This analysis is very well done but there is no disputing the fact that the perimeter columns were in fact being bowed inward. You can plainly see this taking place quite drastically across the face of WTC 2. In fact it is exactly here where those columns finally snap and the failure takes place. The only thing connected to them are the floors. Remove one floor and the exterior columns strength drops by a factor of 8. Remove 2 and it goes up to a factor of 27.
@DarkwingScooter The cause of it? I don't think we have to worry that Roger Ebert was sitting on them. A 767 hit them and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was set lose on it.
One is not stepping out in to left field to "infer" this
@roquefortfiles Given that most "official" estimates agree that most of the jet fuel was burned off in the initial fireball you are indeed inferring too much. Jet fuel is not magical, it is kerosene, and in high-velocity impacts it is almost instantaneously vaporized and burned off.
What the jet fuel did was light a somewhat more extensive office fire than would otherwise have been the case.
@DarkwingScooter Columns found after the fact were all but bald of fire proofing. Bare steel in a fire across 3 floors an acre across? Even a small area of exposed steel can compromise the entire section. Now strip it of all its protection, ask it to carry an increased load and set it on fire.
The buildings were not designed to take a 767 hitting it at cruising speed. With a full fuel tank. They NEVER were
@roquefortfiles It doesn't matter what they were or were not designed to do. Officially sanctioned scientifically derived estimates all agree that the damage to the core columns were not severe enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.
@DarkwingScooter Right. And you have people like Les Robertson. (What does HE know.. only built the damn thing)..
Saying that there was NOTHING going to deal with a fire of that size and that the impact was on order of magnitude far more than they had allowed for.
It was built to take a 707 hitting it. But that was assumed to be on landing approach and moving slow.
Not screaming in at 560 mph with a full fuel tank.
@roquefortfiles Again, that's a nice story with a bit of appeal to authority added in.
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't count as rigor. There have been rigorous studies on this issue published in the peer-reviewed literature, I will choose to believe the rigorous results.
Same to you. But if you are alluding that the result is because of a CD?.. NO!. I have experience in this area and there is nothing of the sort taking place.
And if your "Rigor" includes guys like Jim Hoffman talking about CD. He does not have one clue about what he is pushing. The stuff he talks about is complete nonsense with regard to CD. So is Richard Gage.
@roquefortfiles "I have experience in this area and there is nothing of the sort taking place."
Lol, and I have experience fighting green space unicorns which grants me superior powers of intuition. That means I never have work things out, my gut feel IS math.
Internet hero eh?
You don't get to appeal to your own authority on an anonymous forum.
@DarkwingScooter Another 911 "TM" ?? Another guy doing is level best to convince himself on all of this stuff?? ..
Steel columns are not taken apart by a slow burning powdered incendiary. It requires VERY powerful shaped charges. This building does not even fall in a manner of a CD. There IS nothing controlled about it.
The firemen trapped on the 6th floor stairway who survived the collapse of WTC 1 have NEVER said a thing about charges going off..
@roquefortfiles Haha, let's not let the facts get in the way of our opinions. You a NatGeo hero eh?
I take it you haven't seen this video /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g wherein can be observed, quoting you here, "a slow burning powdered incendiary" acting so that "[s]teel columns are [...] taken apart".
@DarkwingScooter Yes i have seen that video. A bunch of backyard nonsense. If this is the level of crap you watch and get excited about i don't wonder why you don't grasp this topic. (And where was that happening across 210 feet of the WTC facade? I see nothing in close up videos)
Pull out the yellow pages and look up any CD company. Call them up and ask them to use thermite on your next building implosion.
@roquefortfiles No rational demolition company would use thermite in a normal demolition, you are perfectly correct.
What has that got to do with 9/11 though?
Newsflash: This was anything BUT a normal demolition job. Just so you know. If all you know is "normal" demolition jobs then your "expertise" is meaningless here.
@roquefortfiles And yet you would like me to accept that the same can be done with gravity alone?
Gravity was acting whether there were explosives or not, the question is only whether it needed a little push here and there or not.
