All you do is bend the flooring and maintain the connections. What if those same floors had disconnected from the interior column mounting? Then you would have 650 tonnes/floor of concrete pulling on the outer walls. The only thing connected to the exterior columns are the floors
each office floor of the wtc had eight sections. only the middle sections connected the walls directly to the core. The corner floors were not directly connected to the core but to the middle sections. This prevents the corner columns from collapsing if the core fails and pulls on the floors. The outer wall can probably only collapse in itself when the core falls down and pulls on the floors which pulls on the wall. The floors itself cannot pull down the walls. They are too leight weight .
Pity we only have to watch real videos of the collapses to see that the buildings didn't fall the way this video says they did. You can quite clearly see the inner core remains standing for a very short while after the intial collapse. Another fail troofer.
The planes were SHREDDED by the buildings' structure.
See the Youtube videos showing a plane being slammed by rocket sled into a 3 foot thick reinforced concrete wall. The plane is reduced to fragments at impact.
The concrete wall shows scarcely a dent or scratch.
Obviously all 3 WTC builds were brought down by controlled demolition.
The architect was interviewed earlier that year, when he revealed that info, and has been missing since 9/11 according to a YouTybe vid at DOLLARPAGES [] ORG. You will never understand who runs America {& Canada} unless you have read The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion found at the *A Wicked Plan* page at dollarpages. Happy awakening! ;-) You either get it or you don't, enjoy the Lithium in your water supply! and the CHEMTRAILS in the sky & giving taxes to pay interest to private bankers
MOREOVER, the architect himself said that the towers could withstand SEVERAL HITS, JUST LIKE POKING HOLES IN MOSQUITO NETTING. Plus, pretend the plane was stationary and the building was moving, seems to any rational human the PLANE would be smashed and not the other way around. Hollow wings with fuel DO NOT have the ability to cut through steel beams. SIMPLE CRASH PHYSICS! You must be using Fluoride? {it's rat poison} or maybe you need to look up "Brain-eating" vaccines I know you took the shot
looks like engineers doing peer review, and many reject the government account. so the government's case failed peer review and that is a very important distinction to note most private sector architects/engineers disagree with the 9/11 report. .
I have a question. At 1:35, you say "Each floor on this scale model measures 420mm by 420 mm by 100 mm". What do those dimensions represent? Using those numbers, if a floor was 10 foot high, then each building was 42 foot wide? That's incorrect. A rough measurement shows they were about 215 x 215 feet. Even if you intended 100mm to represent 3 floors, its still way off. I like your math skills.
@mechanicalbu11 I'm not the one trying to make a case here. I'm asking you where you got these numbers because they dont in any way represent the building we're discussing. And if they don't then how valid is your computer model's analysis? My measurement of 215 x 215 feet (approx) is from Google Earth and anyone can corroboratre that. I was wrong about the height of a floor. According to Wiki, the floors were 12 foot, not 10 as I assumed.
@Nash1a The only way I can make your model ever generally fit within the realm of possibility is if the model was of 3 floors, not one as stated. If its a simple matter of a mistake in the description, I can buy that. But if the description is correct, then this is in no way a scale model in anything close to the WTC towers.
@Nash1a You are right on! Who ever made this is sick in the head. Deflection!? Ya, maybe the plane was jumping up and down on the floor like a trampoline!? MOLTEN POOLS OF METAL WAY OVER 2000 DEGREES BURNING FOR WEEKS SAYS IT ALL PLUS THE VIDEOS BY PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH ARE UNDEBEUNKABLE. Hey SHILL, repent and ask God to forgive you for your government Koolaid induced stupor. Try reading DOLLARPAGES [] ORG a few times {in your case MANY TIMES} and see if you learn a thing or 2 about life! ENJOY!
@vhsjvc Oh, I see. I point out that this video is full of logical and factual holes and that makes me a government shill. Don't you see that making that statement proves you are delusional and paranoid?
Your schematics of the WTC do not match the true schematics in any way, therefore making this FEA garbage. Please rebuild your model according to true schematics.
In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.
The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.
There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon Weakly
Over half the people want a real investigation, a legititmate investigation is well overdue!
OK! Steel doesn't have to MELT to lose it's support. It only needs to weaken. At 600 Celcius it has an effective Young's Modulus of half of that at normal temperatures 20 Celcius.
And how can you POSSIBLY know that the "frame", as you put it, can withstand 2500 Celcius when steel becomes liquid at half of that temperature!
And btw, architecture has NOTHING to do with the structural system of a building. So, start using your brain.
the jetfuel fires burned for over four to six minutes then the smoke came out black. There was soot sticking as well, that's practically an oxygen-starved fire. fire's cool enough to dissipate, the lowest would be about 400F.
That ASTM E119 steel was designed to withstand 3000F fires, as per their rating code.
Did NIST even attempt to weaken a core column under heavy load for their reports? I doubt it is even mentioned on the reports.
You do realize that it does? If you really took structural engineering classes, you probably know about Young's Modulus, 210 000 MPa for steel, BUT it decreases as the temperature rises. That's why steel weakens indeed!
And it melts the rest of the undamaged, untouched building to its foundation?
The core must be made of toothpicks and cheese then, maybe I was mistaken. LOL.
To have it fallen under 13 seconds from where it stood without any resistance whatsoever, we're talking about 30,000 estimate against a 280,000 tons estimate of steel and concrete structure.
So you're saying it just... plowed through without ANY RESISTANCE whatsoever? We have laws of physics, too you know...
"Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis."
Article by Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie - Silicon Weakly
Over half the people want a real investigation, how long before the rest join in?
I studied Structural Engineering as a minor in that degree.
Guess what?
WTC did not collapse due to a fire nor damage to the core.
47 extremely thick and dense steel core beams holding a load as heavy as WTC should not have failed, especially since it's surrounded in reinforced concrete.
Whoever thinks I'm making this up, you should study the structural design of the WTC yourself, to dimensions and scale.
NIST and FEMA didn't mention much about the cores.
Ehm, none of the columns in either the perimeter wall nor the core were protected by concrete. Concrete was only used for the floors. In hindsight that is perhaps one of the biggest structural flaws of this design, a design that worked very well when subjected to the normal structural loads, but proved lethally dangerous when subjected to fire.
Did you not see the pictures of the core's construction? They poured thick concrete around it. It's kind of obvious. This building was overengineered to withstand major disasters but not an airplane crashing, even when several engineers had verified that the WTC would never collapse under a plane prior to 9/11?
I've studied this tower, trust me. I know it from inside and out.
Ok, show me pictures of the concrete in the core. If you've studied "this tower" (not even knowing that there were TWO of them), you should indeed know that there was NO concrete around the core column, only the floor slabs.
Unless you'd prefer it to be a "thin, hollow steel shaft" like the 9/11 commission reports said, which is a lie. I've studied these towers since 1997 buddy, no one's going to fool me.
As for pictures of the core, you can simply do a google search on the concrete surrounding the core of the WTC. Even wiki has it, and several engineering sites.
I'm guessing you did not study it enough bud, or you're a NIST believer. :3
Oooh my! You've actually based your decade long "study" on a conceptual drawing from the sixties which you erroneously calls a graph. Of course you've noticed that the core of this proof of yours has the wrong number of columns even compared with your second photo, which is a still from a video made by an amateur (looks good, but has no basis in reality). If you want to convince me, show me a PHOTO (not a "graph") of the CONSTRUCTION of the REAL TOWERS!
You fail to realize that there's gotta be something covering that core :D
It can't be drywall. Those noisy elevators would be HELL to hear!
