NIST says no pancake

Originally posted by Pootie
ESDAD is 100% WRONG in his analysis...

The building is acting like the top of a Zippo lighter in that photo... it should have continued to open like a Zippo. The rotational inertia should have been maintained.

It did not SLIDE OFF TO THE SIDE like in DADS horribly crappy drawings. That is not how rotation works.

*snip*

I could go on all day with all of the things wrong in that photo.


[edit on 3-5-2007 by Pootie]

Let me break this down. ATS is NO ONES soap box. That includes YOU! If you wish to make your points, fine. This type of posting is "baiting" and against the T&C. Refrain from this please.

Edit to add: This refers to ALL threads, not just this one.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by intrepid]

Why are you only moderating me?

I PM'd you asking so I guess I will ask here.

Read Labtops latest posts... the sentiment is not mine alone.

You interject because I say "horribly crappy drawings" but iandavis and stiney insult everyone here on a constant basis...

Way to be consistent.

""Horribly crappy drawings" will get me banned...

WEAK.




[edit on 3-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad71
Combined mass of the towers was estimated at 1000000 tons. they were each 110 stories so if we divide 1000000 tons/2 we get each tower, and then divide by 110 and get roughly 4500 tons for each floor. 4500*35 to find the weight of the upper floors is 157000 tons.

Anyone want to take over...

Brilliant, i've been asking about some rough weights in another thread.

I've got something to work with now.

Originally posted by Pootie
I PM'd you asking so I guess I will ask here.

Well if you did you got the username wrong. I didn't get any PM.

Read Labtops latest posts... the sentiment is not mine alone.

That member is not my concern. I will NOT discuss this further. OK?

Post accordingly(inside the T&C) and all will be well.

Esdad, you're assuming the weight of each floor is uniform, when the design documents and many other things I've seen say that's not true - eg, the steel in the lower floors was 4 inches thick, narrowing to 1/2 an inch I believe on the upper floors..

Thanks for the rest of your figures, but the weight of the upper floors is not as high as you're assuming... I would guess it's more like 2/3 of the weight of the towers being in the bottom 1/3 height-wise.. maybe bottom 1/2

Originally posted by intrepid
Let me break this down. ATS is NO ONES soap box. That includes YOU! If you wish to make your points, fine. This type of posting is "baiting" and against the T&C.

I think the point was that the cap tilted at an angle and wasn't just displaced laterally as Esdad suggested.

It should be made clear that this part of his post was perfectly valid.


The ultimate point is that the building isn't going to fall straight down from that. Loads are being piled on to one side and removed from the other. Think, people.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by bsbray11]

I agree - the initial tipping of the cap doesn't suddenly translate into vertical free-fall collapse of the ENTIRE structure.

I remember that day when I watched it live, I saw it collapse side-ways and honestly expected it to fall off the top and collapse onto the buildings/street below. It was a total shock when the building suddenly disappeared from under it and the whole thing collapsed instantaneously. Even during the vertical collapse I still expected to see it falling sideways down the side of the tower, and was very surprised when it didn't.

Originally posted by Steel Penguin

Originally posted by esdad71
Combined mass of the towers was estimated at 1000000 tons. they were each 110 stories so if we divide 1000000 tons/2 we get each tower, and then divide by 110 and get roughly 4500 tons for each floor. 4500*35 to find the weight of the upper floors is 157000 tons.

Anyone want to take over...

Brilliant, i've been asking about some rough weights in another thread.

I've got something to work with now.

Actually the top floors would not be that heavy. Each floor was built to support all the floors above them. The bottom floors had more weight to support then the top floors since they had more weight above them. The support columns were very large and very thick at the bottom and gradually got smaller and thinner as you get higher. As the steel got thinner the floors weighed less and less. And this holds true for both the core columns as well as the outside perimeter columns.
The best way I have to show you how these columns were gradually thinning out as height increases is this very well done video animation of the WTC towers structure:
www.youtube.com...

With the Top part of tower 2 coming off like that, I have always wondered what happened to the core in order for that to take place. Further I think it completely logical to assume that the force downward for collapse against existing structure would not proceed to a complete collapse since most of the weight now had come off and was beginning to rotate off.

Why that top didn't proceed to rotate and fall as was, is a mystery.

i agree there is no pancake and show how I feel it collapsed. No one else takes the time...

isn't that an interesting and logical question from Coughymachine on top of page 2?
And why no one addresses it?