I take it you are familiar with Verinage demolitions, how sure are you that you can't achieve with thermite as demonstrated by Cole what is achieved in Verinage with cables?
WTC 2 hit last but collapses first. (I wonder why??).
Could it have something to do with the damaged section having to bear 2x the load above it? (Remember.. both buildings are identical ). Its bearing 31 floors.
WTC 1 hit first but collapses last. (Hmmm?). Could the fact that it only has to bear HALF the weight above the damaged section be significant? (It sure is)
@roquefortfiles You have to use caution when using words like "logical", it doesn't mean mean "make sense", that is the informal, non-rigorous definition.
It is also perfectly logical that someone would know that someone would observe the scene and would therefore initiate the destruction (if that is indeed what happened) in the sequence that the initiator expects would "makes sense" to the observer.
"Logical" doesn't mean "confirms my non-rigorous intuitions".
@roquefortfiles It is not about an English lesson, it is about you suggesting that your story has any rigorous analytical implication.
Yes, on a simple guess the outcome was what was expected naturally, but that outcome could also expected if it was an "inside job" by a non-idiot who has put more than a little thought into what he was doing.
It is meaningless to rattle on about what your gut instinct intuitions are if you are not prepared to inject formal reasoning into the discussion.
This is not accomplished without high explosives. And i know what I am talking about. You can slice and dice this subject all you like. Fact of the matter is explosives would be involved and unfortunately no one has invented silent one's.
This is what you'd be hearing in Manhattan if there were explosives there.
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
You go find me ONE video with this kind of audio. You won't
@roquefortfiles So you mean that I just have to take your word for it that it can only be accomplished with high-explosives, so since there was no obvious signs of high explosives it was done without high explosives.
@DarkwingScooter Thermite ? With 47 HUGE internal columns. There are 240 exterior columns. Even if you half that to be nice 145. How much Thermite per column to REALLY (Lets get factual) do this? 100 pounds? 300?.. (Still a joke btw!!).
300x145=43,500 pounds
21.75 TONS.. of this material.
We're only on ONE FLOOR and half the columns.
And no matter how you want to slice this Thermite don't launch columns half a block and it don't vaporize concrete floors.
@roquefortfiles I usual associate the word "factual" with empirical. Look at the Cole video, I will link it again. I would estimate maybe twice that amount for the larger columns given a more hi-tech mix.
/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
It doesn't improve your argument to say that thermite doesn't launch columns, because your argument is that gravity is doing it, and gravity can still do it in the presence of thermite.
Unless you have some other definition of "fact" that ignores observation and reason?
@roquefortfiles Again, you insist that a demolition must have been done by massively elaborate contraption, concluding from this that it wasn't done by any contraption at all?
@DarkwingScooter I have paper done by a Structural Engineer and a Demolition expert. Calculating the amount of explosives needed to produce the amount of destruction we saw.
650 tonnes of high grade explosives. And EVEN THEN!! explosives are a lousy agent to turn cement in to powder.
However there was more than enough dead weight in the structure to pulverize the floors.
Cement will be powder at like 1.5 Gigajoules of energy. the collapse produced 3.5.
@DarkwingScooter I am citing because it illustrates the ridiculously silly amount of explosives that WOULD have been required.
The building only needs to be BROUGHT to failure point. After that there is NO QUESTION it would be more than capable of the destruction we saw.
Even small areas of bare steel without fire proofing can compromise the entire section. Columns found afterward were TELLY SAVALAS bald of fire proofing.
@DarkwingScooter . I know enough to know that explosives do not "Dustify" acre wide cement floors. The truck bomb in 93 had one of the largest AMFO bombs ever. Producing a blast over pressure of something like 150,000 PSI. Far far more than any shaped charge might.
The concrete in the parking garage was most certainly not converted to powder.
What does this? Massive WEIGHT.
Put a billiard ball in a 50 ton hydraulic press. You'll get the same results. POWDER.
@roquefortfiles The weight is there whether there are explosives or not. I have not argued that it was anything BUT the weight that caused the things you describe.
