RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

[DGM]

No. Just the short horizontal members between column pairs.

I have seen no evidence of angled bracing anywhere except in the 4 corners where they had the cranes. Very short diagonal bracing which won't affect the present discussion.

We'll get to the bottom of this soon.

Note to those who were talking about how weak the welds are: These pieces were swaying unsupported and were about 40 to 50 stories high. Welds every 3 floors.

I think Realcddeal has a point.

As I mentioned before, there are many unbroken welds to be found in the rubble.

More info will be coming soon.

With your "more info" could you please include how there could be absolutely no blast effect or any sound of explosives in the videos?

 

[Gravy]

We'll get to the bottom of this soon.

Stundielicious!

Note to those who were talking about how weak the welds are: These pieces were swaying unsupported and were about 40 to 50 stories high. Welds every 3 floors.

Yes, as I look out my window, I see them standing defiantly!

Oh, wait....

 

[tsig]

Exactly - this is what the Nist experts and highly-regarded, internationally known experts who contributed to the NIST suggest in the amazing Nist FAQ December 2007.

One (or more) floor drops down and the whole tower collapses.

The walls were just there to put windows in. And the columns had no real purpose.

Forget butterflies colliding with the towers, fires, release of potential energy, strain energy of the structure.

Beachnut, I am impressed. Your contribution here is really helpful. Like Belznut's, twinsnut's, funknut's, Davenut's, bjenut's, statenut's, 16.5nut's. Very high intellectual standard. Nutty! Now I understand why you believe planes actually hit the towers in the first place. You have watched too much television.

Do you do English?

 

[tsig]

Don't need any. My facts are quite good. Maybe you need some help yourself? Too much television? Lack of sun? Drugs. Or just normal confusion?
A good medicin! Read my paper! Like thousand have. All cured.

Yep they taste great.

 

[Norseman]

The edge of the hole in the column does not look like it was cut by an oxy torch. While hard to tell exactly, it appears jagged. Unless the person who cut it was very inexperienced, the hole would be more symmetrical, striated (from the cutting process as the torch blows the oxidized metal into the hole it creates) and flush to the face of the column if it were taken as a coupon. There's obvious fatigue in the metal about the hole, suggesting one of two things in my opinion. Either it was struck by another smaller piece of steel and punctured or, the more probable of the two, there was another piece of steel welded to the column in that location, which was struck at a perpendicular angle to the face of the column and pushed inward, fatiguing the metal, then it was struck again at an angle parallel to the face of the column ripping it and the weld from the already fatigued metal. This two step process is the most likely of the two as it accounts for both the inward deformation, the observed fatiguing and the jagged edge around the hole protruding outward from the face of the column.

Here is a close up of the column that I posted before. Below it is a photo from NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 3-24 for comparison.

The black edges is a tell tale sign that the cut was made after the column was recovered from the WTC pile. Otherwise it should have been rusted like the broken weld joints at the end and like the area around the cut that is missing paint. But there are some rust visible down in the left hand corner of the cut closest to the camera, indicating that the object that made the dent when the tower collapsed also cracked/ punctured the steel as you proposed. Whatever, the engineers surly removed a piece for metallurgical analyzes because of the dent. We would need a closer and sharper photo to say anything sure about striating. Anyhow parts of the NIST cut was pretty smooth.

Here are some photos of artistic cuts in WTC steel stored at Hangar 17 at the Kennedy International Airport: Photo number 16, including the next photos and the previous photos.. Note that the edges have rusted again in these old cuts and that they are quite smooth.

And finally a picture of recyclers cutting up WTC steel at a recycling site:
http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html
Note the blackened edges of the cut.

 

[Major_Tom]

Your ability to see the 2 photos you posted as representing one and the same type of cut speaks for itself.

Do you really see similarities between the two "cuts"?

The reason why I would be suspicious of the photo is because it is sitting on a lawn.

This is why I prefer photos of objects unmoved from their original position at the scene of the crime.

This is why I map the debris fields at the WTC complex. Once it is moved anyone could have tampered with it for any reason.


Maybe just to fool us.



Thanks to those who communicate intelligently. If I were arguing for gravity collapse, I would find it a little embarrassing to have Gravy helping me.

