How the WTC towers fell

^bsbray

The shifting masses you pointed out are the elevator shafts, which shift from one side of the core to the other at the mechanical floors/sky lobbies. You'll see confirmation in the arch'l plans we were posting about earlier, over at 911reasearch.

But is some part of the core open from wall-to-wall for a freight elevator or what specifically is the function here?


Since it's somewhat on-topic, here's an image of what looks like the concrete base of a large elevator, maybe the freight elevator of this particular building:

Originally posted by bsbray11
But is some part of the core open from wall-to-wall for a freight elevator or what specifically is the function here?

I'm not exactly clear about your question but one side of the core, if you divide it down the middle of its long side, held elevator shafts, with a smaller electrical/mechanical shaft in the other half. The rest was essentially leftover space outfitted with toilets etc. These shafts flip from one side to the other at the sky lobbies/mechanical floors, since the building was really three sections stacked up, and flipping allows them to minimize the amount of space given over to these systems on the mechanical floors.

Now, excepting these shafts, why the core looks so open is because it was, and only the shafts (electrical/mechanical on one side, elevators on the other) apparently had concrete facings--pretty obviously just for fire protection, not a concrete reinforced core at all.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Simple question: do you or don't you think that an energy beam from space could effectively be intelligent enough to know to completely destroy some columns but leave all the others perfectly intact?

The idea is that devices developed as part of the "Star Wars" weapons programs were used, not necessarily that these weapons were deployed from space. Judy Wood elaborates on this point. She also emphasizes that DEWs are a broad class of possible weapon systems, each of which presumedly can be deployed in any number of ways, whether from satelites, or installed right there in the basements and/or along the cores of the towers.

The initial evidence that Judy Wood cites as leading her towards the DEW hypothesis is the intact bathtub following the collapse of the towers. She argues in fact that the towers really didn't collapse, as most of their mass was pulverized on the way down, before the impact of their collapse would likely have ruptured the bathtub and have caused much of lower Manhattan to be flooded.

Demolishing these structures posed a real problem for those who set out to do it: how to cleanly take out the entire WTC complex without allowing the towers in particular to damage nearby buildings and infrastructure from above (falling debris) or from below (flooding from the bathtub). They were successful for the most part. Judy Wood attributes this success to the use of some agent that dustified most of the towers before they could hit the ground, and she considers DEWs the most likely candidate... of course, it is an easy candidate insofar as it includes such a broad range of technologies and possible means of deployment. Zeroing in on the exact kind of device and means of deployment is necessarily difficult, however, because most of the information is classified. Nevertheless, so far it is the only hypothesis that can account for the soundness of the bathtub along with all of the other anomalies (the toasted cars in particular) that other accounts have not adequately explained.

In summary, this is Judy Wood's rational. If all of this has been explained in other ways, please tell me how & where.

It is true that there is a good deal of evidence to suggest the use of conventional explosives, e.g. in the photos of the cut steel you cited and in the diagonal sequence of squibs made apparent in this video.
Perhaps the collapse was intitiated conventionally and then immediately the collapse (i.e. the impact onto the ground and bathtub) was so-to-speak prevented by dustification.

So there's one scenario.... then there's the other scenario, explosives implanted at "birth"... Yes, that one takes the cake.

4. Then the cascading race to the ground, as secondary charges shattered successive floors at a speed faster than gravity itself

Hasn't this notion been debunked at least a thousand times already?

Yes, the building feel down at a speed substantially faster than the mass underneath it should've allowed. However, it was not falling at freefall speed, and certainly not falling faster than gravity would've allowed.

0ivae, please, I asked you if it makes sense to you that there are no partially vaporized columns, and a great number of columns in pristine condition, failures at the bolts for the perimeter columns. I don't want a rehashing of Wood's pages, just think over the question I'm asking.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Since it's somewhat on-topic, here's an image of what looks like the concrete base of a large elevator, maybe the freight elevator of this particular building:

This photo is interesting. Especially if what Gottago says about it not being reinforced concrete.

Let me get this straight. A concrete "shell" (if you will) is going to withstand the collapse but steel would not. This is what we are to believe for the official story to be true.

A few points to make. What made this concrete perform better than steel?

