Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tsig]

so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??

The most amazing thing is that in order to know all this they would have to have been in on the planning sessions. How else do you get the kind of detailed knowledge of what went on in the plotters' minds that they seem to have?

 

[Heiwa]

so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??

This thread is only about "Why a one-way Crush down is not possible".
Let's discuss that in a friendly and lively way. I have given some ideas why a one-way crush down is not possible. If you think a one-way crush down is possible, pls explain. I am interested.

How and by whom the destruction seen was done is off topic.

 

[Tricky]

As a number of you have probably noticed, a whopping great swath has been cut through this thread here, sending over fifty posts to AAH. When such major weed-cutting occurs, I cannot be certain that I haven't cut down a few crops too, so if you feel one of your posts was moved in error, all I can say is "I'm sorry".

Please try to keep this thread away from bickering, personal insults and off-topic posts. There is some legitimate discussion in here. Let's not lose that, eh?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[alienentity]

The 1.0g acceleration of WTC 7's upper block initial movement and the 0.7g acceleration of the North Tower's upper block are not contradictory in any sense.

Tony, first, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the sequence of the WTC7 collapse. Either way, when you characterize the 'upper block initial movment' as 1.0g accleration this is just plain false.
1) The initial movement was the internal collapse on the East side of building 7, FOLLOWED by the observed collapse of the E Penthouse and subsequent broken windows down a substantial portion of the NE facade - as far as we are able to view.
2) There was a period of several seconds (close to 7s) as the INTERNAL collapse continued, while the facade still stood.
3)Finally, the W PH begins to collapse visibly, and (almost undetectable at first) the parapet wall directly below it begins to fall, resulting in noticeable compression and distortion of the E portion of the facade.
However, as you can easily determine from my various WTC7 videos, or by carefully examining the footage yourself, the NW corner of the building doesn't descend simultaneously.
My analysis (frame by frame in Final Cut Pro) shows a delay from the W PH collapse initiation to the initiation of descent of the NW corner of approx. 1sec 26frames. For argument's sake be stingy and call it 1.5 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

Inferring, as we must, that the collapse progressed over a measurable time from E to W as I just described in point (3), it was sometime AFTER this that the entire facade went thru a brief period very close to freefall. As you correctly pointed out this distance translates into roughly 7 or 8 floors, give or take - but at a point WELL into a complex collapse.

To infer from this evidence that somehow silent, undetectable explosives were detonated along 8 floors of the building simultaneously to produce this effect is Tony, frankly, glaringly incompetent for someone of your training and abilities. (btw, I don't think the term 'silent, undetectable' is a strawman at all, because those would be necessary qualities of the alleged explosives if they were to fit with the observed collapse. And Prof. Jones' thermite can't bail you guys out here, either, since (A) explosive nanothermite would make a nice big bang, just like any other high explosive and (B) regular thermite couldn't conceivably remove 8 floors of support simultaneously. That's a pure fantasy)

Sure, I can understand some uneducated paranoid fantasist falling for such obvious nonsense, but I expect more from someone like you.

An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition.

I hope I demonstrated sufficiently to you that this statement is a useless oversimplification and doesn't describe the WTC7 collapse properly.

On the other hand a 0.7g acceleration is not too slow for a controlled demolition to occur. It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall. A controlled demolition does not need to take out every column to be successful and that would be especially true when a high momentum doesn't need to be developed since columns on lower floors are being removed also, which is what was done in the twin towers.

This statement is unsupported by evidence on a number of levels, and contains some misleading components.
a) 0.7g accel. may not be too slow for CD, but it's also not too fast for a plain gravitational collapse either. It is ambiguous taken by itself.
b) 'It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall' exactly. So you agree with the basic observations, but then attach the CD label without proper justification.
c) 'since columns on lower floors are being removed also,' no evidence for this at all. This is pure speculation. 'which is what was done in the twin towers' Tony, you're way, way ahead of good science when you make that kind of statement. Sorry. If you'd at least preface that with 'I believe' or 'In my opinion', so we don't get the impression you think it's a fact, and not just a guess, it would be more respectable.