So, if the towers were to have been brought down in a controlled manner without having been hit by a plane, could the same global collapse sequence have been achieved by blowing out the core columns between floors 75-80, thus allowing the upper floors to slam down onto the structure below?

(Btw, coughymachine, that is fine logical line of thinking in your blogspot, about the Mohammed Atta timeline. You are a damn sharp fellow!)

--------------

Intrepid, I completely lost you on your reasoning and moderating this specific forum post above there, from Pootie.

I do understand moderators have a difficult job, and can have grumpy days too.
I also do understand that scaring potentially any valuable members away is not the intend of this site.
So, would you care to evaluate in public about your interpretation of "baiting" after these hours passed? I really have no clue.

I would say that Esdad's drawing borders posting false information, anyone studying 9/11 and ALSO seeing that top tilting photo above his post, can only conclude that the way he pictured the tilting is plain and obviously false.

That's strictly forbidden in these forums.
I give him slack as to not have intended to do that however, in the heat of the discussion.
So why you go after the one addressing his much graver fault, goes beyond my comprehension.

Bordering on false information? How? Maybe you would care to talk about the post instead of trying to psychoanalyze us all. I am showing that there was NO pancake, and attempting to show a theory of how it may have fallen.

This is about showing there could not have been a 'pancake' collapse.

Originally posted by esdad71
Bordering on false information?

As a matter of fact it appears to be TOTALLY false.

There is no lateral "slide" as your pictures represent. They are a false representation of what the photographic evidence shows... ROTATION.

Now... What POSSIBLE force PUSHED the floors DIRECTLY HORIZONTALLY as your drawings clearly show?

I was not showing a 'lateral slide'. I was attempting to show that if the buckling occured, it would have slammed into the 74th floor and the columns would no longer be aligned properly for support. It is a generic picture to try to show a point of view of why there may have been less resistence. If something falls directly on something below it, there is more resistence then if it is slightly off center.

YOu are correct that the columns were different above 95 I beleive. THis is a rough estimate but what are a few 100 tons?

Originally posted by esdad71
I was not showing a 'lateral slide'. I was attempting to show that if the buckling occured, it would have slammed into the 74th floor and the columns would no longer be aligned properly for support.

You are contradicting yourself... The bolded part, is by definition, lateral movement.

What we are actually seeing is a rotation, the Zippo opening. The alignment of the columns becomes unimportant if the vector force of the mass is rotational, leaving the net downward force off the left side of the building. This leaves no mass to crush the core columns (at least on the right) and no mass to crush the exterior columns on the right IN A BEST CASE SCENARIO for the NIST and your argument.

Worst case for you and the NIST is that it continues to rotate, as it should, falls into the street and fails to "crush" very much other than the beams that are at the moment of the rotation.

Imagine hanging a plumb bob from the center of the rotating mass... whever it is pointing is the downward "crushing vector... as the block rotates, it moves further and further to the left, eventually off of the building if MAGIC did not stop the rotation.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

No mass to crush any columns? Are you serious? Please explain Slaps the physics class you took that shows 35 stories can hang in midair with no support.

Originally posted by esdad71
No mass to crush any columns? Are you serious? Please explain Slaps the physics class you took that shows 35 stories can hang in midair with no support.

You do not understand that net force is a zero sum game... for every newton of rotational force, you have one less newton of "straight down crushing" force.

It WAS not hanging in mid air, it was rotating drastically.

What removed ALL OF THE COLUMNS to allow it to "hang in the air with no support"?

I cannot discuss physics with you. You need to learn about net forces, rotation, inertia, momentum, vectors, etc. prior to understanding the issues that you present do not comply with the laws of physics.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad71
No mass to crush any columns? Are you serious? Please explain Slaps the physics class you took that shows 35 stories can hang in midair with no support.

Also, nice CREATIVE EDITING of my statement...

It is against ATS rules to be misleading. I was VERY specific about what I said and you have changed it. "NO MASS" WAS QUALIFIED...

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

I am not asking you to discuss Physics nor am I bieng misleading in any way. This is a discusstion about NIST and pancaking. I agree that it did not 'pancake', but at the same time I believe the NOVA explanation. NIST has some great information but not very good conclusions in some cases.

The picture shows the top tilting to me, not rotating. THere was slight rotation from buckling if any.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by esdad71]