 

[Myriad]

No. Just the short horizontal members between column pairs.

Ok. Calling that "cross bracing" is a bit confusing because it means something else, but I understand now what you were referring to.

Note to those who were talking about how weak the welds are: These pieces were swaying unsupported and were about 40 to 50 stories high. Welds every 3 floors.

All I see in those pictures is freestanding columns unsupported for 40 or 50 feet. They were many stories off the ground but that didn't matter as long as they were attached to or lodged in the spire structure, which itself was unstable and quickly collapsed. And those unsupported columns have no load since their horizontal connections have been sheared off. (The tallest unsupported column in the spire, which is cut off at the top of the photos you posted on this thread, was taller, about 110 feet tall. But it is standing vertically, as the columns were designed to do, with no load. And it still collapsed.)

More info will be coming soon.

Looking forward to it.

Myriad, for photos of the North Tower spire from 5 directions (4 of which are useful) and added graphics, please visit a photo album devoted only to this topic at

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...toalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=16

Thanks for the photos. I can't find much value in the added graphics. There's no transparency in how the sizes and positions of the photo images relative to the graphics were determined, and how it was decided which columns to compare. Even the angles are screwy. For instance, this drawing is captioned: "View 2 compared to column rows 600 and 700. They do not match." (I agree, they do not.) But this drawing labeled simply "View 2" lines the same set of columns up against the same photo as if they do match. Compare the two views. Something is wrong here. Same photo, and yet the tower is at completely different angles.

And what's up with this image? Check your view angles. If the direction of the photo is what you say it is, the column rows are running the wrong direction. The near end of the rows should be toward the left.

The multiple photos you posted here in this thread are much more useful. Using them, in a few minutes I was able to identify the column rows of two of the prominent structures, from their actual characteristics.

The analyst at the site you link to needs to start over, without the assumption that all the spire structures must come from the same column row, and without the assumption that the edges of the spire in the photos must align with the ends of one column row.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

The tallest unsupported column in the spire, which is cut off at the top of the photos you posted on this thread, was taller, about 110 feet tall.

You mean 110 feet that you can see, or from ground level?

The tallest column standing was close to 60 stories above ground level. It can be compared to building 7 in "view 4". It is clearly higher than building 7.

The tallest unsupported column in the spire, which is cut off at the top of the photos you posted on this thread, was taller, about 110 feet tall.

After 15, 20 seconds of "swaying".


The photo I posted here is of an excellent resolution. The others not so.

The only guide there is in the photos concerning alignment are the "bulges" along each column. These are floors. 12.5 feet per bulge.

They were many stories off the ground but that didn't matter as long as they were attached to or lodged in the spire structure, which itself was unstable and quickly collapsed.

There is no evidence there was any structure at all outside of what we see. Maybe they are interconnected in the smoke and dust, maybe they are not.


In view 4 the columns certainly seem to line up as pairs.


I know of no useful photos of North Tower spire. So what you see is what I have to work with.

You are right about the need for further careful review. How do you see the possibility of the first pair being 501, 601 and the connected pair behind being from the 700, 800 row? Besides the geometry of the rectangles, do you see any other clues in the alignment? That is the thing: They seem to be from the same row but the rectagles suggest otherwise. They just dont seem to have the horizontal displacement which would suggest they are 2 collumn rows away from each other.



Do you notice any clues I am overlooking? Any info you can provide in identifying individual columns will be most greatly appreciated.

And another thing: I honestly do not know to what degree the leaked blueprints can be trusted. There is one or two suspicious things about the way and the form in which they were released. For example, in their highest resolution they are still barely readable. Snuck out of a lawyers office? Already suspicious.

 

[Norseman]

Applying the same measurements and calculations to the other column pair (since they are clearly in the same plane, the same horizontal foreshortening applies), I get 10.6 feet column to column -- a match so close to the nominal spacing of the 700-800 column rows to make me certain that those columns are indeed from those rows. However, if there's another angle that shows that all the surviving columns must be from the same two rows, that would throw both my determinations into doubt, so let's check it out and see.