Concrete's pretty much soundproof, I used to live in a house surrounded in concrete. No matter if it was a hurricane, I could not hear a thing outside unless I was near a window or a door.
New York - In a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN), a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November.
A must see for truth seeker, skeptic and stooge alike.
It substantiates the use of nano-thermite and explains why debris being blasted out by the demolition sequence is falling faster than the freefalling building.
Be a patriot, not a stooge, by supporting a full-scale, multi-national, independent investigation of the crime of the millennium.
If it wasn't controlled demolition, then there's nothing to hide.
Thanks, I think I'll listen to the highrise structural engineers, fire protection engineers, & metallurgists instead of you. No one says the fires melted the steel. They WEAKENED it. Stop listening to Joe Blow's unaccountable shitty conspiracy web site & video & do some legit research.
There are now 793 Architects and Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.
More importantly, over half of the American people have serious questions about 9/11 and want a real investigation.
You don't need to be an engineer to see this was controlled demolition, just a little old fashioned common sense and a basic understanding of physics and you must be able to comprehend that kerosene can't melt steel.
How many of those 750 are highrise structural engineers?
Answer: 0
How many are fire protection engineers?
Answer: 0
Anyone with expertise in explosives and incendiaries?
Nope.
But you'll find plenty of folks with irrelevant expertise - mechanical engineers, maritime engineers, etc.
And Blueprint for "Truth" is full of errors & intentional deceptions. It says firefighters, who lost 343 of their own that day, were informed that Building 7 was going to be detonated. Oh sure they were!!
Explain to me how all the explosions would have failed to instantaneously accelerate all small debris within the blast radius past the speed of sound, thus generating sonic booms that would have been audible for miles around? Why would no debris be imbedded in towers 600 feet around, as much of the light material around these explosives would have been flying at speeds approaching MACH 4?
Truthers are delusional paranoid schizophernics. They want to sell you a product, and they will eliminate any evidence that disproves their statement.
The ignorance of these conspiracy "theorys" is out of control.
This is what happens to the masses when exposed to too much movies, MTV, marketing/advertising, You get disconected with history, logic and critical thinking. THE OFFICIAL STORY HOLDS, DUMMIES!!
if the trusses failed then most of the center supporting columns should have been standing unless the center columns were not connected to each other in some way. This buidling never feel inthe path of least resistance theory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you've had your fill of pseudo-science from the likes of Steven Jones, Richard Gage, & the other usual charlatans, here's a set of links to scientific and engineering papers, reports, and analyses by people with more expertise and experience than that conspiracy clowns have:
Anyone interested in the truth needs to see this video from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
*911 Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture for Destruction - With Richard Gage, AIA*
The events of 911 are not a liberal versus conservative issue, and they're not a racial or religious issue, they are in fact a criminal issue. All three towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
KevinMerck likes to withhold the names from these quotes so you can't go check them out for yourself. In this case, the quote was from FDNY Orio Palmer, who was on the 78th floor where a wingtip had passed through. Imagine what it was like on the 81st floor, where the fuselage hit.
Hey Kevin, why not quote someone from the 20th floor where there was no fire. If he personally didn't see a fire, that means there wasn't one, right?
So one guy didn't see a fire. Did it already spread to other areas after he'd arrived? Does he have a name? What about all those people who did see fires? I guess you just forgot to mention them, right?
The second plane hit six floors below us. We made our way down the stairs to where the plane hit and there was no fire to speak of, just a few flames licking up the side of the wall. As we proceeded down the stairs, a couple floors below the impact, conditions were normal. The lights were on and there was fresh air coming up from below.
Two small pockets of fire, two lines to knock them down.
Where are all these raging fires capable of causing a global collapse?
Unfortunately we do not know enough about the extent of damage to the core columns.
There were ~60 closely spaced perimeter columns each face. This meant an inherant robustness of the perimeter frame.
The same cannot be said for the core. You need to understand that the core columns would likely've been over-stressed and there were a LOT fewer columns.
In general, the perimeter had reserve so as to be able to resist transient high wind loading.
YOUR A WELL SPOKEN FULL OF SHIT KIND OF PERSON. You conveniently leave out, or forget out of lack of scope, critical pieces of information. You sir are intellectual scum.
Spoken like a true "ignoramus". What critical pieces are you talking about??? I only post statements made by credible professionals. You should spend more time paying attention and less insulting people.
I agree. Truthers do not know how to account for evidence that is totally missing that would support their claims. For instance, this video implies explosives were used on various floors that were not associated with the collapse.
Let's assume that this is, for the moment, laughably true. Where, then, are the sonic booms that would be caused by small debris being instantaneously accelerated past the sound barrier and that would be audible up to 2 miles away and send debris flying into NJ?
I have posted statements from engineers. I don't make any claims on my own, but simply use actual analysis from people that I respect based on their experience in the field.
One has to have come to terms with the fact that so many more experts don't agree with the official explanations. This is disturbing, to say the least and no amount of insults or desperate attempts at discrediting will change this very fact.
It's time to put aside emotional bashing and finally get to the truth.
If you heat steel, steel weakens. It might not melt, but it loses its strength. Considerably.
Google world trade centre and look at the University of Sydney's explanation. I hope this can allay your skepticism, although I doubt it will as you seem very caught up in the web of conspiracy - which is a shame. Because you should be open minded in both directions.
"If you heat steel, steel weakens. It might not melt, but it loses its strength. Considerably."
PART 1
"My first-order analysis of WTC1 collapse suggests insufficient energy for pulverization of concrete slabs in the floor elements.Official story does not explain why weakening by FIRE resulted in abrupt collapse, rather than a sagging-slumping failure mode."-Brian Brademeyer, MS CE Former Senior Research Engineer, MIT 1975 - 1987
"...claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire.- Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI
"Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove."
Well, it seems that even qualified engineers can't spark the slightest doubt in your mind. Do me a favor and stop wasting my time and yours. I get it loud and clear that we live in two different worlds.
"These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness."
--Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho
"Google world trade centre and look at the University of Sydney's explanation. I hope this can allay your skepticism, although I doubt it will as you seem very caught up in the web of conspiracy - which is a shame. Because you should be open minded in both directions."
Yes, if you read my responses, quotes from actual credible engineers, you'll see that
I HAVE BEEN OPEN MINDED and EVERY REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THE OFFICIAL STORY.
Unfortunately you are blinded, again, this is a shame. you need to be more open minded. Look at both sides - your quotes are interesting, but they are all one-sided.
There was an inferno in that building. An inferno encapsulated by steel framing and that steel framing conducted a lot of heat.
That heat weakened the structure. When connections fail, the result is abrupt - a sudden severe loading change will result in the sudden failure witnessed.
I've been refuting your points - one of your quotes asked something to the effect of "why was the collapse so sudden"? It was sudden because of a connection failure which instantly overloads the members. Suddenly asking the impact zone columns to take 10 storeys of WTC is a big ask.
We're not living in different worlds - we live in the same world, seen through different eyes. I have read your points and refuted, but you have not refuted mine.
You have not refuted anything. Just made ignorant comments with nothing to back them up.
"Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building..." "There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.
"...all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand 100-mile-per-hour winds. Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before
Firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson (WTC Engineers):
POINT 3.
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. "
Firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson (WTC Engineers):
POINT 5.
"The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure."
It was the jet fuel fires that weakened, NOT MELTED the structure. Local damage therefore has nothing to do with it. Your a nut and I realize theres nothing I can do about it.