@roquefortfiles None of the empirical experiments to try and replicate the initiation of the collapse by means of fire were remotely successful, and f.e.a.'s such as the one in this video suggest strongly that the mechanism proposed by NIST cannot succeed even theoretically.
So let's say for argument's sake you use thermite to cut just enough columns, no more than fire would have taken out in the OS. That explains all the characteristics of the event and nothing is left unexplained.
I am telling you right now this thermite stuff? Stories? are complete nonsense. This stuff is laughably absurd. There is not a person in CD who would EVER use this as a material for a CD. It wouldn't happen.
This building does not even collapse in a manner of a CD. There is NOTHING controlled about it at all.
@roquefortfiles I don't think you should be confused by the "CD" terminology. It is just supposed to indicate a deliberate act, not something that conforms to any conceivable industry standard.
I agree, the collapse is nothing like any traditional CD, but that is a long way indeed from meaning that it wasn't a deliberate act.
@roquefortfiles It doesn't have to be "controlled" in any sense either, other than making sure that the thing actually comes down completely and that the plausible deniability threshold is met.
@DarkwingScooter LOL. I can't really get across to you how silly your subject is. But let me assure you. Its silly. Had this building been crammed full of high explosives?... BELIEVE ME.. everyone in lower Manhattan would be PLAINLY aware of it.
You don't have news crews 800 feet from the WTC, like ABC NEWS are and have them video tape the collapse while they record NO SOUND.. (Which they do!!).
This is not possible. And CD have OODLES of debris left over.
@roquefortfiles Again, where do you get the idea that the buildings needed to be crammed? Are we back to arguing that because the buildings needed lots of explosions it had needed no explosions?
Sound (even of high explosives) can be damped at a cost (which no traditional would consider paying), but there is no need to so with thermite.
@DarkwingScooter There isn't a CD technician in the world who would use Thermite for a building implosion. You don't seem to get the point. This is a silly story before it is even out of the gate.
It would take a welder 10 mins to cut through a core column with a FOCUSED purpose built blow torch. Built to do the job.
And your going to ring a bunch of columns with.. NANOTHERMITE and do this in mere seconds?
@DarkwingScooter LOL!! If you think what Cole is cutting represents a load bearing column from the WTC. You're on glue!!.
And if you think some covert team of bad guys are going to go in to the WTC and rig up Cole's ridiculous back yard terrorist rube goldberg contraptions?.
You're on glue and crack. This is incredibly silly stuff you are talking about here.
@DarkwingScooter normal" demolition jobs then your "expertise" is meaningless here.
Well I'll have to bone up on the not normal CD jobs!!. LOL. Who are you kidding here? 14 inch wide 3 inch thick forged steel columns are not sizzled apart with a powdered incendiary. You're on crack if you think this. Very powerful high explosives would be required.
This collapse would look TOTALLY different if explosives were involved. Anyone with a shred of knowledge in this KNOWS that.
@DarkwingScooter He says geometrically the truss would have to sag 9 feet to see the buckling we do. But that's assuming the truss is connected on both ends. If was disconnected at one end (Which highly likely given the jet obliterating 3 floors) you'd have it disconnected at the core and still connected at the perimeter columns.
Floors 650 tonnes in weight now disconnected at one end?
@roquefortfiles There are estimates of the total amount of damage done to core columns in the peer reviewed literature, Irfanoglu and Hofmann give an overview. None of the estimates suggest anything like 3 floors being obliterated.
As they say, the jet impacts had a negligible effect on the structural integrity of the building, so it cannot be the source of the sagging one way or another.
@DarkwingScooter so it cannot be the source of the sagging one way or another.
The only thing connected to the columns and the core.... are the floors. I spoke to a SE on this. He told me that when a building begins to go out of alignment like the Ext columns were the forces acting on the building start to increase exponentially. You could say it begins to speed up in failure. Massive forces now begin to act on the structure in all the wrong areas.
@roquefortfiles I'm not sure who SE is, but I think an f.e.a. is a more reliable indicator than someones gut feel. The forces cannot increase anyway, only the direction the forces are acting in can change, changing the net balance of forces on each element.
