More 9/11: failure of progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapse

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas
More 9/11: failure of progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapse

Would like this thread to focus on the anomalies of the WTC collapses, as much as possible, if we can.

My intent is to encourage deniers and any other interested parties to examine the progressive collapse theory as proposed by NIST (and others) and to acknowledge the absence in these explanations of commonly accepted physical principles. 

Issues Pages: 
jas

Here's a good article to start:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

(downloadable)

excerpt:  

Quote:
  5. Essentially in Free Fall

NIST: [Question:] "How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?" [Answer:] ... As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1,these collapse times show that: "... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"[3]. We agree with some of this, that the building "came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings "came down essentially in free fall" seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.) [13, 14] Further, we agree with NIST that "the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance" to the fall - but we ask - how could that be? NIST mentions "energy of deformation" which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be
considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the "intact structure" below would not significantly slow the motion.

Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable "free fall" collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upperpart of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.) Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST's calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

Would like this thread to focus on the anomalies of the WTC collapses, as much as possible, if we can.

It's a nice thought but it won't happen. However, I commit to not diverting the thread away from the issues surrounding the collapse of the twin towers. I also commit to not responding to diverters. I further commit to not posting any links or references without an accompanying editorial or thoughts of mine.

HeywoodFloyd

Now, as to the resistance of the building and the concerns surrounding the lack of resistance: when one looks at the twin towers, they are comprised of at best 80% air by space. Since buildings are designed to stand up and resist normal loads and not loads suck as the mass of 30 floors collapsing down on them, I'd say that the resistance met was what could be expected.

Once one floor went, and the mass of the remaining floors above that started to move, I don't see any reasonable reason why any remaining structure would be capable of holding that mass up, especially given the relatively unique construction of the twin towers.

Fidel

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
I don't see any reasonable reason why any remaining structure would be capable of holding that mass up, especially given the relatively unique construction of the twin towers.

I think Occam would suggest that the simplest explanation has already been avoided by a handful of NIST scientists with personal interests in keeping their government jobs and pensions.

al-Qa'bong

I guess buildings collapsing because they were hit by aeroplanes flying into them and weakening structures that were designed to resist strong winds - not huge solid objects flying at high speeds then bursting into high-temperature flames - is too complex an explanation.

 

Let's go with the simple theory that the Illuminati did it.

HeywoodFloyd

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

jas wrote:

Would like this thread to focus on the anomalies of the WTC collapses, as much as possible, if we can.

It's a nice thought but it won't happen. 

Just to quote myself.....like I said, it wouldn't happen.However, I will remain committed not to respond to diversions such as follows:

 

Fidel wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
I don't see any reasonable reason why any remaining structure would be capable of holding that mass up, especially given the relatively unique construction of the twin towers.

I think Occam would suggest that the simplest explanation has already been avoided by a handful of NIST scientists with personal interests in keeping their government jobs and pensions.

 

 

Caissa

I think Al-Q somes it up quite well in post #5.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I guess buildings collapsing because they were hit by aeroplanes flying into them and weakening structures that were designed to resist strong winds - not huge solid objects flying at high speeds then bursting into high-temperature flames - is too complex an explanation.

Rilly-rilly hot flaming flames that burst aflame and weakened steel just the teensiest little bit enough so as to cause five times the mass in material below the top of the building to represent no resistance whatsoever as if in free fall. Pull the other one, Heywood F. W. Galilei, it's got bells on.

Salsa

The problems with the CoM idea is that 1) gravity is a constant force throughout the whole process and 2) The falling mass does not need to overcome the inertia of the floor below it, gravity does that, it only needs to overcome the the strength of that floor's connections to the vertical columns

 

But if you're happy citing an article that isn't peer reviewed, and basically amounts to vanity press, then maybe trying to understand the collapse issue is a waste of your time.

A_J

al-Qa'bong wrote:
I guess buildings collapsing because they were hit by aeroplanes flying into them and weakening structures that were designed to resist strong winds - not huge solid objects flying at high speeds then bursting into high-temperature flames - is too complex an explanation.

Didn't you hear? A different building was once hit by a different kind of airplane under different circumstances and it didn't collapse.