Oh yes, and jet fuel fires caused the total symmetrical collapse at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance. While all UNDAMAGED supporting grid structure below just spontaneously and conveniently stepped out of the way to suspend the laws of physics that day.
NOTHING your saying makes me any more convinced that your conspiracy "theory" is AT ALL correct. Your arguments are weak and not backed up I believe that a terrorist catastrophe on the magnitude of 9/11, brings out the cognitively challenged like yourself, and gives you an unfortunate(for society) soap box to try and persuade weak minded non critical thinkers to your conspiracy "theory".
First, for someone who claims to have a certain degree of intelligence, you sure are a contradiction. Calling others "ignoramus" and "retards" surely shows a new low in tolerance and a lack of intelligence.
Second, it's not "my" theory, but my opinion based on statements made by hundreds of professionals questioning the official story. If you were actually looking for the truth, you'd realize this, but then, truth is a new concept for people like you.
People like me? Im an atheist bucko. The truth is my existance and I have a solid backround in it. It's people of your Ilk that make the world so confusing and jacked up. Please hang yourself soon.
"Oh yes, and jet fuel fires caused the total symmetrical collapse at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance."
Amazing that a story being 64% air would be "resistant" to you. As has been proven by Truthers, the towers accelerated at 64% of free fall, which would be consistent with the fact that 64% of the floors were empty space.
Also, you guys through around "symmetrical" as if you knew what it meant. Please look up the definition for "rigid body" in physics. Thanks.
I fail to see how a smaller section of lesser strength, could go through the UNDAMAGED much stronger supporting section below. Redundancy in strength is what the wtc had in order to withstand 100 mph winds, aside from usual loads (dynamic, static, etc).
Where does you "rigid body" create the energy to pulverize concrete, dislodge all supports/connectors , suspend the laws of conservation of momentum, and all in roughly 15 seconds?
Resistance to me is the tons of UNDAMAGED supporting steel structure BELOW. This "resistance would include the 47 core columns and the perimeter columns which were stronger than your "rigid body" above. Lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
You assume that the floor trusses can INSTANTANEOUSLY transmit load to the columns from the bare floor.
This is the thing that gets me about you Truthers. You assume that the floors are what is holding up the buildings. NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE CASE. The columns were holding up the columns above it, and the floors hang from the columns.
The floors are NOT designed to support any significant force. It was the FLOORS that gave away, not the columns to allow the collapse.
You assume that the floors would hold when the entire floor structure of 3 floors above them slammed down onto them, even though the only thing holding the floors in place were bolts at the end of each truss.
Additionally, Truthers make a very forced assertion that the collapse was perfectly symmetrical. It is obvious from the evidence that the collapse was very asymmetrical for both WTC1 and WTC2.
And most every building collapse goes to the ground.
That's funny, then I assume, based on your assertion, that we should at least see the core columns still standing, since they experience no vertical loads.
You really are grasping at straws here. Where does the energy come from to pulverize tons of concrete, eject heavy beams hundreds of feet laterally, while maintaining constant momentum without any resistance from the UNDAMAGED support grid below? Molten metal in basements of all three WTCs?
"That's funny, then I assume, based on your assertion, that we should at least see the core columns still standing, since they experience no vertical loads."
Why do you Truthers always say things which show an obvious lack of actual research?
"Why do you Truthers always say things which show an obvious lack of actual research?"
I've done more research than you can comprehend. So, you might want to direct ignorant comments like that towards the 750 professionals that question the bs official story. Not to mention the countless others who don't believe the hype.
LMAO. Nice research again. You mean like the "sanitation engineer" (aka Janitor) that's on that list of lauded people? Give me a break. Your level of "research" is limited to YouTube videos... and only YouTube videos made by Truthers.
You need to look up the term "objectivity" sometime.
"Watch. Portions of the inner core DID remain standing for a short period of time."
The fact that it collapsed from the bottom straight down is what is obvious to me. Since there is no impact from below, it remains an interesting question as to what brought it down that way.
Whether or not there are demolitions, are you suggesting that the fact that 110 stories of outer building collapsing down would do no damage at all to the inner columns at ground level? Regardless of explosions, are you suggesting that the interior columns escaped without compromising damage?
That is a rather bold assertion, but it appears to be exactly what you are doing... considering you were denying they existed, you seem to have quickly shifted positions.
"Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads."
Again, you go with the highly misleading assertion that the floors are a single static mass. The steel structure is ONLY the columns and cross beams. The FLOOR is not designed to hold up ANY weight.
The floors also give the columns the stability. Are you saying that a few inches of concrete and steel trusses over air are load bearing?
actually that's false. the floors of all buildings support great deals of weight and HAVE to be able to transmit loads throughout the framework or buildings would not be able to withstand wind gusts or earthquakes. also there is not one example of a building collapsing in anyway that resembles the wtc collapse.NONE. also wtc 3,4,5,6,were directly under wtc1,2 and bore the weight of those beams falling a 1,000ft directly on them,yet they didn't collapse,hummm. and they were tiny by comparison...
Please spare me the lecture. I am quite aware of the differences. But you might want to direct your knowledge towards the numerous engineers who flatly dispute the official story. They seem to know the difference too and still came to same conclusion I did. Maybe you know something they don't. lol
If you disconnected all of the floors from their connections to the columns ALL AT ONCE, guess what speed the floors would come down? Free Fall.
When you take into account that the floor connections are tiny, you will understand that no matter how many momentum analyses you do, the resistance from these connections would be almost ZERO.
The "scientists" spruiking this conspiracy crap are misleading a lot of people. 10 floors above vs 1 floor. 10 floors wins. Simple
"When you take into account that the floor connections are tiny, you will understand that no matter how many momentum analyses you do, the resistance from these connections would be almost ZERO."
That has got to be the most insanely funny theory ever.
The backup data is in the drawings and connections. Each lightweight truss sits on a shelf angle. This is a very simple and quick connection to construct - ideal for highrise, but not good to withstand extreme loading (e.g. 10 floors of WTC).
It was therefore the achilles heel of the towers.
Look at the drawings yourself. The connections are only meant to support the loading AT THAT FLOOR, not and additional 10 storeys!
Thank you for your response. But I meant the back up data to show how the collapses could have happened the way they did. A real model with actual test numbers showing this very collapse scenario. NOT EVEN NIST HAS RELEASED THE DATA FOR THEIR "COMPUTER ASSUMPTIONS."
Also, John Skilling stated that the design could withstand damage without collapse.
So, no offense, but simply pointing out "assumed" design flaws does not prove anything.
"The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 (largest plane at the time) crash into it. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
-Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor
"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newtons Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases."
-William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont
"My first-order analysis of WTC1 collapse suggests insufficient energy for pulverization of concrete slabs in the floor elements. Official story does not explain why weakening by fire resulted in abrupt collapse, rather than a sagging-slumping failure mode."
Brian Brademeyer, MS CE Former Senior Research Engineer, MIT 1975 - 1987
"For near free-falling to happen, the contiguous solid material making up the building below these sections where the collapse initiates would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action the fire above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary momentum of that lower contiguous material counters the momentum of falling parts from above, and conservation of momentum keeps the free-fall state from being approached."
"even if we allow that the towers could begin to collapse, that is the upper floors for instance in the North Tower, that would be the upper 15 floors if they begin to collapse, that does not mean that they would continue a complete collapse in ten seconds. Instead, the remaining structure below the upper block would halt or significantly slow down the collapse and the motion of the upper floors.
Mechanical engineers know alot about structure engineering. Not as much as a full fledge structural engineer but they know alot, they have to because when they design cars , ships, aircraft frames etc they have to design a good structure.
"Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact... There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there. - John Skilling, WTC Engineer
What I am saying is that you are putting Skilling's quote out of context. A 707 is smaller than the planes that hit the towers. Skilling is correct, a 707 probably would not have caused the towers to collapse.
"Skilling is correct, a 707 probably would not have caused the towers to collapse." That's right. And neither would a 757. 707: Wingspan- 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length- 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Cruising Speed- 607 mph (977 km/h) ----- 757: Wing span- 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) Overall Length- 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) Cruise Speed- Mach 0.80
If you haven't modelled the drop in elastic modulus properly for every one of the heat affected columns, this model means nothing - it would be a total waste of yours and every 40,000 viewers' time.
And if a buckling analysis is not being produced for each column, it certainly is, a total waste of everyone's time.
This might be why you can't get a scenario of why the columns couldn't be pulled in by the sagging trusses.
All you do is bend the flooring and maintain the connections. What if those same floors had disconnected from the interior column mounting? Then you would have 650 tonnes/floor of concrete pulling on the outer walls. The only thing connected to the exterior columns are the floors
roquefortfiles 1 week ago
I am very happy to see the Video of my initial FEA's on the WTC. Enjoy after you give this
Ondelendo 1 week ago
I Love The Video of my initial FEA's on the WTC. Enjoy. It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 1 week ago
Nice Video Video of my initial FEA's on the WTC. Enjoy That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
AntoMelta 1 week ago
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing Video of my initial FEA's on the WTC. Enjoy.
imegatrone 1 week ago
Why would anyone want to demolish wt7? to make an insurance claim?
Lan5in6 1 month ago
the core is incorrect. The core is not just column standing in the middle it was a box column design.
danp5648 6 months ago
se ho ben capito, il tuo dubbio è: "le travi del pavimento a 700°C son sarebbero mai riuscite a far collassare le pareti"?
If I understand correctly, your question is: "the floor beams are 700 ° C would never be able to collapse the walls" ?
Elmachico1988 7 months ago
its not so that i dont believe that the building collapse but how the building collapse is more than suspect...
hutersum 7 months ago
Nnz nc nc,, c/ c mnnnnnnnnn b c/ x shen
m0n0fx 8 months ago
I don't understand this video
dickinson1027 9 months ago
each office floor of the wtc had eight sections. only the middle sections connected the walls directly to the core. The corner floors were not directly connected to the core but to the middle sections. This prevents the corner columns from collapsing if the core fails and pulls on the floors. The outer wall can probably only collapse in itself when the core falls down and pulls on the floors which pulls on the wall. The floors itself cannot pull down the walls. They are too leight weight .
basgordijn 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some things everyone needs to keep in mind to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
this would be too much "engineering" for ae911truth to do.
conspiracy theorist just like fancy terms to brainwash their heads.
taledarkside 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taledarkside Some things everyone needs to keep in mind to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
Pity we only have to watch real videos of the collapses to see that the buildings didn't fall the way this video says they did. You can quite clearly see the inner core remains standing for a very short while after the intial collapse. Another fail troofer.
Feyd01 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feyd01 Some things everyone needs to keep in mind to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
The planes were SHREDDED by the buildings' structure.
See the Youtube videos showing a plane being slammed by rocket sled into a 3 foot thick reinforced concrete wall. The plane is reduced to fragments at impact.
The concrete wall shows scarcely a dent or scratch.
Obviously all 3 WTC builds were brought down by controlled demolition.
GODISALLTHATIS 1 year ago 3
@GODISALLTHATIS
WTC isn't a concrete wall dumbfuck.
taledarkside 10 months ago
this using (els) extreme loading for structures?
killerriot22 1 year ago
The architect was interviewed earlier that year, when he revealed that info, and has been missing since 9/11 according to a YouTybe vid at DOLLARPAGES [] ORG. You will never understand who runs America {& Canada} unless you have read The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion found at the *A Wicked Plan* page at dollarpages. Happy awakening! ;-) You either get it or you don't, enjoy the Lithium in your water supply! and the CHEMTRAILS in the sky & giving taxes to pay interest to private bankers
vhsjvc 1 year ago
MOREOVER, the architect himself said that the towers could withstand SEVERAL HITS, JUST LIKE POKING HOLES IN MOSQUITO NETTING. Plus, pretend the plane was stationary and the building was moving, seems to any rational human the PLANE would be smashed and not the other way around. Hollow wings with fuel DO NOT have the ability to cut through steel beams. SIMPLE CRASH PHYSICS! You must be using Fluoride? {it's rat poison} or maybe you need to look up "Brain-eating" vaccines I know you took the shot
vhsjvc 1 year ago
looks like engineers doing peer review, and many reject the government account. so the government's case failed peer review and that is a very important distinction to note most private sector architects/engineers disagree with the 9/11 report. .
mechanicalbu11 1 year ago
I have a question. At 1:35, you say "Each floor on this scale model measures 420mm by 420 mm by 100 mm". What do those dimensions represent? Using those numbers, if a floor was 10 foot high, then each building was 42 foot wide? That's incorrect. A rough measurement shows they were about 215 x 215 feet. Even if you intended 100mm to represent 3 floors, its still way off. I like your math skills.
Why would anyone listen to this crap over NIST?
Nash1a 1 year ago
@Nash1a prove your assertion with a link to the references that supports you case.
mechanicalbu11 1 year ago
@mechanicalbu11 I'm not the one trying to make a case here. I'm asking you where you got these numbers because they dont in any way represent the building we're discussing. And if they don't then how valid is your computer model's analysis? My measurement of 215 x 215 feet (approx) is from Google Earth and anyone can corroboratre that. I was wrong about the height of a floor. According to Wiki, the floors were 12 foot, not 10 as I assumed.
Nash1a 1 year ago
@Nash1a The only way I can make your model ever generally fit within the realm of possibility is if the model was of 3 floors, not one as stated. If its a simple matter of a mistake in the description, I can buy that. But if the description is correct, then this is in no way a scale model in anything close to the WTC towers.
Nash1a 1 year ago
@Nash1a You are right on! Who ever made this is sick in the head. Deflection!? Ya, maybe the plane was jumping up and down on the floor like a trampoline!? MOLTEN POOLS OF METAL WAY OVER 2000 DEGREES BURNING FOR WEEKS SAYS IT ALL PLUS THE VIDEOS BY PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH ARE UNDEBEUNKABLE. Hey SHILL, repent and ask God to forgive you for your government Koolaid induced stupor. Try reading DOLLARPAGES [] ORG a few times {in your case MANY TIMES} and see if you learn a thing or 2 about life! ENJOY!
vhsjvc 1 year ago
@vhsjvc Oh, I see. I point out that this video is full of logical and factual holes and that makes me a government shill. Don't you see that making that statement proves you are delusional and paranoid?
Nash1a 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nash1a Some things everyone needs to keep in mind to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nash1a Some things everyone needs to keep in mind to sort this out:
We (NIST) Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 10 months ago
what was the constitutive model u used? lol
dravidr007 1 year ago
I wouldnt place any reliance on NIST if I were you.
The dont give out any data on parameters used and thus the simulations cannot be peer reviewed.
You'll just have to take their word for it.
The main problem I have is the wtc7 collapse simulation looks NOTHING like what happened in real life.
zenoist2 1 year ago
which program was used?
willylagos 1 year ago
@willylagos It looks like AutoCAD.
MikeMM12 1 year ago
well yes, the jet was well placed. no building was meant to have that much fuel in 1 explosion in the inside.