Compressive strength? Nope, concrete has far less strength than steel. Most concrete is 4,000 psi. It may be up to 6,000 psi (they have come along way since the 70's and now can make pretty high strength, but still not as high as steel). So, that rules out compressive strength.

A36 steel has a compressive strength of 36,000 psi. Just for comparrison.

Torsional strength. Nope, see above. It's the same with torsional strength.

Tension strength. Again, no. Concrete breaks apart and has very little tension strength, while steel elongates way before it snaps.

Fire resistance. Now, concrete has greater fire resistance but are we to believe there were raging infernos in this area of the stairways/elevators to weaken all the steel around it? I don't remember that report. So, fire is rulled out.

Last thing I can think of would be blast resistance. I would imagine concrete being better than gypsum/steel in blast resistance.

Am I missing anything?

[edit on 7/31/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 7/31/2007 by Griff]

So, no one wants to talk about the comparison of apples and apples? That concrete was under the same stress as the steel around it. Why did the concrete not fail and the steel did? That is as close to apples vs. apples as we can get.

So, no one wants to talk about the comparison of apples and apples? That concrete was under the same stress as the steel around it. Why did the concrete not fail and the steel did?

This perhaps isn't the best example to bring to light. You cannot expect to see absolutely every part of the building destroyed simply because the steel failed (the concrete could've been in a protected pocket from the falling debris and outside the primary path of force of the collapse). I imagine there were plenty of intact keyboards, computer monitors, phones, chairs, desk components, etc that were not totally destroyed (in fact, NOT finding these things would've made any notion of a standard collapse completely ludicrous).

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

So, no one wants to talk about the comparison of apples and apples? That concrete was under the same stress as the steel around it. Why did the concrete not fail and the steel did?

This perhaps isn't the best example to bring to light. You cannot expect to see absolutely every part of the building destroyed simply because the steel failed (the concrete could've been in a protected pocket from the falling debris and outside the primary path of force of the collapse).

While true, do you really believe that all the steel around that could fail, without the concrete failing?

I imagine there were plenty of intact keyboards, computer monitors, phones, chairs, desk components, etc that were not totally destroyed (in fact, NOT finding these things would've made any notion of a standard collapse completely ludicrous).

Actually, I remember a quote from a rescue worker saying that the biggest thing he found was a keypad from a phone that fit in the palm of his hand. Something to think about.

While true, do you really believe that all the steel around that could fail, without the concrete failing?

Well, it certainly isn't likely. However, there are precedents where much more delicate materials and structures are found intact within much more resilient materials and structures that have been obliterated.

It's not impossible, in otherwords, for that cement column to still be standing in the wake of a standard, progressive collapse. Just improbable.

Now, given the size of the column, as far as my personal belief and opinion is concerned (neither of which are tempered by any relevent profession), I don't think it should still be there if the official story carried any weight.

Actually, I remember a quote from a rescue worker saying that the biggest thing he found was a keypad from a phone that fit in the palm of his hand. Something to think about.

...Was this perhaps an exaggeration? I don't suppose you remember the context surrounding the quote?

Looking at all the junk that's on the ground in the images (a lot of it much bigger than what would fit in the palm of someone's hand), I just can't fathom there wouldn't be anything at all amongst the wreckage that wasn't a mostly intact appliance or piece of furniture. Not even a nuclear bomb going off will destroy absolutely everything in the immediate vicinity.

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

Originally posted by Griff
Actually, I remember a quote from a rescue worker saying that the biggest thing he found was a keypad from a phone that fit in the palm of his hand. Something to think about.

...Was this perhaps an exaggeration? I don't suppose you remember the context surrounding the quote?

Looking at all the junk that's on the ground in the images (a lot of it much bigger than what would fit in the palm of someone's hand), I just can't fathom there wouldn't be anything at all amongst the wreckage that wasn't a mostly intact appliance or piece of furniture. Not even a nuclear bomb going off will destroy absolutely everything in the immediate vicinity.

Yes that is a well-known quote by one of the clean-up workers at Ground Zero; you can find it on several videos, and it's not taken out of context. Similar remarks by other witnesses are very easy to come by and groups of workers discussed this freely. The building contents were pulverized with the concrete; it seems virtually nothing survived but the snowfall of paper.

