The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Top floor failed, collapse all the way to ground level through undamaged floor slabs.
It has happened before.

Obviously done with silent explosives or nano nano thermite!

originally posted by: LaBTop

The towers were not point masses.

If you have inadequate education, no need to be ashamed.
If so, it's however really better to refrain from making such funny remarks.
All you show is, you have no clue at all what Charles M. Beck laid out before you.

I sincerely hope that you aren't claiming that the towers were point masses.

All Chandler proved is that the collapse progression accelerated at .67g. Newtonian physics is adequate for that part only.

It is inadequate to determine how fast it should have accelerated, or decelerated, cuz the towers were a system of interconnected parts. The only way that Newtonian physics/laws of motion would be applicable is if columns were falling directly onto columns, crushing and buckling them. that obviously didn't happen. Pics of the spires and large assemblies of interconnected ext column proves it.

He's comparing a real event - the collapse - to a theoretical model that doesn't apply.

Chandler is making an appeal to incredulity. Nothing more. And some have fallen for it.

originally posted by: LaBTop
David Chandler found a 36 % top-part weight figure by applying his Tracker software.
How could applying besides Newton, also Euler and Johann/Daniel Bernoulli, add an additional percentage on top of the 36 % top-part weight figure, sufficiently enough to reach a higher top part (pile driver) weight figure, that could have favored a pile-driver theory? And thus also counter Charles M. Beck's calculations, who used much more than plain old Newton laws of motion.

The upper part didn't fall on the columns, all the way to the ground.

His model has zero validity.

originally posted by: LaBTop
The same "Tracker" software was used by David Chandler to measure the 2.5 seconds of true gravitational acceleration at the start of global collapse of WTC-7. He used the same measurement of a pixel of the roof rim line, as he did for this WTC-1N example.
Please prove him wrong on that subject too.
While you're at it, you can prove NIST's own new measurements also wrong.
Fed to and calculated with, their own proprietary software, after David pointed at their final WTC-7 report's intendedly hugely flawed fraudulous G-calculations.
On a side note, NIST's outcome came even nearer to true G acceleration values.

Why the Gish Gallop?

Stick to Chandler and learn that his model is not valid.

originally posted by: LaBTop

Because these firms very well know that there is an awful amount of RESISTANCE to be nullified, and they don't want to be left behind with huge remnants, which cleanup will result in a negative project value in their books.

Can you link to a demo of a building as large as the Twin Towers , or a DESIGN like the twin towers.

For example here is a typical floor plan for the Empi re State Building

Here is the Twin Towers

Now ANYONE will YOUR claimed construction experience should be able to see why the floor slabs of the Towers could fall internally.

After all here is an example Progreesive Collapse

One slab falls onto the undamaged slab below YET it manages to make it to ground level something YOU CLAIM can't happen!!!

That looks to me as a stripped building, prepared to be demolished. Then a middle part collapsed premature. Possibly caused by too zealous workers who undermined the building a bit too much.


Beck's model is applicable, NIST claim is wrong, since we are looking at the collapse-initiation point in time, when all still intact columns and crossbeams (that prevent buckling) were still in place. Do note that the collapse clearly started at a non-impacted floor !
Further on all 47 core columns at those non-impacted floors should have magically lost their yield strength at the same time to let the top part of the building behave as we saw, sinking as a block in those first three seconds. I hope you don't believe in that kind of Nature.

Page 11. 2. Rigidity assumption: The NIST report claims that the collapse started because the vertical columns could not absorb the energy of the falling top section of the building.(2)
By design, all vertical columns were continuous structures that stretched from the ground floor to the top of the building. Lateral support was added to them to prevent them from buckling under load, so that they would behave as “short columns.” For our models we assumed that the vertical columns are indeed short columns :
Under compression they maintain their ultimate strength until the yield strain is reached.The rigidity assumption enters here as the location where the fracture occurs - at (according to Bazant et al.(10)) or near the interface between the avalanche and the vertical column. However, this is a slow compression of the column (the velocity of the source of compression is much smaller than the sound velocity in the steel) so the stress has time to propagate throughout the whole column causing the strain to do the same. As a result, the fractional distance λ1 should be applied to the full length of the column (delta-H, the height of the building) and not to the storey height delta-H = H/FT .

Then Charles M. Beck proves his case via correct calculus.

a reply to: LaBTop

WRONG !!!!!!

Larry Rivers was working in the basement of the building when the cave-in began. He said "We had about two seconds warning...a rumbling sound like Niagara Falls. I ran for my life. I looked back and saw four of my buddies being crushed by the concrete. It was sickening."

Shoring from the top slab AFTER a concrete pour was removed early the slab dropped onto the next and the collapse continued to ground level then into the basement levels SOUND FAMILIAR!!!!

originally posted by: LaBTop
That looks to me as a stripped building, prepared to be demolished. Then a middle part collapsed premature. Possibly caused by too zealous workers who undermined the building a bit too much.