By the way, by "cross-bracing" do you mean the huge columns sticking at angles out of the top of the dust cloud? I've seen no evidence that any angled bracing members of that size, or any connected to, but extending beyond, the core, existed in the Towers. I rather suspect that what you're seeing there is column sections from the core above that have speared the lower core, or columns stripped of their horizontal connections and forced to the side but still momentarily attached to the standing core structures, or perhaps even columns in the act of falling (another photo from a different instant might determine the latter possibility one way or another).

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad, here is the complete sequence of photos taken by Aman Zafar that shows the remaining WTC 1 columns. Since Aman Zafar's web site is down at the moment, I am linking to the relevant pictures at the CT site 9-11 Research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp12.html

You are absolutely right, there is no doubt that the row of columns to the north are the 500-600 column rows. As should be evident from the complete sequence, the huge columns sticking at angles in the close crop photo Major Tom posted, must be freestanding columns of the 500 row collapsing. They are clearly thicker than the columns in the 700-800 row column pair standing in front of them. If we look at the architectural drawings of the floors in WTC 1 in the area of floor 40 - 50 we can see that the 500 row columns and the 1000 row columns were the thickest columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/table.html

The 700-800 row columns were thiner, and that several of the pairs inside the core were H type columns. It is also to be noted that the 600 row and the 900 row were thiner than their partner row 500 and 1000. While the 700-800 row columns were of even size like the single freestanding pair. Therefore the single freestanding pair must be a 700-800 row pair. While the column pairs to the north of them (left) of them must be the 500-600 row.

This was just another way of looking at it, Myriad. Well spotted.

 

[Gravy]

Here is a close up of the column that I posted before. Below it is a photo from NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Figure 3-24 for comparison.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18141478fca18017ed.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18141478fca377bd53.jpg

The black edges is a tell tale sign that the cut was made after the column was recovered from the WTC pile. Otherwise it should have been rusted like the broken weld joints at the end and like the area around the cut that is missing paint. But there are some rust visible down in the left hand corner of the cut closest to the camera, indicating that the object that made the dent when the tower collapsed also cracked/ punctured the steel as you proposed. Whatever, the engineers surly removed a piece for metallurgical analyzes because of the dent. We would need a closer and sharper photo to say anything sure about striating. Anyhow parts of the NIST cut was pretty smooth.

Here are some photos of artistic cuts in WTC steel stored at Hangar 17 at the Kennedy International Airport: Photo number 16, including the next photos and the previous photos.. Note that the edges have rusted again in these old cuts and that they are quite smooth.

And finally a picture of recyclers cutting up WTC steel at a recycling site:
http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html
Note the blackened edges of the cut.

Another reason they cut holes in columns was to attach crane hooks when the columns were inaccessible to the grapplers or too heavy or awkward for the grapplers to handle. That was common. Two things the hole isn't: blast damage, and a defect worthy of mention in the FEMA report.

 

[Major_Tom]

Norseman, Myriad, give me 2 days to rework this. Thanks for the feedback.

Another reason they cut holes in columns was to attach crane hooks when the columns were inaccessible to the grapplers or too heavy or awkward for the grapplers to handle. That was common. Two things the hole isn't: blast damage, and a defect worthy of mention in the FEMA report.

I noticed these holes for lifting on other pieces, most always on perimeter sections. I am in no way attached to the blast idea. Makes no sense anyway. Why such a small hole to displace such a large column?

Norseman, I wasn't buying the metal sample idea. This latest explanation makes more sense. Maybe an oxy-lance hole? Not oxy-acetylene.

 

[Myriad]

You mean 110 feet that you can see, or from ground level?

The tallest column standing was close to 60 stories above ground level. It can be compared to building 7 in "view 4". It is clearly higher than building 7.
...
There is no evidence there was any structure at all outside of what we see. Maybe they are interconnected in the smoke and dust, maybe they are not.

I mean 110 feet that's unsupported by any other structure, just a single column held together only by its welds. It's also many stories off the ground, but the spire that holds it up is a more complex structure.