The collapse of the North Tower was done via continuous column removal.

A theory with no proper science to back it up.

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition

How can you expect to be taken seriously with this kind of ignorant statement? WTC7 looks very little like any other CD I've looked at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg

I have to leave, but I'll try to address your question about the jolt later, to the best of my ability.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

15% of anything cannot possibly crush 85% of itself on planet earth.

Take a bite of a candy bar. Spit it out. Catch it. Hold it up above the remaining candy bar in your hand and drop it right where you bit it off. What happens? Does the candy bar implode in your hand?

Your chocolate comment makes me hungry 8D

To Tony's credit at least he doesn't think chocolates are viable comparisons to buildings (well I hope that's the case anyway).

An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition. It has never happened any other way and never will.

You appear to be speaking from incredulity in this one... as an engineer you should be well aware that the way any structure fails will depend on everything from its design, materiality, failure mode, and location of the failure. You're failure to account for these factors isn't helping.

I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible. If you have now read that Addendum to Bazant and Zhou, they admit that smaller jolts would not be fatal. They also say these smaller jolts could only occur if the upper block were flexible, which it could only be if it was a small number of stories in height. However, it is highly likely that even ]these smaller jolts would be visible.

I'm a little curious if a gigantic jolt would be as obvious as you claim it to be if the surface being impacted fails long before it can offer the necessary resistance. I'd go as far to say that your acknowledgment of the resistance of the floors during the collapse progression illustrates my point quite clearly.

Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence?

I honestly don't know what gets people in a tight knot over corroded metal... The environment was more than conducive to it...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you have a source for this? It makes sense but I've never seen an analysis of the free standing core.

Gordon Ross has information on his site about it. Google "How the Towers were demolished" to find his site.

The determination of what columns were left standing and how it is known that they were interior core columns was done by sombody other than Gordon but he put the information on his site.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sounds simple enough to model it, ozeco. However, it fails. The concrete floors are supported as well as the concrete floors above. It's the same construction. The collapse would be arrested.

NIST tried that angle already. They failed also. Go figure.

Put some science in that or stop it. Any construction worker can tell you that when you over-load a floor, it can break. The floors above the impact zone were failing and over-loading lower floors before the structure started to move. When they moved, more floors had to break. It is just in the nature of concrete to breeak. It becomes a compact mass on the next floor, with a bit of kinetic energy behind it.

Now identify the arresting mechanism that you think is there to stop the floors from breaking lose, once one is sufficiently over-loaded as to break free and, in company with the mass that broke it, is slammed into another floor. Bear in mind that it just follows as a natural law that each floor will have an increasing load placed on it by falling mass.

 

[leftysergeant]

You can't just laugh it off like that, Heiwa. You either prove that the floor-to perimeter brackets could withstand having other floors dropped on them or you wear raw runny egg all over your face.

The ability of the columns to resist vertical compression is irrelevant.

The only other way that the towers could have collapsed than from the severing of the floor-to-perimeter joints is for the columns to have been blown at their joints. The photos of perimeter columns with bent bolts just pulled out of their holes argues against that BS.

Nearly every photo I see of a floor-to perimeter column joint shows the brackets pulled inward and downward. They were clearly over-loaded.

Now, if you can come up with some examples of joints that were clearly cu by explosives, you might have some chance of proving your theories less than the laughing stock of the engineering profession.

 

[bardamu]

Do you have a source for this? It makes sense but I've never seen an analysis of the free standing core.

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but if you google the following sentence, you should find the article at sharpprintinginc.com where they work out which columns make up the spire.

"What was that part of the building standing over 60 stories tall when the rest of the building fell?"

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but if you google the following sentence, you should find the article at sharpprintinginc.com where they work out which columns make up the spire.

"What was that part of the building standing over 60 stories tall when the rest of the building fell?"

nada.

 

[Furcifer]

Gordon Ross has information on his site about it. Google "How the Towers were demolished" to find his site.

The determination of what columns were left standing and how it is known that they were interior core columns was done by sombody other than Gordon but he put the information on his site.