Therefore buildings never collapse when hit by airplanes.

Q.E.D.

 

And clearly it was the Lizard People who are responsible.

Fidel

[Fidel, as you are aware we don't link to anti semitic websites, and rense.com is something we've deleted in the past. 

 

Also, ,...using Jeff Rense as an authority on anything??  Anti-semitic bigot aside, he's a crank.]

 

oldgoat

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

Would like this thread to focus on the anomalies of the WTC collapses, as much as possible, if we can.

My intent is to encourage deniers and any other interested parties to examine the progressive collapse theory as proposed by NIST (and others) and to acknowledge the absence in these explanations of commonly accepted physical principles. 

Jas, do you want to talk about this by email or babblemail?

This thread has gone....south. 

Salsa

Yep...the thread's been Fideled

Rensedotcom talking about melting steel

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

'nuff said.

mmphosis

The NIST report says fire weakened the structure.  I don't think that the report specifically mentions what type of fire.  To my knowledge, there has never been a criminal investigation of 9/11.

The fuel from the planes would not have burned hot enough to weaken the metal superstructure of all 107 or so floors.  However, a team could have cut the beams and/or used something like thermite to create the temperatures of a "fire" that would weaken, or possibly even disintegrate, a 107 story metal super structure.  The WTC towers were left unlocked on a weekend shortly before September 11, 2001.  I think this is because the security for the WTC was handled by a now defunct company that was run by a relative of the Bush family, not that I am implying the Bush family pulled this off, but certain members of the Bush family and/or possibly PNAC members might have had motivations to carry out a Pearl Harbor-like event through proxy. Hollywood even put out the blockbuster Pearl Harbor movie that summer.  Anyways, a team was installing network infrastructure throughout the building prior to September 11, 2001 when the buildings were unlocked.  It could be that they were installing more than network infrastructure throughout the building.  The few photos of the beams, before they were quickly hauled off and sold as scrap to China, show what appear to be clean cuts through the beams.  Fires burned below ground well after September 11, 2001 and there is evidence of by products of thermite or similar material.  So, given a few more clues as to what type of fire may have occured on 9/11 in the two towers, I would think that the NISTs report of "fire" sounds reasonable.

Oh, but the third building WTC7 is not mentioned very much. Larry Silverstein bought the asbestos contaminated WTC and a big insurance policy in August 2001.  Silverstein is the guy who said "pull it" meaning pull the team from WTC7 because somehow he suspected that the building was going to collapse demolition-style like the other two towers.  He later collected US$8,000,000,000 in insurance.  Anomalies?

How could it be that nobody on my supposed thermite installation team would not talk? Ask the RCMP if they've figured out who the owners are of those shoes (and feet) that washed up on our shores, at least the ones that did wash up, not that this is in anyway related, but it might offer a clue as to where the supposed installers might have gone.

Honey, what time is gladiators on, are we missing it?  And, how could no one know about any of this?  Well you might want to do this experiment:  ask as many people as you can, how many buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001 in New York City, and see what responses you get.

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
The problems with the CoM idea is that 1) gravity is a constant force throughout the whole process and 2) The falling mass does not need to overcome the inertia of the floor below it, gravity does that, it only needs to overcome the the strength of that floor's connections to the vertical columns

A section of the top of one of the towers listed at some large angle from zero degrees vertical. Are you saying that gravity alone caused it to right itself, then fall into the building's footprint and pulverizing nearly everything below it during near freefall?

Here's a more likely cause of the force du jour: [url=http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000... Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe[/url]

Not only did the non-engineers and non-scientists who produced the slip-shod 9/11 Commission Report totally ignore WTC7, they didn't even bother to look for evidence of explosives used as cutter charges in the demolitions that day.

Fidel

$8 billion dollars? That's a good deal for a drafty old building that should have been condemned. Why did the insurance company think it was such a sturdy building? Those guys are so careless with mismanaging risk and appraisal. They should watch a few re-runs of Holmes on Homes, or Flip this Trade Tower, or something.

Str.