I think it would be unwise to assume that the portions of the spires whose structure we see at the top of the dust cloud, the single columns and column pairs, continue that way (e.g. as single columns and column pairs, without interconnection) all the way to the ground. If an assumption leads to impossibility, such as the notion that 60 stories of steel column welded end to end could stand even for a moment, then it's best put aside.) Furthermore, the dynamics of the dust cloud itself suggest that the spire was tapered, and so do certain aspects of the physics of the collapse.

1. At some point, the falling upper structure probably did undergo complete "crush up" allowing the vertical core columns to begin deflecting core debris to the surrounding floor spaces.

2. The core columns were progressively stronger nearer the ground.

3. The increasing velocity of the falling floor (and deflected core) debris allowed the falling mass to sometimes cleanly shear the floor trusses from the core so rapidly that little torque was applied to the core columns in the process.

Except for #2, I can't prove any of that and only a technically infeasible complete dynamic model of the collapse could determine it for sure.

You are right about the need for further careful review. How do you see the possibility of the first pair being 501, 601 and the connected pair behind being from the 700, 800 row? Besides the geometry of the rectangles, do you see any other clues in the alignment? That is the thing: They seem to be from the same row but the rectagles suggest otherwise. They just dont seem to have the horizontal displacement which would suggest they are 2 collumn rows away from each other.

The problem is, the left to right position of a column in the image depends on its position along the building's north-south axis (that is, what column row it is in), and its position along the building's east-west axis (that is, how far down the row it is). For every foot away from the north wall a column is, its position in the image shifts right from the image position of the northwest corner by 1/207th of the apparent width of the west wall in the image. For every foot away from the west wall a column is, its position in the image shifts right by 1/207th of the apparent width of the south wall in the image. When we see a certain amount of left-right separation, we can't easily tell how much of that separation is caused by the north-south distance between column rows, and how much is caused by the east-west distance along the row.

The good news is, if we can determine what row a column pair is in (and hence its distance from the north wall) from other evidence, only one variable remains and we should be able to determine the exact columns by measurement, on the superimposed image you made, from the position of the northwest corner.

One thing that would be nice to do first is establish the image position of the geometrically "true" northwest, southwest, and southeast corners of the building, essentially "filling in" the bevels to establish a true square cross-section. Your CAD software might be useful for this. Since I didn't do that, I had to fudge the measurements a little to account for the points where the lines of the building's sides would intersect not actually existing in the images.

The results I got from doing the measurements I just described are consistent with the leftmost column pair being 502 and 602, rather than 501 and 601. This result surprised me, because the separation in front of those columns seems so clean and consistent over so many stories that I expected to find that we were looking at the northwest corner of the core. It's quite possible that accumulated inaccuracies in my measurements might have set me off a column, but right now my numbers point to 502 and 602.

By the way, this same measurement also further rules out the possibility of the leftmost pair being in the 700-800 rows. They're simply too far left, relative to the positions of the corners of the building.

If the column pair to the right is indeed from the 700-800 rows as its proportions seem to indicate, then its horizontal position in the image puts it at 60 feet farther east (down the row) from the left column pair. If the left column pair really is 502-602, then that puts us right on 706 and 805.

I'd like to see these measurements and determinations repeated independently, and more carefully, before I would place a lot of faith in those results, or expect anyone else to do so.

I honestly do not know to what degree the leaked blueprints can be trusted. There is one or two suspicious things about the way and the form in which they were released. For example, in their highest resolution they are still barely readable. Snuck out of a lawyers office? Already suspicious.

As far as I know, though, those blueprints are consistent with diagrams of the towers' column positions that were available long before the leaked blueprints appeared. Also, many people worked in those buildings. It would be difficult to fudge the core column positions significantly without shifting elevators and stairwells in ways that people familiar with the buildings would notice.

Norseman, Myriad, give me 2 days to rework this. Thanks for the feedback.

No problem. I'll be rather busy distracted myself. NFL conference championships this weekend!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

At some point, the falling upper structure probably did undergo complete "crush up" allowing the vertical core columns to begin deflecting core debris to the surrounding floor spaces.

According to the idea of column collisions first cracking the welds, the "upper block" will be the first to loose it's rigid structure. The rigid upper block is just something that Bazant had to make up.

According to the idea that welds go first, there is no rigid upper block at all. It's rigidity is as strong as it's connecting welds, nothing more.