BrianFetcher 1 year ago
Well placed expolsives bought it down.
Lives were and still are expendable sad to say.
zenoist2 1 year ago
Your schematics of the WTC do not match the true schematics in any way, therefore making this FEA garbage. Please rebuild your model according to true schematics.
cincofone 1 year ago
Is not a mystery! There was a lot of explosives for each floor! That's why it collapsed!
marcucristian80 1 year ago
@marcucristian80 Care to provide chemical evidence of said explosives, indeed any hard evidence of said explosives?
cincofone 1 year ago
@cincofone read Richard Gage, peer reviewed paper showing absolute proof of explosives from 7 independent sources.
marquedesade 1 year ago
Dude, couldn't you use a different color scheme? Pardon my French, but this one looks like ass!
whiterottenrabbit 2 years ago
i love the mini-nuke at the end
nansoutey 2 years ago
@ 4:39 you say 'in my opinion this is the biggest mystery of them all...' no mystery... controlled demolitions were used..
nansoutey 2 years ago
In the real world, any collapse of building 7 would have been a partial collapse in the direction of the damaged area.
The worst case scenario for 1 and 2 would have been a partial collapse at the point of impact leaving the rest of the building standing.
There is no way on God's green earth that they could have collapsed at near free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance without the use of controlled demolition.
That would be *strictly impossible*.
KevinMerck 2 years ago 2
'Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently received acknowledgement from the FBl's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBl scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director MichaeI Heimbach assessed AE 911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis.'
- SiIicon Weakly
Over half the people want a real investigation, a legititmate investigation is well overdue!
KevinMerck 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
KevinMerck 2 years ago
OK! Steel doesn't have to MELT to lose it's support. It only needs to weaken. At 600 Celcius it has an effective Young's Modulus of half of that at normal temperatures 20 Celcius.
And how can you POSSIBLY know that the "frame", as you put it, can withstand 2500 Celcius when steel becomes liquid at half of that temperature!
And btw, architecture has NOTHING to do with the structural system of a building. So, start using your brain.
mlrs84 2 years ago
Gee...
So I guess Architecture is useless without structural engineering... otherwise i'd be making a LOT OF MISTAKES!
Yes, we had to take structural engineering classes in order to be in Architecture. Have you ever done an Architecture major?
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
Nope, I'm actually pursuing my MSc in Structural Engineering, 4th year now.
mlrs84 2 years ago
steel does not WEAKEN even at 600F.
the jetfuel fires burned for over four to six minutes then the smoke came out black. There was soot sticking as well, that's practically an oxygen-starved fire. fire's cool enough to dissipate, the lowest would be about 400F.
That ASTM E119 steel was designed to withstand 3000F fires, as per their rating code.
Did NIST even attempt to weaken a core column under heavy load for their reports? I doubt it is even mentioned on the reports.
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
You do realize that it does? If you really took structural engineering classes, you probably know about Young's Modulus, 210 000 MPa for steel, BUT it decreases as the temperature rises. That's why steel weakens indeed!
mlrs84 2 years ago
And it melts the rest of the undamaged, untouched building to its foundation?
The core must be made of toothpicks and cheese then, maybe I was mistaken. LOL.
To have it fallen under 13 seconds from where it stood without any resistance whatsoever, we're talking about 30,000 estimate against a 280,000 tons estimate of steel and concrete structure.
So you're saying it just... plowed through without ANY RESISTANCE whatsoever? We have laws of physics, too you know...
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
You see, now you're making the classical conspiracy theorist's error, mixing melting with weakening.
"So you're saying it just... plowed through without ANY RESISTANCE whatsoever? We have laws of physics, too you know..."
I don't believe I ever touched the subject. We were talking about concrete in the cores, don't try to change the subject!
mlrs84 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Munyak and his fellow AE911 supporters recently received acknowledgement from the FBI's counterterrorism division, which concluded that the organization's core evidence deserves - and will get - FBI scrutiny. In a letter, Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach assessed AE911's presentation as "backed by thorough research and analysis."
Article by Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie - Silicon Weakly
Over half the people want a real investigation, how long before the rest join in?
KevinMerck 2 years ago 2
I'm an Architect Major...
I studied Structural Engineering as a minor in that degree.
Guess what?
WTC did not collapse due to a fire nor damage to the core.
47 extremely thick and dense steel core beams holding a load as heavy as WTC should not have failed, especially since it's surrounded in reinforced concrete.
Whoever thinks I'm making this up, you should study the structural design of the WTC yourself, to dimensions and scale.
NIST and FEMA didn't mention much about the cores.
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
Ehm, none of the columns in either the perimeter wall nor the core were protected by concrete. Concrete was only used for the floors. In hindsight that is perhaps one of the biggest structural flaws of this design, a design that worked very well when subjected to the normal structural loads, but proved lethally dangerous when subjected to fire.
mlrs84 2 years ago
Eh...
there was concrete surrounding the core. : /
Did you not see the pictures of the core's construction? They poured thick concrete around it. It's kind of obvious. This building was overengineered to withstand major disasters but not an airplane crashing, even when several engineers had verified that the WTC would never collapse under a plane prior to 9/11?
I've studied this tower, trust me. I know it from inside and out.
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
Ok, show me pictures of the concrete in the core. If you've studied "this tower" (not even knowing that there were TWO of them), you should indeed know that there was NO concrete around the core column, only the floor slabs.
mlrs84 2 years ago
There is concrete surrounding the cores.
Unless you'd prefer it to be a "thin, hollow steel shaft" like the 9/11 commission reports said, which is a lie. I've studied these towers since 1997 buddy, no one's going to fool me.
As for pictures of the core, you can simply do a google search on the concrete surrounding the core of the WTC. Even wiki has it, and several engineering sites.
I'm guessing you did not study it enough bud, or you're a NIST believer. :3
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
You're the one who made the bold claim that there was concrete in the core, when there clearly was not.
Actually, I don't believe you have studied these towers very well at all.
And from 1997? The amount of material available in 1997 was not the kind on which you could make this claim.
Sorry man, I have seen so many pics of the construction of these towers and they were all-steel structures (save the floors).
Again, please SHOW ME A PICTURE of concrete in the core!
mlrs84 2 years ago
"The amount of material available in 1997 was not the kind on which you could make this claim."
Not even the data that was around since 1962 about the towers? Are you kidding me?
Don't be ridiculous.
911research. wtc7. net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/framed-tube. jpg
There's the graph. It can be found anywhere other than 911research anyways. You will note that the steel beams aren't simply exposed.
You've seen this haven't you?
wearechange. org/uploaded_images/wtc-build-up-01-736018. jpg
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
Oooh my! You've actually based your decade long "study" on a conceptual drawing from the sixties which you erroneously calls a graph. Of course you've noticed that the core of this proof of yours has the wrong number of columns even compared with your second photo, which is a still from a video made by an amateur (looks good, but has no basis in reality). If you want to convince me, show me a PHOTO (not a "graph") of the CONSTRUCTION of the REAL TOWERS!
Come on, after all you've studied them!
mlrs84 2 years ago
You fail to realize that there's gotta be something covering that core :D
It can't be drywall. Those noisy elevators would be HELL to hear!
Concrete's pretty much soundproof, I used to live in a house surrounded in concrete. No matter if it was a hurricane, I could not hear a thing outside unless I was near a window or a door.
I'm still browsing endlessly for your "picture".
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
Actually using walls of drywall (on either side of a core column) can have a much higher sound-isolating effect than one massive concrete wall.
mlrs84 2 years ago
I'd recommend watching PBS's "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" from 1990.