Still, sounds like a thumb sucking post hoc explanation to me rather than anything remotely resembling rigor.
I have never seen anything rigorous supporting the OS story.
Judging by the videos many parts of the floors collapsed instead of sag even before the building, they tore several floors part's below with it! They created dust puff's wich can be seen in many videos! Nist didn't investigate this phenomenon too, why?
And what if 2 or 3 trusses broke away from the central core? Then you don't need 9 feet of sag to get 55in of deflection. When you take into account that the deflection if 55in appears to be in a localized area, what seems more likely? I think NIST is correct but you take a statement as a blanket and applying it to everything everywhere. I trhink it happened in lots of isolated pocket to varying degrees alowing lots of smaller deformations to compromise the structure.
@Nash1a oh, yeah right..... it is not localized, the 40-60 inch bow was seen across the entire face...btw only 20 trusses (out of one hundred) had damaged fireproofing.......
if u pour dirt out of a scoop it will form a mound shaped like a cone, because there is noting restricting flow to the side; this should be true in this collapse too, even tho the walls were structurally bearing, they had the least resistance compared to the spine of the bldng. So the collapsing top would crash down and push out the walls leaving the bldng intact under it. Thats my amature thought anyway, tell me why im wrong?
you have to leave the corner columns standing, so you can attack only the 1002 - 1007 columns. You can cut them at 104th floor (connection), 98th floor and 95th floor total of 18 charges. The core columns will drop for about 7 feet, hanging on the lateral bracing and the floors, the floor becomes rotated and the pull in force is created. This model has numerous advatanges.......this model explains everything better (antena tilt, 104th floor fire, the out of service elevators 6A/7A andmuch more.
You say they should have used beams with fixed ends in simulation
But as you can see on their own simulation the interior end fixation is destroyed (and then the beam is free for translation thanks to the slotted holes) much before the temperature of 700°C is reached which according to them allowed pull-in.
So how can they get pull in on the exterior end if the other one is free?
What you say is that they deceiptively identify T with Fx .. correct ?
Have you ever heard how much one of those floor asemblies weighs in EIGHT YEARS?
It is easy to compute the weight of the concrete slab if it was just concrete.
(205*205-(87*135))*(4.333/12) = 10933.60
10933.60 * 110 / 2000 = 601 tons
But there was a rebar mesh in the concrete. So with that plus the pans plus the 60 and 35 foot trusses what did it all weigh? Why isn't that common knowledge after EIGHT YEARS?
2,124
asicit2b 1 month ago
This analysis is very well done but there is no disputing the fact that the perimeter columns were in fact being bowed inward. You can plainly see this taking place quite drastically across the face of WTC 2. In fact it is exactly here where those columns finally snap and the failure takes place. The only thing connected to them are the floors. Remove one floor and the exterior columns strength drops by a factor of 8. Remove 2 and it goes up to a factor of 27.
roquefortfiles 5 months ago
@roquefortfiles I don't think he is disputing the sag, just the cause of it.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter The cause of it? I don't think we have to worry that Roger Ebert was sitting on them. A 767 hit them and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was set lose on it.
One is not stepping out in to left field to "infer" this
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Given that most "official" estimates agree that most of the jet fuel was burned off in the initial fireball you are indeed inferring too much. Jet fuel is not magical, it is kerosene, and in high-velocity impacts it is almost instantaneously vaporized and burned off.
What the jet fuel did was light a somewhat more extensive office fire than would otherwise have been the case.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Columns found after the fact were all but bald of fire proofing. Bare steel in a fire across 3 floors an acre across? Even a small area of exposed steel can compromise the entire section. Now strip it of all its protection, ask it to carry an increased load and set it on fire.
The buildings were not designed to take a 767 hitting it at cruising speed. With a full fuel tank. They NEVER were
So already we are over design limits.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles It doesn't matter what they were or were not designed to do. Officially sanctioned scientifically derived estimates all agree that the damage to the core columns were not severe enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.
Your GUT FEEL is not terribly scientific.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Right. And you have people like Les Robertson. (What does HE know.. only built the damn thing)..