Physically, at the moments of impact, there is no reason to favor the rigidity of the upper "block" over the lower one, and obvious reasons to favor the rigidity of the lower block over the upper one, because clearly...

The core columns were progressively stronger nearer the ground.

If the column pair to the right is indeed from the 700-800 rows as its proportions seem to indicate, then its horizontal position in the image puts it at 60 feet farther east (down the row) from the left column pair. If the left column pair really is 502-602, then that puts us right on 706 and 805.

The closest column pair cannot be columns 502 and 602. Note that near that elevation 501 is just about as wide as 601, but 502 has a very different width than 602.


That is the only point of confusion remaining for me, because the rectangles formed by the 700, 800 column pairs are unique to the entire core.

No other column pairs in the building are placed so close together, therefore they really can't be confused with anything else.

If you can help explain such a displacement then I think the riddle is for the most part solved.

3. The increasing velocity of the falling floor (and deflected core) debris allowed the falling mass to sometimes cleanly shear the floor trusses from the core so rapidly that little torque was applied to the core columns in the process.

Isn't that amazing? How the complete open office flooring was stripped right off the columns 501, 502 and 503 (or as you are saying 502, 503 and 504) while the very vulnerable columns just stay standing? Even in the visible portions we have many welds, and there is no reason to believe that the portion obscured by the dust provided a very sturdy base. When the dust cleared the only structure remaining was

I'll let you verify that 601 and 602 have very different widths but for now I'll explain as if you already have. Do you see the intact structure of the core to the left? It is easy to verify that they are columns 507, 607, 506, 606, 505, 605, 504, 604.

Here we see the remaining structure from the east.

The first column pair is 507, 607 (506, 606?) This can be verified by noticing the location of the stairwell. Notice the extreme difference in width. The same applies to 502, 602.

We know that the spire initially survived the fall for about 10 to 20 seconds. Therefore we can expect to see the spire debris on top of the rubble.

Now let's look at where the spire base should be. There is NO TRACE of any structure that could have served as the base of the core.

I'll provide a closer view of the exact spot where we would expect to see the spire supporting structure in the next post in a few minutes.

 

[Major_Tom]

Here is where the base of the spire must have been.

The intact structure is 504, 604 to 507, 607.

The temporary survival of the spire (and any supporting structure underneath) means we have 2 distinct "collapses": A collapse within a collapse. The second collapse would leave it's debris on the very top of the other debris and it's base elements should be viewable.

So what could have happened to the base?

Myriad, your feedback is invaluable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

According to the idea of column collisions first cracking the welds, the "upper block" will be the first to loose it's rigid structure. The rigid upper block is just something that Bazant had to make up.

You're assuming a continuous taper to the columns, which wasn't actually the case. The column section changed stepwise at certain floors - I forget which, but AFAIR they were well below 97. There wasn't therefore any difference between the column profiles in the upper and lower blocks in the initial stages. That would suggest simultaneous crush up / crush down as a first approximation. For a better approximation you'd want to look at the boundary conditions for termination of the elastic shock wave at the free upper end of the upper block and the fixed lower end of the lower block; which gives higher reflection? The reflected elastic wave will contribute to the destruction of the structure fairly early on in the process.

According to the idea that welds go first, there is no rigid upper block at all. It's rigidity is as strong as it's connecting welds, nothing more.

Of collapse progressed initially by floor collapse, that doesn't matter a lot. Large sections of debris, funnelled in by the perimeter columns, would do more or less as good a job of collapsing the floors as a solid block.

We know that the spire initially survived the fall for about 10 to 20 seconds. Therefore we can expect to see the spire debris on top of the rubble.

On top, yes, but not necessarily at the centre, and not necessarily very clearly. It's known that parts of the spire toppled sideways, and they were up to about 50 storeys long. That could throw their debris quite a long way from their base.

Now let's look at where the spire base should be. There is NO TRACE of any structure that could have served as the base of the core. In fact, I don't see any trace of a protruding 501, 502, 503 at all.