I'm sure you'll find yourself a little... surprised.
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
I've seen it, and I'm not sure why I should be surprised. It doesn't say anything about core concrete in that movie.
mlrs84 2 years ago
New York - In a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN), a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
"South Tower Smoking Guns (follow-up)"
A must see for truth seeker, skeptic and stooge alike.
It substantiates the use of nano-thermite and explains why debris being blasted out by the demolition sequence is falling faster than the freefalling building.
Be a patriot, not a stooge, by supporting a full-scale, multi-national, independent investigation of the crime of the millennium.
If it wasn't controlled demolition, then there's nothing to hide.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Thanks, I think I'll listen to the highrise structural engineers, fire protection engineers, & metallurgists instead of you. No one says the fires melted the steel. They WEAKENED it. Stop listening to Joe Blow's unaccountable shitty conspiracy web site & video & do some legit research.
PoetryHound 2 years ago
The numbers keep growing!
There are now 793 Architects and Engineers demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.
More importantly, over half of the American people have serious questions about 9/11 and want a real investigation.
You don't need to be an engineer to see this was controlled demolition, just a little old fashioned common sense and a basic understanding of physics and you must be able to comprehend that kerosene can't melt steel.
It really is that simple.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
How many of those 750 are highrise structural engineers?
Answer: 0
How many are fire protection engineers?
Answer: 0
Anyone with expertise in explosives and incendiaries?
Nope.
But you'll find plenty of folks with irrelevant expertise - mechanical engineers, maritime engineers, etc.
And Blueprint for "Truth" is full of errors & intentional deceptions. It says firefighters, who lost 343 of their own that day, were informed that Building 7 was going to be detonated. Oh sure they were!!
PoetryHound 2 years ago
@PoetryHound so i guess u hve to be "qualified" in order to rightfully want an investigation into the truth.
JulietsMan 3 months ago
750 Architects and Engineers are demanding a real investigation into the events of 9/11.
We need to stand behind these brave professionals, our future as a free people, and a world free of state sponsored terrorism depend on it.
Any questions about the fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition can be answered by watching *Blueprint for Truth*.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
Interesting theories.
Explain to me how all the explosions would have failed to instantaneously accelerate all small debris within the blast radius past the speed of sound, thus generating sonic booms that would have been audible for miles around? Why would no debris be imbedded in towers 600 feet around, as much of the light material around these explosives would have been flying at speeds approaching MACH 4?
Thanks.
diskpanic 2 years ago
Check out this video from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
*911 Blueprint for Truth - With Richard Gage, AIA*
There are now 731 architects and engineers calling for a real investigation.
Please be sure to sign the petitions and support the efforts of NYCCAN.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
/watch?v=7H0vR2vfFRk
Truthers are delusional paranoid schizophernics. They want to sell you a product, and they will eliminate any evidence that disproves their statement.
diskpanic 2 years ago
why is Donkey Kong playing in the background?
sillybilly44444444 2 years ago
The ignorance of these conspiracy "theorys" is out of control.
This is what happens to the masses when exposed to too much movies, MTV, marketing/advertising, You get disconected with history, logic and critical thinking. THE OFFICIAL STORY HOLDS, DUMMIES!!
davetastic1 2 years ago
if the trusses failed then most of the center supporting columns should have been standing unless the center columns were not connected to each other in some way. This buidling never feel inthe path of least resistance theory.
JimTL1000R 2 years ago
3 differnet physical strikes. 3 buildings fell identically and at the same speed?
JimTL1000R 2 years ago
this shows the 60 good floors can hold up 40 bad floors? Plus I do no think the center beams are to scale.
JimTL1000R 2 years ago
PoetryHound the charlatan that you do not get any critical point of the video, all you do is throw pests Jones and others.
The video is the most realistic I've seen in 3D animation, CONGRATULATIONS! here is the truth and not the official story.
tarkus07 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you've had your fill of pseudo-science from the likes of Steven Jones, Richard Gage, & the other usual charlatans, here's a set of links to scientific and engineering papers, reports, and analyses by people with more expertise and experience than that conspiracy clowns have:
wtc7lies . googlepages . com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911st ructuralengineerin
PoetryHound 2 years ago
Anyone interested in the truth needs to see this video from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
*911 Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture for Destruction - With Richard Gage, AIA*
The events of 911 are not a liberal versus conservative issue, and they're not a racial or religious issue, they are in fact a criminal issue. All three towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
The world is waking up to this fact.
KevinMerck 2 years ago
"Two small pockets of fire"
KevinMerck likes to withhold the names from these quotes so you can't go check them out for yourself. In this case, the quote was from FDNY Orio Palmer, who was on the 78th floor where a wingtip had passed through. Imagine what it was like on the 81st floor, where the fuselage hit.
Hey Kevin, why not quote someone from the 20th floor where there was no fire. If he personally didn't see a fire, that means there wasn't one, right?
PoetryHound 2 years ago
"there was no fire to speak of"
So one guy didn't see a fire. Did it already spread to other areas after he'd arrived? Does he have a name? What about all those people who did see fires? I guess you just forgot to mention them, right?
PoetryHound 2 years ago
The second plane hit six floors below us. We made our way down the stairs to where the plane hit and there was no fire to speak of, just a few flames licking up the side of the wall. As we proceeded down the stairs, a couple floors below the impact, conditions were normal. The lights were on and there was fresh air coming up from below.
Two small pockets of fire, two lines to knock them down.
Where are all these raging fires capable of causing a global collapse?
KevinMerck 2 years ago
to what end/goal would "they" want a controlled fall?
db2229 2 years ago
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, WTC Engineer, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Comment removed
stevehawking 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unfortunately we do not know enough about the extent of damage to the core columns.
There were ~60 closely spaced perimeter columns each face. This meant an inherant robustness of the perimeter frame.
The same cannot be said for the core. You need to understand that the core columns would likely've been over-stressed and there were a LOT fewer columns.
In general, the perimeter had reserve so as to be able to resist transient high wind loading.
The core did not.
stevehawking 2 years ago
WITH 2KºF heat applied?
YOUR A WELL SPOKEN FULL OF SHIT KIND OF PERSON. You conveniently leave out, or forget out of lack of scope, critical pieces of information. You sir are intellectual scum.
davetastic1 2 years ago
Spoken like a true "ignoramus". What critical pieces are you talking about??? I only post statements made by credible professionals. You should spend more time paying attention and less insulting people.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
I agree. Truthers do not know how to account for evidence that is totally missing that would support their claims. For instance, this video implies explosives were used on various floors that were not associated with the collapse.
Let's assume that this is, for the moment, laughably true. Where, then, are the sonic booms that would be caused by small debris being instantaneously accelerated past the sound barrier and that would be audible up to 2 miles away and send debris flying into NJ?
diskpanic 2 years ago
I have posted statements from engineers. I don't make any claims on my own, but simply use actual analysis from people that I respect based on their experience in the field.
One has to have come to terms with the fact that so many more experts don't agree with the official explanations. This is disturbing, to say the least and no amount of insults or desperate attempts at discrediting will change this very fact.
It's time to put aside emotional bashing and finally get to the truth.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
jesusgrc1762:
If you heat steel, steel weakens. It might not melt, but it loses its strength. Considerably.
Google world trade centre and look at the University of Sydney's explanation. I hope this can allay your skepticism, although I doubt it will as you seem very caught up in the web of conspiracy - which is a shame. Because you should be open minded in both directions.
stevehawking 2 years ago
"If you heat steel, steel weakens. It might not melt, but it loses its strength. Considerably."