Saying that there was NOTHING going to deal with a fire of that size and that the impact was on order of magnitude far more than they had allowed for.
It was built to take a 707 hitting it. But that was assumed to be on landing approach and moving slow.
Not screaming in at 560 mph with a full fuel tank.
Would NEVER be a consideration.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Again, that's a nice story with a bit of appeal to authority added in.
Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't count as rigor. There have been rigorous studies on this issue published in the peer-reviewed literature, I will choose to believe the rigorous results.
You can believe what you want, I don't mind.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter You can believe what you want, I don't mind.
Same to you. But if you are alluding that the result is because of a CD?.. NO!. I have experience in this area and there is nothing of the sort taking place.
And if your "Rigor" includes guys like Jim Hoffman talking about CD. He does not have one clue about what he is pushing. The stuff he talks about is complete nonsense with regard to CD. So is Richard Gage.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles "I have experience in this area and there is nothing of the sort taking place."
Lol, and I have experience fighting green space unicorns which grants me superior powers of intuition. That means I never have work things out, my gut feel IS math.
Internet hero eh?
You don't get to appeal to your own authority on an anonymous forum.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Another 911 "TM" ?? Another guy doing is level best to convince himself on all of this stuff?? ..
Steel columns are not taken apart by a slow burning powdered incendiary. It requires VERY powerful shaped charges. This building does not even fall in a manner of a CD. There IS nothing controlled about it.
The firemen trapped on the 6th floor stairway who survived the collapse of WTC 1 have NEVER said a thing about charges going off..
In a stairway??
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Haha, let's not let the facts get in the way of our opinions. You a NatGeo hero eh?
I take it you haven't seen this video /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g wherein can be observed, quoting you here, "a slow burning powdered incendiary" acting so that "[s]teel columns are [...] taken apart".
But nevermind reality.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Yes i have seen that video. A bunch of backyard nonsense. If this is the level of crap you watch and get excited about i don't wonder why you don't grasp this topic. (And where was that happening across 210 feet of the WTC facade? I see nothing in close up videos)
Pull out the yellow pages and look up any CD company. Call them up and ask them to use thermite on your next building implosion.
They'd laugh at you.
Sort of like I am doing.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles No rational demolition company would use thermite in a normal demolition, you are perfectly correct.
What has that got to do with 9/11 though?
Newsflash: This was anything BUT a normal demolition job. Just so you know. If all you know is "normal" demolition jobs then your "expertise" is meaningless here.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Oh... i see!! Mmmhhm.
No explosive or thermite is going to render an acre sized cement floor (on 110 stories!!) in to talc powder.
One charge.. ONE!! capable of blowing a main column would be heard half a mile away. WITH EASE. (I've been there!!)..
Let alone 10 or 20 more.
And oh yes There was not ONE single item found relating to a CD.
You don't get something for nothing dude. But I am sure you'll find a way to explain all that.
You always do.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles And yet you would like me to accept that the same can be done with gravity alone?
Gravity was acting whether there were explosives or not, the question is only whether it needed a little push here and there or not.
I take it you are familiar with Verinage demolitions, how sure are you that you can't achieve with thermite as demonstrated by Cole what is achieved in Verinage with cables?
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Ever stop to consider a few things?
WTC 2 hit last but collapses first. (I wonder why??).
Could it have something to do with the damaged section having to bear 2x the load above it? (Remember.. both buildings are identical ). Its bearing 31 floors.
WTC 1 hit first but collapses last. (Hmmm?). Could the fact that it only has to bear HALF the weight above the damaged section be significant? (It sure is)
Does it make SENSE?.
Is it LOGICAL?
Sure is
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles You have to use caution when using words like "logical", it doesn't mean mean "make sense", that is the informal, non-rigorous definition.
It is also perfectly logical that someone would know that someone would observe the scene and would therefore initiate the destruction (if that is indeed what happened) in the sequence that the initiator expects would "makes sense" to the observer.
"Logical" doesn't mean "confirms my non-rigorous intuitions".
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Thanks for the English lesson. But you're splitting hairs in order to prop up your position. And you know it.
A 5 year old could understand the point.