We have yet to see a clear demonstration of the accepted version of events, which I am sure could be easily set up and accurately observed in a controlled manner, if true. Simply recreate the upper 40 floors in all its detail, then fly an appropriately configured plane into it and watch. The cost would be irrelevant, next to the pricelessness of the experiment's outcome; then do it over again, twice more.

Fidel

Oh there would be deniers denying it was a valid experiment unless the breeze was just right and angle of the sun exactly what it was on 9/11, EM storms from the sun, cosmic configuration not the same and just name it. Deniers hate Occam and his philisophical razor, and I dare say I think they would crucify him today if given the chance.

mmphosis
Str.

You're probably right Fidel. If there is any truth at all to actually come out, whatever that may be, it will occur purely by accident, not through investigation or evidence. And if it where to be re-enacted, Brad Pitt would be the star, and James Cameron its owner/produer/director.

Fidel

47 stories to rubble in under 7 s. Galileo would have been impressed.

In this next video, they botch the demolition and the building stops falling. Notice how the amateurs failed to have it fall into its own footprint, and how gravity causes the steel frame structure to tilt at an angle away from vertical.

[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7118529355131061026#]Zip Feed Mill demolition[/url] Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Fidel

[url=http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1735578]Another steel frame building that avoided all passenger planes on the exact same day it fell down[/url] Abu Dhabi demolition.

mmphosis

Fidel wrote:

47 stories to rubble in under 7 s. Galileo would have been impressed.

Yep...the thread's been Fideled

US Dept. of Energy Office of Declassification talking about atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work.

Hmmmm.

mayhaps more discussion.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

However, a team could have cut the beams and/or used something like thermite to create the temperatures of a "fire" that would weaken, or possibly even disintegrate, a 107 story metal super structure. 

 

Indeed; Occam's razor would point to the obvious - that a CIA-trained team of crack termites armed with silent hacksaws prepped the building before the Saturnalians in Building 7 (Get it? S.E.V.E.N - the mystical number favoured by the Illuminati) used their ancient Roman techniques (learned from the Babylonians) to bring down the two towers. The Illuminati has been annoyed with impressive buildings ever since they failed to bring down the pyramids of Cheops using the same techniques over two millenia ago.

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Now, as to the resistance of the building and the concerns surrounding the lack of resistance: when one looks at the twin towers, they are comprised of at best 80% air by space. Since buildings are designed to stand up and resist normal loads and not loads suck as the mass of 30 floors collapsing down on them, I'd say that the resistance met was what could be expected.

Once one floor went, and the mass of the remaining floors above that started to move, I don't see any reasonable reason why any remaining structure would be capable of holding that mass up, especially given the relatively unique construction of the twin towers.

Heywood, isn't this self-contradictory? You're saying that the buildings (which would include the upper 10 - 30 "crashing-down" floors in this scenario) are nevertheless 80% "air". So, 30 floors of 80% "air" crashing down on 70 floors. The 70 floors can't handle the weight of the 30? The 90 floors can't handle the weight of 10?

And if the floors are "crashing down" rather than pulverizing, where did they go at ground zero? Did the floors crash down or did they pulverize? According to your scenario, the top 30 floors (10 in the case of WTC1) should have ended up on top of a pile of crumpled, pancaked floors on the ground. This was not the case. I think some of you need to decide whether the floors pancaked or pulverized. NIST seems to confirm that they pulverized, in which case Judy Wood's (among many others) analysis is correct: You can't simultaneously pulverize and pancake something.

So which is it?

And thanks for your commitment to the thread integrity above :)

 

jas

Salsa wrote:

The problems with the CoM idea is that 1) gravity is a constant force throughout the whole process and 2) The falling mass does not need to overcome the inertia of the floor below it, gravity does that, it only needs to overcome the the strength of that floor's connections to the vertical columns

Gravity alone does not propel matter through the path of most resistance at a rate that suggests there is no intervening matter. What part of this simple physical principle don't you accept?

And anyway and again, we have to ask where is this "mass" that is crushing down on the vast bulk of either building, especially as we see significant portions of it disintegrating even as the collapse begins (as pointed out in pictures on Judy Wood's site). How does the force of gravity propel the top 1/10ths and 3/10ths of a building respectively down through 90 and 70 floors in the first place, and in the second place, at almost the same rate as if there were no building there at all? It's absurd.