PART 1
"My first-order analysis of WTC1 collapse suggests insufficient energy for pulverization of concrete slabs in the floor elements.Official story does not explain why weakening by FIRE resulted in abrupt collapse, rather than a sagging-slumping failure mode."-Brian Brademeyer, MS CE Former Senior Research Engineer, MIT 1975 - 1987
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
PART 2
"...claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire.- Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
PART 3- (MOST IMPORTANT)
"Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove."
CONT'D
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
except for the fact that the entire collision zone would be analogous to the pan.
stevehawking 2 years ago
Well, it seems that even qualified engineers can't spark the slightest doubt in your mind. Do me a favor and stop wasting my time and yours. I get it loud and clear that we live in two different worlds.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
PART 4
"These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness."
--Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
stevehawking:
"Google world trade centre and look at the University of Sydney's explanation. I hope this can allay your skepticism, although I doubt it will as you seem very caught up in the web of conspiracy - which is a shame. Because you should be open minded in both directions."
Yes, if you read my responses, quotes from actual credible engineers, you'll see that
I HAVE BEEN OPEN MINDED and EVERY REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THE OFFICIAL STORY.
And you should do the same.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Unfortunately you are blinded, again, this is a shame. you need to be more open minded. Look at both sides - your quotes are interesting, but they are all one-sided.
There was an inferno in that building. An inferno encapsulated by steel framing and that steel framing conducted a lot of heat.
That heat weakened the structure. When connections fail, the result is abrupt - a sudden severe loading change will result in the sudden failure witnessed.
stevehawking 2 years ago
Wonderful. You have made your point. This is obviously a waste of time. Consider our conversation over.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
jesusgrc1762:
I've been refuting your points - one of your quotes asked something to the effect of "why was the collapse so sudden"? It was sudden because of a connection failure which instantly overloads the members. Suddenly asking the impact zone columns to take 10 storeys of WTC is a big ask.
We're not living in different worlds - we live in the same world, seen through different eyes. I have read your points and refuted, but you have not refuted mine.
stevehawking 2 years ago
You have not refuted anything. Just made ignorant comments with nothing to back them up.
"Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building..." "There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.
-John Skilling-WTC Structural Engineer
I take his word over yours any day!
Keep dreaming.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Again, misleading - or perhaps, you don't realise that this quote is taken from an interview in the 1970s / 1980s.
John Skilling died in 1998. Before this mess.
Sorry to burst your bubble but he's talking about a 707. A smaller plane.
Do you realise this?
stevehawking 2 years ago
You must not read my posts!! I already answered the comparison issue between 707s and 757.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
stevehawking:
You've refuted nothing.
"...all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand 100-mile-per-hour winds. Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before
failure occurs."
--John Skilling-WTC Structural Engineer
Ignorance is bliss.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
can you please refer me to the quote source.
stevehawking 2 years ago
Won't allow me to post link here.
Google: John Skilling white paper 1964
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson (WTC Engineers):
POINT 3.
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. "
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson (WTC Engineers):
POINT 5.
"The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure."
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
It was the jet fuel fires that weakened, NOT MELTED the structure. Local damage therefore has nothing to do with it. Your a nut and I realize theres nothing I can do about it.
davetastic1 2 years ago
Oh yes, and jet fuel fires caused the total symmetrical collapse at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance. While all UNDAMAGED supporting grid structure below just spontaneously and conveniently stepped out of the way to suspend the laws of physics that day.
And you call me nuts.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
NOTHING your saying makes me any more convinced that your conspiracy "theory" is AT ALL correct. Your arguments are weak and not backed up I believe that a terrorist catastrophe on the magnitude of 9/11, brings out the cognitively challenged like yourself, and gives you an unfortunate(for society) soap box to try and persuade weak minded non critical thinkers to your conspiracy "theory".
davetastic1 2 years ago
First, for someone who claims to have a certain degree of intelligence, you sure are a contradiction. Calling others "ignoramus" and "retards" surely shows a new low in tolerance and a lack of intelligence.
Second, it's not "my" theory, but my opinion based on statements made by hundreds of professionals questioning the official story. If you were actually looking for the truth, you'd realize this, but then, truth is a new concept for people like you.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
People like me? Im an atheist bucko. The truth is my existance and I have a solid backround in it. It's people of your Ilk that make the world so confusing and jacked up. Please hang yourself soon.
davetastic1 2 years ago
Wow! If that's what you call intelligence, you're much better off sparring with fifth graders. (and my money's on the fifth grader).
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"Oh yes, and jet fuel fires caused the total symmetrical collapse at almost free fall speed through the path of most resistance."
Amazing that a story being 64% air would be "resistant" to you. As has been proven by Truthers, the towers accelerated at 64% of free fall, which would be consistent with the fact that 64% of the floors were empty space.
Also, you guys through around "symmetrical" as if you knew what it meant. Please look up the definition for "rigid body" in physics. Thanks.
diskpanic 2 years ago
I fail to see how a smaller section of lesser strength, could go through the UNDAMAGED much stronger supporting section below. Redundancy in strength is what the wtc had in order to withstand 100 mph winds, aside from usual loads (dynamic, static, etc).
Where does you "rigid body" create the energy to pulverize concrete, dislodge all supports/connectors , suspend the laws of conservation of momentum, and all in roughly 15 seconds?
NIST has not produced such a model. Have you?
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Resistance to me is the tons of UNDAMAGED supporting steel structure BELOW. This "resistance would include the 47 core columns and the perimeter columns which were stronger than your "rigid body" above. Lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
Just a hunch.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
You assume that the floor trusses can INSTANTANEOUSLY transmit load to the columns from the bare floor.
This is the thing that gets me about you Truthers. You assume that the floors are what is holding up the buildings. NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE CASE. The columns were holding up the columns above it, and the floors hang from the columns.
The floors are NOT designed to support any significant force. It was the FLOORS that gave away, not the columns to allow the collapse.
CONT...
diskpanic 2 years ago
You assume that the floors would hold when the entire floor structure of 3 floors above them slammed down onto them, even though the only thing holding the floors in place were bolts at the end of each truss.
Additionally, Truthers make a very forced assertion that the collapse was perfectly symmetrical. It is obvious from the evidence that the collapse was very asymmetrical for both WTC1 and WTC2.
And most every building collapse goes to the ground.
diskpanic 2 years ago
That's funny, then I assume, based on your assertion, that we should at least see the core columns still standing, since they experience no vertical loads.
You really are grasping at straws here. Where does the energy come from to pulverize tons of concrete, eject heavy beams hundreds of feet laterally, while maintaining constant momentum without any resistance from the UNDAMAGED support grid below? Molten metal in basements of all three WTCs?
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"That's funny, then I assume, based on your assertion, that we should at least see the core columns still standing, since they experience no vertical loads."
Why do you Truthers always say things which show an obvious lack of actual research?
/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c
1:18
Watch. Portions of the inner core DID remain standing for a short period of time.
"Molten metal".
How many kinds of metal are there?
diskpanic 2 years ago
"Why do you Truthers always say things which show an obvious lack of actual research?"
I've done more research than you can comprehend. So, you might want to direct ignorant comments like that towards the 750 professionals that question the bs official story. Not to mention the countless others who don't believe the hype.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"towards the 750 professionals"
LMAO. Nice research again. You mean like the "sanitation engineer" (aka Janitor) that's on that list of lauded people? Give me a break. Your level of "research" is limited to YouTube videos... and only YouTube videos made by Truthers.
