• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC 1,2 Collapse Sequence

I love it when people use their subjective opinions in place of fact. Billows that appear evenly spaced and symmetrical? That just has to be evidence of explosives.:rolleyes:

It'd be fun to take such people to Avenue of the Giants and watch their heads explode Scanners style.
 
paulheinze said:
Balzac-Vitry is a controlled demolition. If the WTC "collapsed" in a similar way, it points to controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole plane impact and fire deal... and pretty much every building in the immediate vicinity either being crushed or heavily damaged in the process.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Well, in the real world an upper part C of a structure cannot one-way crush down a bigger part A of same structure, that carried C above before, when some local structural elements between C and A fail due, e.g. fire and C thus displaces downwards due to gravity and failed elements. The only result will be more local failures, generally in C, that quickly absorbs the potential energy released and applied and ... the process is arrested. Evidently the result will not be 'near free fall' of C first impacting A and then 'one-way' crushing down A and other fairy tales.

I look forward to your Hardfire debate with Tony S and David C about this simple matter.
Click to expand...

Heiwa. I can't believe you even posted this after being shown to be totally wrong about this. You've got guts, I'll give you that.
 
paulheinze said:
Balzac-Vitry is a controlled demolition. If the WTC "collapsed" in a similar way, it points to controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Nope. There was this little thing about the plane impacts and uncontrolled fires. The both of them caused the failure that has to be artificially performed in controlled demolitions. The similarity is that once this failure occurred, be it man made or a huge freaking jet plane loaded with fuel and the resulting uncontrolled fires, gravity takes care of the rest.
 
paulheinze said:
Balzac-Vitry is a controlled demolition. If the WTC "collapsed" in a similar way, it points to controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
False.
The primary energy source for CD is gravity. So WTC collapse does not look like CD, CD looks like a gravity collapse. Why is it so simple to debunk the delusions of a failed movement when that movement offers zero evidence?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Nope. There was this little thing about the plane impacts and uncontrolled fires. The both of them caused the failure that has to be artificially performed in controlled demolitions. The similarity is that once this failure occurred, be it man made or a huge freaking jet plane loaded with fuel and the resulting uncontrolled fires, gravity takes care of the rest.
Click to expand...

It is really an astonishing observation. What has to be done on purpose and planned just happend "accidentally". As you said these were uncontrolled fire. I think it is hard to believe that chaotic process leads to a symmetrical failure.
Are there any other examples of verinage-style self-destruction of buildings?

The official theory does not look really convincing to me.
So you could explain to me the inward bowing theory.
My problem is as follows:
The trusses rested on the connections to the perimeter and core columns under a gravity load F.
Bevor weakening they exerted a downward force F/2 on the respective columns via the truss connection. As I see they did not pull at the columns at this time.

Now the floors are heated up. Thermal expansions occurs (like WTC 7 ;-). Now they should push the perimeter columns outwards.

Let them be heated up more until they lose they structural strength. Now they are not bending but sagging. Let's say like a hanging bridge.

To my understanding they should exert the Force F/2 like in the normal stage on inner and outer columns, but no pulling inward force.

A pulling inward force would occur
-if the trusses were cooled down well below the columns so that thermal contraction would occur.
-if the core columns failed pulling the perimeter columns inwards via the trusses

Another explanation might be that the unsupported length of the perimeter columns was increased by the sagging trusses, making them buckle. But as I know NIST did not explain the bowing this way.

Where does the pulling force come from?


It would be nice to see an explanation why the strongest inward bowing occured on a floor that did not loose it's fireproofing (according to NIST)?
 
paulheinze said:
It is really an astonishing observation. What has to be done on purpose and planned just happend "accidentally". As you said these were uncontrolled fire. I think it is hard to believe that chaotic process leads to a symmetrical failure.
Are there any other examples of verinage-style self-destruction of buildings?

The official theory does not look really convincing to me.
So you could explain to me the inward bowing theory.
My problem is as follows:
The trusses rested on the connections to the perimeter and core columns under a gravity load F.
Bevor weakening they exerted a downward force F/2 on the respective columns via the truss connection. As I see they did not pull at the columns at this time.

Now the floors are heated up. Thermal expansions occurs (like WTC 7 ;-). Now they should push the perimeter columns outwards.

Let them be heated up more until they lose they structural strength. Now they are not bending but sagging. Let's say like a hanging bridge.

To my understanding they should exert the Force F/2 like in the normal stage on inner and outer columns, but no pulling inward force.

A pulling inward force would occur
-if the trusses were cooled down well below the columns so that thermal contraction would occur.
-if the core columns failed pulling the perimeter columns inwards via the trusses

Another explanation might be that the unsupported length of the perimeter columns was increased by the sagging trusses, making them buckle. But as I know NIST did not explain the bowing this way.

Where does the pulling force come from?