Beck's model is applicable, NIST claim is wrong, since we are looking at the collapse-initiation point in time, when all still intact columns and crossbeams (that prevent buckling) were still in place. Do note that the collapse clearly started at a non-impacted floor !
Further on all 47 core columns at those non-impacted floors should have magically lost their yield strength at the same time to let the top part of the building behave as we saw, sinking as a block in those first three seconds. I hope you don't believe in that kind of Nature.

Page 11. 2. Rigidity assumption: The NIST report claims that the collapse started because the vertical columns could not absorb the energy of the falling top section of the building.(2)
By design, all vertical columns were continuous structures that stretched from the ground floor to the top of the building. Lateral support was added to them to prevent them from buckling under load, so that they would behave as “short columns.” For our models we assumed that the vertical columns are indeed short columns :
Under compression they maintain their ultimate strength until the yield strain is reached.The rigidity assumption enters here as the location where the fracture occurs - at (according to Bazant et al.(10)) or near the interface between the avalanche and the vertical column. However, this is a slow compression of the column (the velocity of the source of compression is much smaller than the sound velocity in the steel) so the stress has time to propagate throughout the whole column causing the strain to do the same. As a result, the fractional distance λ1 should be applied to the full length of the column (delta-H, the height of the building) and not to the storey height delta-H = H/FT .

Then Charles M. Beck proves his case via correct calculus.

There was very little, if any, column to column impacts. Not in the first half second, nor three seconds, nor at any time during the actual collapse initiation nor progression.

Therefore, this analysis is not a valid argument against the actual collapse times. At best, this can only be used as an argument against Bazant's limiting case analysis where he calculates that no matter what, the collapse progression was inevitable.

The facts are, that stuff fell on the floors, and the resistance from the floors and their connections were what was providing resistance to the collapse progression. You cannot deny this with any rational argument.

The REAL single most important analysis of 911 is that the Thermite bomb Truther's and the Laser/Pulse weapons Truther's are arguing over something that THEY should be UNITED about.

The FACT is that the use of Laser/Pulse weapons generates temperatures well into the 2100 degree 1700 degree range that is indicative of thermitic reaction on metals and other materials. The whole absurd idea that someone inserted thermite bombs throughout those towers hasn't proved out. Puffs of smoke between floors during the collapse are easily explained by simple air pressure release or fire extinguisher explosions.
But NO LOGICAL explanation is found for steel I-beams turning into dust in mid air.

As far as the money trail is concerned. Everyone should look at the building manifest of the towers (1 and 2) and then those found in tower 7 and your answer should be easy. The whole complex was nothing more than a sovereign wealth fund insider trading scam operation, that eventually became obsolete due to wireless trading. ALL EVIDENCE of the scam had to be ELIMINATED. Lock stock and barrel.

originally posted by: Yule C Mann

But NO LOGICAL explanation is found for steel I-beams turning into dust in mid air.

.

Well there's a reason for that. One you probably wont like, either.

There can be no logic that can refute a fantasy.

originally posted by: Yule C Mann

But NO LOGICAL explanation is found for steel I-beams turning into dust in mid air.

Were did that happen?

a reply to: Yule C Mann

The whole complex was nothing more than a sovereign wealth fund insider trading scam operation, that eventually became obsolete due to wireless trading. ALL EVIDENCE of the scam had to be ELIMINATED. Lock stock and barrel.

So you are saying a bunch of stock traders pulled off 911?
That's a new one.
But why should they worry? Not much has happened to the ones caught since then.

originally posted by: wmd_2008


Maybe if I type this s l o w l y it will sink in, When the collapse of the Towers was initiated the floor slabs collapsed internally that allowed the walls to basically peel away from the structure.

Emphasism mine



Does that pic look like the walls were '"peeling"? Or blowing to bits? I can only assume that dust cloud exiting the building is what happened to the "slab", since very little if any was found in the ruble. So did the slab collapse? or was it blown to bits? if the slab was crushed between the downward force and the structure below, then it would it not have remained in the rubble?



This pic shows some of the outer walls falling in bigger pieces, but it seems like - at least in initially - that the majority of the exterior walls were blown apart. And the concrete slab; You say that the slabs stacking on each other was the weight that caused the collapse, but all of the photos show the concrete being completely victimized and ejected from the building along with the exterior walls. There barely any concrete in the debris, yet you attribute the weight of it to what caused the progressive collapse? or was it the weight of the floor trusses alone?