You need to look up the term "objectivity" sometime.
diskpanic 2 years ago
"Watch. Portions of the inner core DID remain standing for a short period of time."
The fact that it collapsed from the bottom straight down is what is obvious to me. Since there is no impact from below, it remains an interesting question as to what brought it down that way.
I'm sure you must have an interesting answer.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Why would they stay standing?
Whether or not there are demolitions, are you suggesting that the fact that 110 stories of outer building collapsing down would do no damage at all to the inner columns at ground level? Regardless of explosions, are you suggesting that the interior columns escaped without compromising damage?
That is a rather bold assertion, but it appears to be exactly what you are doing... considering you were denying they existed, you seem to have quickly shifted positions.
diskpanic 2 years ago
"Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads."
Again, you go with the highly misleading assertion that the floors are a single static mass. The steel structure is ONLY the columns and cross beams. The FLOOR is not designed to hold up ANY weight.
The floors also give the columns the stability. Are you saying that a few inches of concrete and steel trusses over air are load bearing?
diskpanic 2 years ago
actually that's false. the floors of all buildings support great deals of weight and HAVE to be able to transmit loads throughout the framework or buildings would not be able to withstand wind gusts or earthquakes. also there is not one example of a building collapsing in anyway that resembles the wtc collapse.NONE. also wtc 3,4,5,6,were directly under wtc1,2 and bore the weight of those beams falling a 1,000ft directly on them,yet they didn't collapse,hummm. and they were tiny by comparison...
governmentcheese411 2 years ago
Live loads are not the same as dynamic loads.
PoetryHound 2 years ago
Please spare me the lecture. I am quite aware of the differences. But you might want to direct your knowledge towards the numerous engineers who flatly dispute the official story. They seem to know the difference too and still came to same conclusion I did. Maybe you know something they don't. lol
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
You mean the electrical engineers, plumbing engineers and naval engineers?
mlrs84 2 years ago
No, i meant engineers as in structural
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
No lecture given. Merely pointing out that you were citing activie load. Collapses involved dynamic load.
PoetryHound 2 years ago
How do buildings swallow planes?
That is moronic.
trapozoidalsyth 2 years ago
live load, dead load, dynamic load and load of shit, this was controlled demolition
trapozoidalsyth 2 years ago
Everybody check out the mainstrean ignoramus called "trapzoidalsyth"!!!!!!!!!!
HA HA ! glad Im not a retard like you!!
davetastic1 2 years ago
Reason for free fall speed:
If you disconnected all of the floors from their connections to the columns ALL AT ONCE, guess what speed the floors would come down? Free Fall.
When you take into account that the floor connections are tiny, you will understand that no matter how many momentum analyses you do, the resistance from these connections would be almost ZERO.
The "scientists" spruiking this conspiracy crap are misleading a lot of people. 10 floors above vs 1 floor. 10 floors wins. Simple
stevehawking 2 years ago
So, you are a structural engineer and a physicist, to?
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"When you take into account that the floor connections are tiny, you will understand that no matter how many momentum analyses you do, the resistance from these connections would be almost ZERO."
That has got to be the most insanely funny theory ever.
So, humor me with your back up data for this.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
His back up data is probably the 9/11 report.
LordNyett 2 years ago
Oh yes, the 9/11 report. A cornerstone of unbiased, uncensored, statements, complete with irrefutable evidence. lol
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
jesusgrc1762:
The backup data is in the drawings and connections. Each lightweight truss sits on a shelf angle. This is a very simple and quick connection to construct - ideal for highrise, but not good to withstand extreme loading (e.g. 10 floors of WTC).
It was therefore the achilles heel of the towers.
Look at the drawings yourself. The connections are only meant to support the loading AT THAT FLOOR, not and additional 10 storeys!
stevehawking 2 years ago
stevehawking:
Thank you for your response. But I meant the back up data to show how the collapses could have happened the way they did. A real model with actual test numbers showing this very collapse scenario. NOT EVEN NIST HAS RELEASED THE DATA FOR THEIR "COMPUTER ASSUMPTIONS."
Also, John Skilling stated that the design could withstand damage without collapse.
So, no offense, but simply pointing out "assumed" design flaws does not prove anything.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 (largest plane at the time) crash into it. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
-Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newtons Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases."
-William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"My first-order analysis of WTC1 collapse suggests insufficient energy for pulverization of concrete slabs in the floor elements. Official story does not explain why weakening by fire resulted in abrupt collapse, rather than a sagging-slumping failure mode."
Brian Brademeyer, MS CE Former Senior Research Engineer, MIT 1975 - 1987
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
"For near free-falling to happen, the contiguous solid material making up the building below these sections where the collapse initiates would suddenly massively lose its cohesion, an action the fire above this solid material cannot possibly cause. That stationary momentum of that lower contiguous material counters the momentum of falling parts from above, and conservation of momentum keeps the free-fall state from being approached."
-Crockett Grabbe Research Scientist
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
A scientist is not an engineer.
stevehawking 2 years ago
"even if we allow that the towers could begin to collapse, that is the upper floors for instance in the North Tower, that would be the upper 15 floors if they begin to collapse, that does not mean that they would continue a complete collapse in ten seconds. Instead, the remaining structure below the upper block would halt or significantly slow down the collapse and the motion of the upper floors.
- Gordon Ross, MEchanical Engineer
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago 2
What does a mechanical engineer know about structural engineering? Nothing.
stevehawking 2 years ago
Oh please dazzle me with your sources.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
Mechanical engineers know alot about structure engineering. Not as much as a full fledge structural engineer but they know alot, they have to because when they design cars , ships, aircraft frames etc they have to design a good structure.
TheGuyOnDownStreet 2 years ago
"Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact... There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there. - John Skilling, WTC Engineer
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
The quote relates to an impact involving a smaller plane, not an Airbus. Stop spruiking this misguided rubbish.
stevehawking 2 years ago
"The quote relates to an impact involving a smaller plane, not an Airbus. Stop spruiking this misguided rubbish."
No. I relates to a 707, the largest plane of that time. Coming from John Skilling, the wtc structural engineer, I'd say it's pretty legit.
Unlike your nonsense.
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
What I am saying is that you are putting Skilling's quote out of context. A 707 is smaller than the planes that hit the towers. Skilling is correct, a 707 probably would not have caused the towers to collapse.
stevehawking 2 years ago
jesusgrc1762 2 years ago
thanks for your work, seems logical to me. but what about the a-bomb downstairs ?
R0mp3l 2 years ago
For those who are reading the reports scouring for temparatures. Stop reading, walk into your kitchen and look at your oven.
Your oven would do 250 degrees C.
And you're telling me that the heat from a burning plane would be less than what your kitchen oven could produce?
Some things just aren't this complicated. Plane flies into building. Building burns. Building hot. Building falls down.
It's that fucking simple.
It is still important that it is investigated for the factsthough
stevehawking 2 years ago
actually, it isn't that simple
LordNyett 2 years ago
Actually, it is.
stevehawking 2 years ago
Comment removed
stevehawking 2 years ago
Comment removed
stevehawking 2 years ago
Comment removed
stevehawking 2 years ago
Is this an elastic or inelastic model?
If you haven't modelled the drop in elastic modulus properly for every one of the heat affected columns, this model means nothing - it would be a total waste of yours and every 40,000 viewers' time.
And if a buckling analysis is not being produced for each column, it certainly is, a total waste of everyone's time.
This might be why you can't get a scenario of why the columns couldn't be pulled in by the sagging trusses.
stevehawking 2 years ago