It would be nice to see an explanation why the strongest inward bowing occured on a floor that did not loose it's fireproofing (according to NIST)?
Click to expand...
Is this based on your engineering training? Did you earn a PhD in the last 8 years, or just a masters degree in Engineering? You got some stuff wrong so I quoted it for your to see years from now if you ever do earn a degree in engineering.

Robertson said, “the collapse mechanism of the trade center, is as we anticipated it would be, when we first designed it”
Click to expand...
Oops the chief structural engineer says the WTC was not blown up, or thermite-d. What say you? What is your conclusion on who did 911 and how did the WTC collapse? Robertson says impacts 7 to 11 times greater than he designed for and fire. What say you?
 
paulheinze said:
It is really an astonishing observation. What has to be done on purpose and planned just happend "accidentally".
Click to expand...

What has to be planned about a controlled demolition is that the collapse has to be accomplished without damaging or destroying every building close to the building that collapses. Since every building adjacent to the Twin Towers was effectively destroyed in the collapse, and many other nearby buildings were either destroyed, damaged beyond repair or damaged very seriously in the collapses, it is clear that this is not consistent with a carefully planned collapse of the exact type that occurs in a controlled demolition.

You may want to say in response that this was not a conventional controlled demolition. You should note, before saying that, that such a response is an automatic refutation of your claim that the collapse must have been a controlled demolition because it looked like one; you would be claiming that the collapse must not have been a conventional controlled demolition because it resembled one, which is an absurd claim.

paulheinze said:
As you said these were uncontrolled fire. I think it is hard to believe that chaotic process leads to a symmetrical failure.
Click to expand...

I really do take exception to this constantly repeated, deliberate lie by truthers that the WTC collapses were "symmetrical". They very obviously were not, and this should be obvious to anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to the details of the collapse. Please refrain from repeating this lie; it may not be yours and you may be repeating it unwittingly, but it is a lie, and one that poisons this debate at every stage. Look at the collapse videos for yourself - all of them - and then explain how a collapse, originating identifiably at one side of a buiding, in which the upper block rotates about a horizontal axis can possibly be described as "symmetrical". Then try to find a way to describe it that is actually true.


paulheinze said:
My problem is as follows:
The trusses rested on the connections to the perimeter and core columns under a gravity load F.
Bevor weakening they exerted a downward force F/2 on the respective columns via the truss connection. As I see they did not pull at the columns at this time.

Now the floors are heated up. Thermal expansions occurs (like WTC 7 ;-). Now they should push the perimeter columns outwards.

Let them be heated up more until they lose they structural strength. Now they are not bending but sagging. Let's say like a hanging bridge.

To my understanding they should exert the Force F/2 like in the normal stage on inner and outer columns, but no pulling inward force.
Click to expand...

Then your understanding is in error. Once the floors are sagging, they are operating at least partly in tension, so any forces transmitted by them are no longer perpendicular to the transverse members. In the limit of extreme deformation, the floor trusses act like a cable in tension, so that the force transmitted by them is parallel to the transverse members; in this limit, the majority of the force would be horizontal, and in fact very much greater than the weight of the floors and the trusses combined (I suggest you look at the forces on a suspension bridge cable as an analogy). The actual case would have been an intermediate one between the case of an effectively rigid truss and an effectively flexible cable, but it should be intuitively obvious - once you've appreciated the limiting case - that this would exert a significant inward force on the columns, and that this force could even have exceeded the weight of the floor section.

I suggest you draw out the sagging floor truss, look at the forces on the ends, and do some trigonometry. The pull-in forces can be very much larger than the weight on the truss, because the bowing geometry gives a mechanical advantage.

Dave
 
paulheinze said:
It is really an astonishing observation. What has to be done on purpose and planned just happend "accidentally". As you said these were uncontrolled fire. I think it is hard to believe that chaotic process leads to a symmetrical failure.
Are there any other examples of verinage-style self-destruction of buildings?

The official theory does not look really convincing to me.
So you could explain to me the inward bowing theory.
My problem is as follows:
The trusses rested on the connections to the perimeter and core columns under a gravity load F.
Bevor weakening they exerted a downward force F/2 on the respective columns via the truss connection. As I see they did not pull at the columns at this time.

Now the floors are heated up. Thermal expansions occurs (like WTC 7 ;-). Now they should push the perimeter columns outwards.

Let them be heated up more until they lose they structural strength. Now they are not bending but sagging. Let's say like a hanging bridge.

To my understanding they should exert the Force F/2 like in the normal stage on inner and outer columns, but no pulling inward force.

A pulling inward force would occur
-if the trusses were cooled down well below the columns so that thermal contraction would occur.
-if the core columns failed pulling the perimeter columns inwards via the trusses

Another explanation might be that the unsupported length of the perimeter columns was increased by the sagging trusses, making them buckle. But as I know NIST did not explain the bowing this way.

Where does the pulling force come from?


It would be nice to see an explanation why the strongest inward bowing occured on a floor that did not loose it's fireproofing (according to NIST)?
Click to expand...

See this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107267
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom