST to bring down WTC you need severed columns, removed fireproofing AND massive multi-floor fires.

Kevin, you have misssed the point of my statement, and of this thread. NIST used the fires and fireproofing, and allegedly a computer model to show local collapse. After 10,000 pages and $20,000,000, the entire substance of their argument for how local collapse leads to global collapse is the following three words:

Global Collapse Ensued.

Talk about non-science.

 

[gumboot]

After 10,000 pages and $20,000,000, the entire substance of their argument for how local collapse leads to global collapse is the following three words:

Global Collapse Ensued.

That's not entirely true. In a number of their reports they discussed precisely why they didn't go into indepth study of the global collapse progression.

-Andrew

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I will monitor this thread to see if any examples emerge of refutations of Ross.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

That's not entirely true. In a number of their reports they discussed precisely why they didn't go into indepth study of the global collapse progression.

I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Explaining why you didn't study something is not the same as studying it. It certainly isn't science.

 

[rwguinn]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.

no, you effing have not! You have asserted, ad nauseum, but have not provided one iota of evidenve.
Evidence has been provided that indicates that you could not be more wrong.
Show us the data!

 

[WildCat]

Wow, I go to the German fest last night and missed all the fun here! Doesn't seem like there's much for me to add at this point, TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway. Like every other CT'er who comes here clinging to their disproven theories religiously.

 

[Mancman]

I said I was
and bellz claimed I was
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like this[qimg]http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpg[/qimg]or like this[qimg]http://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg[/qimg]

You have to remember that the examples there are of far, far smaller buildings. Each floorplate would (obviously) have far less momentum as it met the ground. That mass of WTC floorplates could well have been travelling at 100mph as they tore through the last intact floors and hit the ground, and went down into the basement levels.

The result? A huge amount of compression.

If you're hoping to find any easily identifiable trace of the floor plates, you will be dissapointed. A twisted mass of crushed steel is all you would expect.

 

[gumboot]

I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Explaining why you didn't study something is not the same as studying it. It certainly isn't science.

Certainly. But I was merely pointing out you weren't correct in your claim that it boiled down to three words. They wrote quite a lot of words on it. They didn't STUDY it, sure. But they didn't just write three words.

-Andrew

 

[David Wong]

no, you effing have not! You have asserted, ad nauseum, but have not provided one iota of evidenve.

Look, all you need to do is gather up all of the macro concrete from the WTC wreckage and drive to his house and present it to him in person. Is that too much to ask?

 

[gumboot]

Look, all you need to do is gather up all of the macro concrete from the WTC wreckage and drive to his house and present it to him in person. Is that too much to ask?

That shouldn't be too bad. My car fits a decent amount of stuff in it if you fold down the back seats, for what it's worth.

-Andrew

 

[rwguinn]

TAM, I've got no credentials in this topic but I alwasy assumed that most of the pulverisation happened when the floors hit 'the ground'. Firstly because the ground would offer more resistance and secondly because the cloud of dust arising and the end of the collapse seems much more dense than the cloud that appears during the collapse. That also explains how the building can almost freefall and smash itself to bits.

The fact that a floor hiting another floor involves energy is what pulverizes the make-up of the floors. the fact that the available energy was considerably greater than that needed to collapse the target floor is what causes the "essentialy no resistance to collapse" situation.
Since the vast majority of the concrete in the building was the flooring, and since it was relatively thin, one would expect it to break up, and each broken chunk would further break up with each ensuing collision, one would expect a fairly large cloud of small particulates to emerge. When mixed with the readily fractured and pulverized gypsum of the drywall, you get a spectacular cloud.
Think of it as a vertical glacier moving at high speed. Grinding and tumbling produces smaller and smaller particles as it continues.

 

[kevin]

You stated:

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much [explosive would be required to bring down a tower]. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

The bolded part is incorrect. NIST never claimed this. In fact NIST clearly shows that if all you do is sever the supports then the building would not undergo ANY collapse.

There is no difference between global and local collapse in this building, there was one collapse. Collapse started when 10 floors (best case scenario) of building fell 12 feet and hit the structure below. If that one floor couldn't stand up to the collapse why would any of the other floors? The mass only grew as it collapsed and the construction of the building was fairly identical on each floor (with some differences on the technical services floors)

What was special about lower floors that would've made them capable of stopping the fall of the building?

 

[kevin]

Think of it as a vertical glacier moving at high speed. Grinding and tumbling produces smaller and smaller particles as it continues.

Not to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

 

[DavidJames]

I said I was
and bellz claimed I was
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like this[qimg]http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpg[/qimg]or like this[qimg]http://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg[/qimg]

you rant about wanting to use science then you show these pictures. Just between you and me, no one is listening, you're here to show how stupid CTers are aren't you? You really are a shill, one of us...a ninja, a NWO agent.

Don't worry, our secret is safe

 

[Architect]

Mackey states

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.

Sorry. That's not correct.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

cat complained

TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway

Not true. I have provided data. Pictures are data. I have adressed points. We have strayed far afield of the narrow focus inteneded by the topic, but oh well.

Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.

 

[gumboot]

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore.

Er... it's really obvious in that photo that the cross bracing is on the structures that are holding up the cranes. They are clearly not part of the building...

It'd be a bit weird to leave them lying about once the building was finished. I'd imagine building tenents would get a bit annoyed at having this enormous crane mount going through the middle of their premium office space...

-Andrew

 

[rwguinn]

cat complained

Not true. I have provided data. Pictures are data. I have adressed points. We have strayed far afield of the narrow focus inteneded by the topic, but oh well.

Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

Wel, golly gee whizz
Look 2 floors below your "cross bracing" on those crane towers.
Al the cross bracing seems to have become made of Invisicrete