Yah, it's on GR's site. I'm not as convinced as GR that it's a "knock out blow". If anything it makes a worse case for CD. The fact that the free standing core was not square, but tapered means its destrcution was gradual, as would be suspected given the increasing plate thickness.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is pure speculation. 'which is what was done in the twin towers' Tony, you're way, way ahead of good science when you make that kind of statement. Sorry. If you'd at least preface that with 'I believe' or 'In my opinion', so we don't get the impression you think it's a fact, and not just a guess, it would be more respectable.

I think the things mentioned in the post you replied to have enough of a circumstantial evidence base to have more than just an opinion or belief expressed about what actually occurred. In these cases, I usually do preface my comments, with "it appears that" or 'it is likely that".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yah, it's on GR's site. I'm not as convinced as GR that it's a "knock out blow". If anything it makes a worse case for CD. The fact that the free standing core was not square, but tapered means its destrcution was gradual, as would be suspected given the increasing plate thickness.

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I honestly don't know what gets people in a tight knot over corroded metal... The environment was more than conducive to it...

Isn't it a shame that none of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers was scrapped and smelted before it could be analyzed to determine if it was just "corrosion"?

 

[boloboffin]

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

The ones connected to the floor trusses vs. the ones which weren't?

 

[FineWine]

There are about 600 bolted floor truss connections/joints to walls per floor. The floor is actually square with a rectangulat hole in it and consist of different sections/panels as per:
[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loadDistribution.jpg[/qimg]

The "floor" is inside outer walls and outside the outer core columns indicated in the sketch that just show how much load is carried by outer core columns.

Evidently a floor cannot fall on another floor. For that 600 connections/joints must fail and then the floor must slide down inside the outer walls and the around the core.
What can fall is the upper part C on the lower part A, if you remove all columns in between. Then the lowest floor of C will contact the top floor of A, say floor #98 contacts floor #97 in WTC 1. And when that happens the destruction is arrested.
It has been explained many times.

You explain it wrong each time. It is hard to believe that you are an engineer. As the impact floors give way, the floors above them collapse. The entire mass falls on the next floor and the floor after that. As they fall, they gain weight and momentum. Obviously, nothing can stop them from crashing through each and every floor until the entire building is gone. You are playing some sort of dumb trick when you say that the collapse is "arrested." What arrests it? Magic?

 

[ozeco41]

You can't just laugh it off like that, Heiwa. You either prove that the floor-to perimeter brackets could withstand having other floors dropped on them or you wear raw runny egg all over your face.

The ability of the columns to resist vertical compression is irrelevant.

The only other way that the towers could have collapsed than from the severing of the floor-to-perimeter joints is for the columns to have been blown at their joints. The photos of perimeter columns with bent bolts just pulled out of their holes argues against that BS.

Nearly every photo I see of a floor-to perimeter column joint shows the brackets pulled inward and downward. They were clearly over-loaded.

Now, if you can come up with some examples of joints that were clearly cu by explosives, you might have some chance of proving your theories less than the laughing stock of the engineering profession.

Clearly and concisely stated leftysergeant

So let me show how this leads to two key points that "truthers" dare not admit.

First Point:

The falling Top Block fell wedged inside the outer wall tube of the lower section.


There can be no serious doubt that the floor joist to column connections at the outer ends were sheared by a large overload. The visual evidence is so clear for so many that most were. And even if there were a few which failed differently it does not change that overall situation.

The next step is to work out how the inner ends failed and there must be a strong initial presupposition that it was by a similar mechanism. So to test that hypothesis we need to look for structural factors which would count against it.

The failure of the outer ends occurred because the top block, in falling, fell inside the outer wall tube. There are many videos from truthers which show just that point when correctly interpreted including the classic David S Chandler video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

This means that outer floors and columns of top block are falling on outer floors but not columns of lower block. That much is obvious once the top block falls inside lower section outer tube is recognised.

So did the inner ends fail similarly?

What was there to stop it? This leads us to:

Second Point:

The falling core of the Top Block was an open bottom wire cage with far more space than steel. It fell onto an equivalent open cage of steel. And it could not fall with the columns aligned on columns and capable of transferring any more than a small fraction of the original strength in axial compression.