Two identical structures!! One hit 31 floors below the roof. One hit 14 stories below the roof. With identical aircraft.
What's the variable? Now children lets guess which building lasts longer?
You get the point!! (ANYONE would)
(But thanks for the English lesson)
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles It is not about an English lesson, it is about you suggesting that your story has any rigorous analytical implication.
Yes, on a simple guess the outcome was what was expected naturally, but that outcome could also expected if it was an "inside job" by a non-idiot who has put more than a little thought into what he was doing.
It is meaningless to rattle on about what your gut instinct intuitions are if you are not prepared to inject formal reasoning into the discussion.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Forget about all that.
This is not accomplished without high explosives. And i know what I am talking about. You can slice and dice this subject all you like. Fact of the matter is explosives would be involved and unfortunately no one has invented silent one's.
This is what you'd be hearing in Manhattan if there were explosives there.
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
You go find me ONE video with this kind of audio. You won't
Then I'll care.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles So you mean that I just have to take your word for it that it can only be accomplished with high-explosives, so since there was no obvious signs of high explosives it was done without high explosives.
Yeah, that thing I said about logic earlier...
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Thermite ? With 47 HUGE internal columns. There are 240 exterior columns. Even if you half that to be nice 145. How much Thermite per column to REALLY (Lets get factual) do this? 100 pounds? 300?.. (Still a joke btw!!).
300x145=43,500 pounds
21.75 TONS.. of this material.
We're only on ONE FLOOR and half the columns.
And no matter how you want to slice this Thermite don't launch columns half a block and it don't vaporize concrete floors.
Dream on
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles I usual associate the word "factual" with empirical. Look at the Cole video, I will link it again. I would estimate maybe twice that amount for the larger columns given a more hi-tech mix.
/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
It doesn't improve your argument to say that thermite doesn't launch columns, because your argument is that gravity is doing it, and gravity can still do it in the presence of thermite.
Unless you have some other definition of "fact" that ignores observation and reason?
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter .. Oh...!!!
You might like to note that his little Rube Goldberg homemade terrorist contraption that he manufactures?? (Ridiculously absurd stuff!!!).
Was nowhere to be found at any of the buildings.
You're talking VERY silly stuff here.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Again, you insist that a demolition must have been done by massively elaborate contraption, concluding from this that it wasn't done by any contraption at all?
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter I have paper done by a Structural Engineer and a Demolition expert. Calculating the amount of explosives needed to produce the amount of destruction we saw.
650 tonnes of high grade explosives. And EVEN THEN!! explosives are a lousy agent to turn cement in to powder.
However there was more than enough dead weight in the structure to pulverize the floors.
Cement will be powder at like 1.5 Gigajoules of energy. the collapse produced 3.5.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Why are you citing a paper you disagree with?
Your argument is that gravity alone turned the concrete into dust and flung the steel beams. I agree with you.
I don't agree that gravity (and fire) alone can account for the initiation, the specific attributes or the peculiar artifacts of the collapse.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter I am citing because it illustrates the ridiculously silly amount of explosives that WOULD have been required.
The building only needs to be BROUGHT to failure point. After that there is NO QUESTION it would be more than capable of the destruction we saw.
Even small areas of bare steel without fire proofing can compromise the entire section. Columns found afterward were TELLY SAVALAS bald of fire proofing.
Peculiar? artifacts?
Such as?
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Again, your claim is that because a huge amount of explosives are required no explosives are required?
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter . I know enough to know that explosives do not "Dustify" acre wide cement floors. The truck bomb in 93 had one of the largest AMFO bombs ever. Producing a blast over pressure of something like 150,000 PSI. Far far more than any shaped charge might.
The concrete in the parking garage was most certainly not converted to powder.
What does this? Massive WEIGHT.
Put a billiard ball in a 50 ton hydraulic press. You'll get the same results. POWDER.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles The weight is there whether there are explosives or not. I have not argued that it was anything BUT the weight that caused the things you describe.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Ok. So what's your point of view. I don't really follow you.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles None of the empirical experiments to try and replicate the initiation of the collapse by means of fire were remotely successful, and f.e.a.'s such as the one in this video suggest strongly that the mechanism proposed by NIST cannot succeed even theoretically.