Quote:

But if you're happy citing an article that isn't peer reviewed, and basically amounts to vanity press, then maybe trying to understand the collapse issue is a waste of your time.

Yeah. Is 911mysths.com peer reviewed?

Unionist

.

HeywoodFloyd

I don't need to decide either Jas. I don't have a problem with the way the buildings collapsed. When I say 70% air, in this case I'm refering to each floor as it received the impact of the above collapsing building.

 

Also, the momentum of the collapsing floors above would be far beyond the weight capacity of any structural member below. Should you not agree, I invite you to push on a non-moving car in neutral and then one moving at say 50kms\hr towards you.

 

As to where the top floors went at ground zero? If the floors of the building cannot hold up the 30 floors as the plunge towards the ground, it stands to reason that the floors themselves wouldn't be able to withstand the sudden stop at the bottom. There is also nothing to suggest that the floors themselves did not break apart at various points during the collapse and just join the rubble pile. 

In any case. I wasn't at ground zero ever so I wasn't able to observe the condition of the wreckage before the rescuers tore it apart. So there could very well have been places of stacked floor components.

jas

Heywood, if you support progressive collapse theory you do need to decide. Basic physics dictates that energy used in pulverization cannot also be used in pancaking. You understand this, right?

The fact that progressive collapse theory relies on both these forces indicates that it is not conforming to accepted scientific principles.

jas

BTW, found these pictures today. Not in support of any argument in particular, but they can serve to remind us of the massive volumes of dust that went airborne in these so-called "pancaking" buildings. Pancaking buildings don't produce dust clouds of this scale.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/02/10/12825831.html

 

jas

This picture also shows the condition of this so-called irresistible "mass" that crushes down on the bulk of the building below. Reminder to my denier friends here: fire burns up.

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

Heywood, if you support progressive collapse theory you do need to decide. Basic physics dictates that energy used in pulverization cannot also be used in pancaking. You understand this, right?

The fact that progressive collapse theory relies on both these forces indicates that it is not conforming to accepted scientific principles.

Sure, if all the energy was expended in pulverizing gypsum et al then yes I agree. However, there would be more than enough energy in the process to account for any pulverization and the shearing of the floor supports. 

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

BTW, found these pictures today. Not in support of any argument in particular, but they can serve to remind us of the massive volumes of dust that went airborne in these so-called "pancaking" buildings. Pancaking buildings don't produce dust clouds of this scale.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/02/10/12825831.html

 

Trying to keep this in context, isn't that dust mainly gypsum and drywall, as wlell as other debris from the collapse?

Salsa

Jas

If you still find the rate of collapse so absurd, then how long do you think it should have taken?

Might what you see disintegrating be the interior components of the building, like drywall ? The actual pulverization of the concrete happened during the sudden stop at the bottom of the "pancake"

 

 

Jas wrote:
Yeah. Is 911mysths.com peer reviewed?

 

touché

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Sure, if all the energy was expended in pulverizing gypsum et al then yes I agree. However, there would be more than enough energy in the process to account for any pulverization and the shearing of the floor supports. 

Actually, it's the reverse. If it were just pulverizing gypsum, and not concrete and 284 steel columns in the core and periphery then your theory might make slightly more sense. But it wasn't, and no, there was definitely not more than enough energy.

HeywoodFloyd

I don't see how the steel was pulverized so maybe I'm just reading what you wrote wrong. There was stacks of it in the rubble, along with masses of concrete pieces.

jas

Please just look at the picture:

 

How is this severely compromised "mass", a tiny fraction of the bulk of the building, able to crush down  through 70 (or is it 90) floors at nearly the speed of gravity? It can't.

 

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

I don't see how the steel was pulverized so maybe I'm just reading what you wrote wrong. There was stacks of it in the rubble, along with masses of concrete pieces.

Some, but not a pile large enough to suggest 110 pancaked floors.

But thank you for admitting that there were 284 reinforced steel columns and acres of concrete in the buildings. To suggest that vast volumes of matter of this density provides only four seconds of resistance to a falling mass of lighter density and weight is certainly ludicrous and scientiifically invalid.