It is kind of interesting, in that first picture above it shows the top section seems to be tilting hard to one side,which you would think would make the side of the tower that the top is tipped towards, collapse ahead of the the other side of the tower where the top section is tipped up. But the tower underneath is collapsing perfectly vertical where it doesn't seem like weight of the collapse has even made it there yet.

at the 50 second mark you can clearly see the top tipped off the side, yet the building kept collapsing at a consistent speed.



VID LINK,

Truthers DON'T believe that a progressive collapse of the floor slabs happened BECAUSE they claim it can never happen because of a failed understanding of Newton's Laws applied to this event.

Where are the floor slabs? I think to claim that means that there would have to be a tally of how much weight in concrete was removed from the debris. There is such a record but I cannot find it. materials were separated for recycling so there is a log somewhere of how much concrete was hauled out in chunks.

Also YOU don't seem to understand what progressive means.


progressive:adjective--- 1. happening or developing gradually or in stages.

Now I know you are barely reading my posts. I have said multiple times that it is not progressive because it started falling at the same speed and fashion all the way down the tower. progressive means it started one speed and fashion and progressed to another, it didn't. The roof progressed to near free fall speed but the plumbs blowing out of the building never sped up from the moment they started.





THE ABOVE IS A POST FROM THIS THREAD, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A RESPONSE WMD IS DISCUSSING THE SAME THING IN THIS THREAD SO I CARRIED IT OVER SO WMD DOESN'T FORGET ABOUT ME

originally posted by: Yule C Mann
But NO LOGICAL explanation is found for steel I-beams turning into dust in mid air.

That is because that never actually happened.... where is your evidence of a steel I beam turning to dust?

would be nanothermite

a reply to: MALBOSIA

First we are in DIFFERENT time zones I also have a LIFE away from ATS.

Look for DEBRIS FIELD images in Google, also do YOU honestly think all the dust is concrete, what about the sheetrock, sprayed on fire protection,vermiculite behind the cladding panels, smoke & soot from the fires, dust from uncleaned areas , paint even glass was found in the dust samples.

You see truther claims about the dust are the same as when they talk about the cause, the dust is just concrete it wasn't in the same way it wasn't just fires that caused the building collapse.

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

For some strange reason YOU and others like you seem to think 4 and a half inches of floor grade concrete with some mesh through it should be indestructible even when it falls HUNDREDS of feet and thousands of tons of material falls on it.

a reply to: wmd_2008


None of those pics showed chunks of concrete. The one for sure was from the basement, not sure why you posted that. Not all the dust was concrete but almost all the concrete was dust based on FEMAS debris expert and picture evidence. How do you attribute something to the collapse that was itself completely victimized and ejected from the building?

I'm going off testimony from FEMA and picture evidence. Your going off some wack theoretical model. Put the NIST simulation and collapse footage side by side on your monitor. Not even remotely close...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The concrete stayed mostly in place. It was only 4 inches thick on the floor pans.

You can see some of it here:

www.stevespak.com...
s662.photobucket.com...
1.bp.blogspot.com...

You forget that most of the concrete was in the foot print stacked up in the floor segments. A bunch was crushed in the collapses and ejected as dust, as one would expect, but a lot of the concrete stayed behind. The floor pans and floor trusses also stayed in the footprint. There is no way they were ejected. You can see them falling down during the collapse.

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The concrete stayed mostly in place. It was only 4 inches thick on the floor pans.

You can see some of it here:

www.stevespak.com...
s662.photobucket.com...
1.bp.blogspot.com...

You forget that most of the concrete was in the foot print stacked up in the floor segments. A bunch was crushed in the collapses and ejected as dust, as one would expect, but a lot of the concrete stayed behind. The floor pans and floor trusses also stayed in the footprint. There is no way they were ejected. You can see them falling down during the collapse.

No, one would NOT expect the concrete to be pulverized to dust. and the only pic you posted of concrete in the actual debris on-site is in the basement under the the entire weight of the building, and what do you know... it wasn't turned to dust.

This is a big hole in the OS it seems since the pushers are trying so hard to make it trivial. You would think that that backbone to the progressive collapse would be more concrete. Pardon the pun.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

First we are in DIFFERENT time zones I also have a LIFE away from ATS.

Look for DEBRIS FIELD images in Google, also do YOU honestly think all the dust is concrete, what about the sheetrock, sprayed on fire protection,vermiculite behind the cladding panels, smoke & soot from the fires, dust from uncleaned areas , paint even glass was found in the dust samples.

You see truther claims about the dust are the same as when they talk about the cause, the dust is just concrete it wasn't in the same way it wasn't just fires that caused the building collapse.

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

For some strange reason YOU and others like you seem to think 4 and a half inches of floor grade concrete with some mesh through it should be indestructible even when it falls HUNDREDS of feet and thousands of tons of material falls on it.

The distance from one floor to the next level up/down remains the same +/- 14 feet? Concrete dustifies in 14 feet of freefall?