So let's say for argument's sake you use thermite to cut just enough columns, no more than fire would have taken out in the OS. That explains all the characteristics of the event and nothing is left unexplained.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter thermite to cut just enough columns
I am telling you right now this thermite stuff? Stories? are complete nonsense. This stuff is laughably absurd. There is not a person in CD who would EVER use this as a material for a CD. It wouldn't happen.
This building does not even collapse in a manner of a CD. There is NOTHING controlled about it at all.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles I don't think you should be confused by the "CD" terminology. It is just supposed to indicate a deliberate act, not something that conforms to any conceivable industry standard.
I agree, the collapse is nothing like any traditional CD, but that is a long way indeed from meaning that it wasn't a deliberate act.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles It doesn't have to be "controlled" in any sense either, other than making sure that the thing actually comes down completely and that the plausible deniability threshold is met.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter LOL. I can't really get across to you how silly your subject is. But let me assure you. Its silly. Had this building been crammed full of high explosives?... BELIEVE ME.. everyone in lower Manhattan would be PLAINLY aware of it.
You don't have news crews 800 feet from the WTC, like ABC NEWS are and have them video tape the collapse while they record NO SOUND.. (Which they do!!).
This is not possible. And CD have OODLES of debris left over.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Again, where do you get the idea that the buildings needed to be crammed? Are we back to arguing that because the buildings needed lots of explosions it had needed no explosions?
Sound (even of high explosives) can be damped at a cost (which no traditional would consider paying), but there is no need to so with thermite.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter There isn't a CD technician in the world who would use Thermite for a building implosion. You don't seem to get the point. This is a silly story before it is even out of the gate.
It would take a welder 10 mins to cut through a core column with a FOCUSED purpose built blow torch. Built to do the job.
And your going to ring a bunch of columns with.. NANOTHERMITE and do this in mere seconds?
Yeah don't think so!!
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles Let's not let reality get in the way of our opinions shall we?
Did you watch the Cole video? The whole video isn't much more than ten minutes long.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter Those Cole videos are ridiculous. Show that to a CD technician and they'd laugh.
That you are swayed by such silliness speaks volumes about your understanding this.
The only person Jonathon Cole would impress is Wile Coyote.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles It isn't about impressing anyone.
Are you claiming that Cole's devices did not cut those columns?
If you are then it is a he said she said situation, and you are nothing but an anonymous forum-goer.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter LOL!! If you think what Cole is cutting represents a load bearing column from the WTC. You're on glue!!.
And if you think some covert team of bad guys are going to go in to the WTC and rig up Cole's ridiculous back yard terrorist rube goldberg contraptions?.
You're on glue and crack. This is incredibly silly stuff you are talking about here.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter normal" demolition jobs then your "expertise" is meaningless here.
Well I'll have to bone up on the not normal CD jobs!!. LOL. Who are you kidding here? 14 inch wide 3 inch thick forged steel columns are not sizzled apart with a powdered incendiary. You're on crack if you think this. Very powerful high explosives would be required.
This collapse would look TOTALLY different if explosives were involved. Anyone with a shred of knowledge in this KNOWS that.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter You don't get to appeal to your own authority on an anonymous forum
That's all that matters to me. Weather you believe me or not is your deal.
But i can tell you all this talk of CD?..
Is complete nonsense. And i speak from experience. First hand experience.
These stories are verging closer to a JOKE than reality. Perpetuated by allot people who have absolutely NO GRASP of this subject.
High explosives do NOT go off in a sound vacuum.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter He says geometrically the truss would have to sag 9 feet to see the buckling we do. But that's assuming the truss is connected on both ends. If was disconnected at one end (Which highly likely given the jet obliterating 3 floors) you'd have it disconnected at the core and still connected at the perimeter columns.
Floors 650 tonnes in weight now disconnected at one end?