The Top Block core is falling more or less in the same place as the lower block core. It does not meet any more than token resistance. The only way that the inner ends of the Top Block floors could be prevented from striking the inner ends of the lower floors was if the core was to hold up the top block and leave the outer columns and floor sections "hanging" off the core of the Top Block suspended by the hat truss.

Since the core did not fall solid object on solid object there was no arresting support of the Top Block core and therefore no support holding up the floors of the top block.

So they struck the first in line lower section floors - (with whatever intervening weight of debris from impact zone damage - details not important)

And therefore the inner floor joist connectors failed.

And the core was "taken down" by the mix of bending, glancing blows, possibly some end connections striking already bowed/buckled columns and buckling further. And some missed entirely and left behind at that stage of collapse.

 

[Furcifer]

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

All the outer and none of the inner? I think you are grasping here. The spire was tapered, meaning both the outer and inner were stripped and probably in relation to their strengths (by height). There is one small section shown on GR's website (the lower most part was obstructed from view by camera angle and debris) that appears to have the outer columns stripped away. The camera angle and distance makes it hard to determine how much of the outer was stripped. I know for sure the spire was tapered, it's clearly visible in the video at any angle. My only conclusion is the the outer columns suffered more damage than the inner ones at any given height (which is to be expected, i'm not sure how much debris if any would have been funelled down the core to the floor levels of the spire, I would say the outer at that point served to protect the inner from damage, there is simply more mass outside the core trying to get in than inside trying to get out)

Simply put, if you are going to attribute the observed damage to the outer core columns to thermite or cutting charges etc. you have to explain the taper as being a result of these same charges. The notion that these charges were placed in such a manner, well below the impact zone, and of no real consequence to the collapse is patently absurd.

 

[Furcifer]

The ones connected to the floor trusses vs. the ones which weren't?

I mulled this over and based on the connections being sheared they probably contributed very little to the deformation of the core, less and less so as the collapsed progressed to the lower levels. My guess is that by that point in the collapse where the spire appears to have survived (50-60th floor) most of the damage to the core columns would have been loose debris "blasting" the core. The nature of the spire suggests an errosive action. That's my best guess.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snipped for brevity>

Sigh, my scepticism has been stretched well past breaking point already, but let us proceed with the pancake theory.

The pancake theory which had originally been hypothesized in the context of collapse initiation was brought up in 2001-2002 by FEMA if I recall correctly... this is not the basis of NIST's conclusion for the initiation. I believe we're quite well past those years. The pancaking of the floors was the mechanism for the collapse progression, not initiation.

This initial gravity fed "kinetic energy" blow out explosion,

What "blow out explosion"?

Some of the exploding top shoots steelwork upwards and outwards, against the tendency for gravity to pull things downwards.

You've been staring at them still pics a bit too long thar buddy... Gravity did a rather fine job at what it generally does best,

Amazing, so much additional over-abundance of energy from gravity was available it seems we might be able to exploit this kind of phenomenon as a new energy source.

The kinetic energy used in the collapse was always there... as potential energy. Nothing "new" was required for the collapse to continue.

This sudden loss of the top load does not seem to discourage the continuing mutually annihilating exploding pancake floor phenomena that rushes down the building, ripple-down explosive demolition,

What "loss" of the top load? Does mass magically disappear all because the upper section is no longer an intact section of building?

faster than the now disintegrated top load components can initially fall out of the sky, so faster than 32ft/s/s acceleration.

Hushabooms eh? It still seems to be popular I see...

Very odd indeed, but later the rate of ripple-down destruction slows a little so that the exploded falling top material can "catch up" to form a discrete curtain around the building, so hiding the final stages of the ripple-down low-resistance gravity-fed kinetic-energy explosive "collapse process".
[qimg]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.jpg[/qimg]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.wmv

You're not particularly good at this are you? I'm sorry, I know you invested a considerable amount of time on your response but the content doesn't demonstrate any experience in this subject. And using whatreallyhappened as a source ain't helping you...