HeywoodFloyd

Well, it did. And it isn't a tiny fraction. It's between a quarter and a third of the bulk of the building, siginficantly damaged and lacking structural integrity at the fire and impact locations. 

Also, it isn't the whole building that it has to crush through. Just the next floor down. 

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

I don't see how the steel was pulverized so maybe I'm just reading what you wrote wrong. There was stacks of it in the rubble, along with masses of concrete pieces.

Some, but not a pile large enough to suggest 110 pancaked floors.

But thank you for admitting that there were 284 reinforced steel columns and acres of concrete in the buildings. To suggest that vast volumes of matter of this density provides only four seconds of resistance to a falling mass of lighter density and weight is certainly ludicrous and scientiifically invalid.

We've been here before but you decided to ignore it. Parts of the core stood for up to 25 seconds after the collapse initiation. Also, the pile that you're concerned extended several stories underground. And, given that the building is at best 70-80% air, the amount of rubble in no way resembles the intact volume of space.

jas

Heywood, that's not possible. We are talking 3/10ths and 1/10th of these buildings. Fire burns up, not down. The compromise occurred in this so-called mass that was then supposed to weigh down on the remaining 70 and 90 floors respectively. You  know this is absurd. I would think you would be embarassed to be defending such silliness.

HeywoodFloyd

Jas, WRT the size of the pile and the amount of debris, as well as pancaking:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

(most of the way down)

Quote:

Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.

"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."

There is ample evidence of pancaking in the results, and seeing fourteen floors in 8 feet shows that the debris compressed very tightly.

 

jas

A fire-ravaged upper fraction of a building made of air, somehow manages to crush down onto the undamaged bulk of the rest of it, such that it even plummets below street level.

Is this seriously what we're arguing? It's a waste of time. You won't even acknowledge basic, common sense physics.

 

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

Heywood, that's not possible. We are talking 3/10ths and 1/10th of these buildings. Fire burns up, not down. The compromise occurred in this so-called mass that was then supposed to weigh down on the remaining 70 and 90 floors respectively. You  know this is absurd. I would think you would be embarassed to be defending such silliness.

So the fire burned up? are you saying that the fire burned enough of the building away to lighten the structural load? 

Also, 3/10ths and 1/10th are not a tiny fraction as you referred to then as.

jas

That's great, Heywood. Where are the other 96 floors?

I'm going to bed.

HeywoodFloyd

jas wrote:

A fire-ravaged upper fraction of a building made of air, somehow manages to crush down onto the undamaged bulk of the rest of it, such that it even plummets below street level.

Is this seriously what we're arguing? It's a waste of time. You won't even acknowledge basic, common sense physics.

 

Yes. The building doesn't stop at street level. It stops at the bottom of the basement. And yes, your first sentence is exactly what happened. One floor at a time.

jas

Look at the fucking picture.

HeywoodFloyd

What about it? The WTC is on fire. 

But I don't understand your issue with the fire. Like I asked before: are you saying that the fire burned enough of the building away to lighten the structural load? 

And don't swear at me. It isn't necessary.

jas

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

jas wrote:

A fire-ravaged upper fraction of a building made of air, somehow manages to crush down onto the undamaged bulk of the rest of it, such that it even plummets below street level.

Quote:

Yes. The building doesn't stop at street level. It stops at the bottom of the basement. And yes, your first sentence is exactly what happened. One floor at a time.

Oh, I forgot something: the pulverized, compromised upper fraction of the building made of air crushed down on the intact bulk of the building, simultaneoulsy pancaking and pulverizing it.

And yes, Heywood. Fire burns up. It was burning in the upper fraction of the building. It was the upper fraction of this building that burned for the hour before this still leaden weight of burnt, 80%-air, fraction of a building plummeted downward through the 70 or 90 intact floors at near free-fall speed. This is your scientific argument.

Fidel

How can a building fall down with near perfect symmetry when the damage was anything but symmetrical? Hey I think I know how. They used cutter charges. A few hundred pounds of thermite, some cloned cell phones connected to fuses, and boom-boom-boom-boom... just like eye witnesses and emergency workers at the scene of the crimes reported hearing.

Pages

Topic locked