That tends to suggest that they broke off very low down. If they failed in bending, that's as reasonable a place as any for them to fail. There's no reason to expect them to protrude noticeably enough that you'd expect to see them in any particular photograph.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

You have been shown this photo before Heiwa:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8790477b82f38893b.jpg[/qimg]

Do you call this a small fire. The fires on the upper floors of WTC 1 and 2 were so big that it was beyond any fire department in the world to put them out. Even with the elevators working and water available it would haven impossible to put out does fires. You are looking at a picture of several 4000 m2 floors burning.

Yes, it is a very small fire in WTC1 - spread out in many separate locations and not very concentrated anywhere. No big deal. The WTC 1 fire zone structure, several floors 4000 m² large with very solid supporting columns, is much too strong to suddenly collapse.

It is basic. Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm again.

 

[Major_Tom]

In so far as the second collapse, the collapse of the North Tower spire, you have no crushing. Just falling.

We see absolutely no evidence in the rubble of this spire structure simply falling and any base intact at all.

Crushing and total chaos can no longer be used as an excuse for the basically unrecognizable DECIMATION we observe.

There was a sufficeint time delay for the spire to simply collapse into RECOGNIZABLE parts.

The exact same thing happened in the South Tower. It was a 2 stage collapse.

Of collapse progressed initially by floor collapse, that doesn't matter a lot.

We can see that the large, large majority of the core columns were straight (to the naked eye, very straight) and no evidence of perimeter buckling with the rubble besides the very limited inward pulling during collapse initiation one facade of the South Tower only (they can't buckle over bolts: The bolts were staggered).

Floor by floor collapse is all you have left. A floor by floor collapse which forcefully ejects the 4 facades outwards? Only one person even bothered to explain a floor by floor collapse that ejects the perimeter facades outwards and it was a rather humorous explanation. It went something like this:

Somehow the perimeter of the upper block managed to get just inside the lower perimeter, simultaneously separating the floors from the perimeter as it falls while ejecting the facades of the lower block forcefully outwards.

You're assuming a continuous taper to the columns, which wasn't actually the case.

We are simply considering that weaker connections tend to fail first.


Nobody can show me a photo during mid-collapse in which a person can see an upper block at all. We see smoke and dust being ejected upwards and outwards during both "collapses" suggesting that your upper block had no top.

You have no evidence of an intact upper block crushing things below.

You have no evidence of continued perimeter buckling. You have almost no forensic evidence of core buckling during collapse initiation.


The postulation of a rigid upper block in either tower is an act of desperation.

We can all see the lower block of each tower being decimated systematically downwards and manifesting an extreme movement of outward energy.

Of collapse progressed initially by floor collapse, that doesn't matter a lot. Large sections of debris, funnelled in by the perimeter columns, would do more or less as good a job of collapsing the floors as a solid block.

Wouln't that pull perimeter column inward? You have no evidence of survival of the perimeter as the collapse front passes. The collapse front IS what is pushing the perimeter facades forcefully OUTWARDS.

On top, yes, but not necessarily at the centre, and not necessarily very clearly. It's known that parts of the spire toppled sideways, and they were up to about 50 storeys long. That could throw their debris quite a long way from their base.

This is the only type of sideways falling that was witnessed. The final fall of the tallest portions of the spire was straight down after a noticable time delay.

Straight down leaving no trace of a base whatsoever. Unrecognizable decimation.

Can everybody see the "gypsum dust" trailing the falling sections just along where we know weld connections to be? Why gypsum dust would accumulate only on the top (hollow) cross-sections of the columns and not along the horisontal braces is interesting.

Only just along the weld surfaces. Being conservative, I'd say you have 2 square feet maximum on which this "gypsum" could have settled.

The highest column visible is about 60 floors tall. Nothing fell over that was 50 stories high.


Any forcefullness in my reply is in no way directed against yourselves.


Thank you for you answer, Dave.

 

[SDC]

MT, you appear to rely entirely on your impressionistic (if concentrated) visual examination of pictures and videos. Could you now please provide the mathematics?

I speak as someone who aced Calculus. Yep, straight 0. Zero. No correct answers for a whole quarter (10 week grading period.) Quite an achievement. Can YOU say the same?

But I still am aware that till you provide the math, all you got is pictures which can be interpreted a number of ways. Come on.