Just a little bit o strain on the columns.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
@roquefortfiles There are estimates of the total amount of damage done to core columns in the peer reviewed literature, Irfanoglu and Hofmann give an overview. None of the estimates suggest anything like 3 floors being obliterated.
As they say, the jet impacts had a negligible effect on the structural integrity of the building, so it cannot be the source of the sagging one way or another.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
@DarkwingScooter so it cannot be the source of the sagging one way or another.
The only thing connected to the columns and the core.... are the floors. I spoke to a SE on this. He told me that when a building begins to go out of alignment like the Ext columns were the forces acting on the building start to increase exponentially. You could say it begins to speed up in failure. Massive forces now begin to act on the structure in all the wrong areas.
roquefortfiles 1 month ago
Comment removed
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roquefortfiles I'm not sure who SE is, but I think an f.e.a. is a more reliable indicator than someones gut feel. The forces cannot increase anyway, only the direction the forces are acting in can change, changing the net balance of forces on each element.
Still, sounds like a thumb sucking post hoc explanation to me rather than anything remotely resembling rigor.
I have never seen anything rigorous supporting the OS story.
DarkwingScooter 1 month ago
Judging by the videos many parts of the floors collapsed instead of sag even before the building, they tore several floors part's below with it! They created dust puff's wich can be seen in many videos! Nist didn't investigate this phenomenon too, why?
74pbg 7 months ago
And what if 2 or 3 trusses broke away from the central core? Then you don't need 9 feet of sag to get 55in of deflection. When you take into account that the deflection if 55in appears to be in a localized area, what seems more likely? I think NIST is correct but you take a statement as a blanket and applying it to everything everywhere. I trhink it happened in lots of isolated pocket to varying degrees alowing lots of smaller deformations to compromise the structure.
Nash1a 1 year ago
@Nash1a oh, yeah right..... it is not localized, the 40-60 inch bow was seen across the entire face...btw only 20 trusses (out of one hundred) had damaged fireproofing.......
nehorlavazapalka 1 year ago
An inward push is exerted on the floor assembly after inward pull has begun to bend the columns. Did you factor this in?
jizzmonger 1 year ago
if u pour dirt out of a scoop it will form a mound shaped like a cone, because there is noting restricting flow to the side; this should be true in this collapse too, even tho the walls were structurally bearing, they had the least resistance compared to the spine of the bldng. So the collapsing top would crash down and push out the walls leaving the bldng intact under it. Thats my amature thought anyway, tell me why im wrong?
Axbent 1 year ago
Good job dude. NIST's explanations pretty suck not only on these points though... never thought about explaining the rest?
dedissimo 2 years ago
you have to leave the corner columns standing, so you can attack only the 1002 - 1007 columns. You can cut them at 104th floor (connection), 98th floor and 95th floor total of 18 charges. The core columns will drop for about 7 feet, hanging on the lateral bracing and the floors, the floor becomes rotated and the pull in force is created. This model has numerous advatanges.......this model explains everything better (antena tilt, 104th floor fire, the out of service elevators 6A/7A andmuch more.
nehorlavazapalka 2 years ago
Good job
You say they should have used beams with fixed ends in simulation
But as you can see on their own simulation the interior end fixation is destroyed (and then the beam is free for translation thanks to the slotted holes) much before the temperature of 700°C is reached which according to them allowed pull-in.
So how can they get pull in on the exterior end if the other one is free?
What you say is that they deceiptively identify T with Fx .. correct ?
fhenryco 2 years ago
+ a lot of the truss seats were destroyed during the impact (WTC2) .........etc....NIST's fucked up big time
nehorlavazapalka 2 years ago
Have you ever heard how much one of those floor asemblies weighs in EIGHT YEARS?
It is easy to compute the weight of the concrete slab if it was just concrete.
(205*205-(87*135))*(4.333/12) = 10933.60
10933.60 * 110 / 2000 = 601 tons
But there was a rebar mesh in the concrete. So with that plus the pans plus the 60 and 35 foot trusses what did it all weigh? Why isn't that common knowledge after EIGHT YEARS?
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
Beautiful, well done!
Looking forward to
seeing part 2
rongrite 2 years ago