 

[beachnut]

In so far as the second collapse, the collapse of the North Tower spire, you have no crushing. Just falling.

We see absolutely no evidence in the rubble of this spire structure simply falling and any base intact at all.

Crushing and total chaos can no longer be used as an excuse for the basically unrecognizable DECIMATION we observe.

There was a sufficeint time delay for the spire to simply collapse into RECOGNIZABLE parts.

The exact same thing happened in the South Tower. It was a 2 stage collapse.

We can see that the large, large majority of the core columns were straight (to the naked eye, very straight) and no evidence of perimeter buckling with the rubble besides the very limited inward pulling during collapse initiation one facade of the South Tower only (they can't buckle over bolts: The bolts were staggered).

Floor by floor collapse is all you have left. A floor by floor collapse which forcefully ejects the 4 facades outwards? Only one person even bothered to explain a floor by floor collapse that ejects the perimeter facades outwards and it was a rather humerous explanation. It went something like this:

Somehow the perimeter of the upper block managed to get just inside the lower perimeter, simultaneously separating the floors from the perimeter as it falls while ejecting the facades of the lower block forcefully.

We are simply considering that weaker connections tend to fail first.

Nobody can show me a photo during mid-collaose in which a person can see an upper block at all. We see smoke and dust being ejected upwards and outwards during both "collapses" suggesting that your upper block had no top.

You have no evidence of an intact upper block crushing things below.

You have no evidence of continued perimeter buckling. You have almost no forensic evidence of core buckling during collapse initiation.

The postulation of a rigid upper block in either tower is an act of desperation.

We can all see the lower block of each tower being decimated systematically downwards and manifesting an extreme movement of outward energy.

Wouln't that pull perimeter column inward? You have no evidence of survival of the perimeter as the collapse front passes. The collapse front IS what is pushing the perimeter facades OUTWARDS.

This is the only type of sideways falling that was witnessed. The final fall of the tallest portions of the spire were straight down after a noticable time delay.

Straight down leaving no trace of a base whatsoever. Unrecognizable decimation.

Can everybody see the "gypsum dust" trailing the falling sections just along where we know weld connections to be? why gypsum dust would accumulate only on the top (hollow) cross-sections of the columns and not along the horisontal braces is interesting.

Only just along the weld surfaces. Being conservative, I'd say you have 2 square feet maximun on which this "gypsum" could have settled.

The highest column visible is about 60 floors tall. Nothing fell over that was 50 stories high.


Any forcefullness in my reply is in no way directed against yourselves.


Thank you for you answer, Dave.

Super dumb ideas! No Maj Tom, there were no radio controlled bombs on 9/11, this is nuts since there is no KABOOM. Wrong again Maj Tom, the dust is from drywall and insulation, it is what is around the steel! 3 inches of drywall in two sheets! The dust is also, dust! The dust is also the soft insulation under the floors. You continue to post proof against your position. Good job, no one has to debunk your stuff, you do it for everyone. Your web site proves, with all the clean steel, there were no blast effects. Your web site proves with photos of mangled steel, there was only gravity effects of damage.

You are missing the big blast effects of explosives, you ideas are debunked by your own collection of photos (repeated from above)! You can not continue to present evidence that does not support you ideas without looking wrong and worse.

 

[DGM]

Super dumb ideas! No Maj Tom, there were no radio controlled bombs on 9/11, this is nuts since there is no KABOOM. Wrong again Maj Tom, the dust is from drywall and insulation, it is what is around the steel! 3 inches of drywall in two sheets! The dust is also, dust! The dust is also the soft insulation under the floors. You continue to post proof against your position. Good job, no one has to debunk your stuff, you do it for everyone. Your web site proves, with all the clean steel, there were no blast effects. Your web site proves with photos of mangled steel, there was only gravity effects of damage.

You are missing the big blast effects of explosives, you ideas are debunked by your own collection of photos (repeated from above)! You can not continue to present evidence that does not support you ideas without looking wrong and worse.

Beachnut:
I'm fairly sure that Major_Tom is hearing impaired. It's the only way I can explain how he doesn't acknowledge the sounds. I think we should not fault him because it's not his fault.