Analysis of the concrete dust showed that it had exotic metals that were traced to computer components, etc. Thousands of people simply vanished or turned into tiny shards.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by Griff
So, no one wants to talk about the comparison of apples and apples? That concrete was under the same stress as the steel around it. Why did the concrete not fail and the steel did? That is as close to apples vs. apples as we can get.

Griff,

First, just to clarify a point you mentioned earlier: I'm sure the concrete used in the core was reinforced, but I believe it was used to encase the mechanical and elevator shafts and therefore not really part of the core structure, doing any of its work. I'm in total agreement with your analysis of concrete though; given that steel is ideal for the core, concrete would have brought nothing to the table and would have only added dead weight.

As for bsbray's photo of the concrete stump, I can't place where it is, but it could be that it is not actually part of the core, but perhaps an elevator stair or mechanical shaft outside the core area, part of the parking garage or the other mechanical areas fitted out in the sub-basements.

Speculation, but it would have survived because it was far enough from the cores. In fact it looks like it sits on the outer wall of the bathtub, which drops off behind it to the left.

Originally posted by gottago
Speculation, but it would have survived because it was far enough from the cores. In fact it looks like it sits on the outer wall of the bathtub, which drops off behind it to the left.

I think you might be right. Plus, I've been doing some calculations and depending on the size of the concrete (disregarding the height making it more susceptible to buckling failure) it could be stronger than a few columns in an area. Lots of factors that I don't know would come into play for a full analysis.

Originally posted by GrinningMoon
It's not impossible, in otherwords, for that cement column to still be standing in the wake of a standard, progressive collapse. Just improbable.

You make an excellent point. Never say never.

BTW Griff & bsbray,

Intheshadows posted a series of WTC construction photos on page 2 of this thread. The first one is an excellent view of the core going up on the first few floors. The columns match the 9/11research blueprints quite well--you can even see that the pair of box columns at the center of the long face are set tighter than the rest, forming that stabilizing cross I mentioned and diagrammed earlier.

[edit on 2-8-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by bsbray11
0ivae, please, I asked you if it makes sense to you that there are no partially vaporized columns, and a great number of columns in pristine condition, failures at the bolts for the perimeter columns. I don't want a rehashing of Wood's pages, just think over the question I'm asking.

Oi veh, I can't begin to sort this out.... I'm no expert on these things, I admit. What you say and the photos you cited would indeed suggest deliberately placed conventional explosives (thermate cutters perhaps).

But then I ask: what about the lack of a debris pile? - relative to the size of the buildings... Whither did these towers go? Apparently they were overwhelmingly dustified...

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by Griff
Actually, I remember a quote from a rescue worker saying that the biggest thing he found was a keypad from a phone that fit in the palm of his hand. Something to think about.

Yes that is a well-known quote by one of the clean-up workers at Ground Zero; you can find it on several videos, and it's not taken out of context. Similar remarks by other witnesses are very easy to come by and groups of workers discussed this freely. The building contents were pulverized with the concrete; it seems virtually nothing survived but the snowfall of paper.

Analysis of the concrete dust showed that it had exotic metals that were traced to computer components, etc. Thousands of people simply vanished or turned into tiny shards.

Does this kind of pulverization happen normally during conventional demolitions? How might one explain this?

It seems to me that something very unusual is going on... maybe micro-nukes could do this, maybe DEWs, I don't know... but certainly if explosives were mixed into the concrete during construction, well then it would be completely pulverized.

In any case, the evidence seems to my novitiate judgement to suggest a combination of conventional and unconventional devices....

Pull (conventional thermate &/or other)
Pulverize (micro-nuke &/or DEW &/or self-exploding concrete)
Preserve (the bathtub)

Originally posted by 0ivae
Oi veh, I can't begin to sort this out.... I'm no expert on these things, I admit. What you say and the photos you cited would indeed suggest deliberately placed conventional explosives (thermate cutters perhaps).

But then I ask: what about the lack of a debris pile? - relative to the size of the buildings...

Think of it this way.

The building's weren't solid, they were like steel skeletons, with steel members stretched out in such a way to make a lot of space available for tenants.




Those look awfully big, but especially for the one on the left, if you disconnected all the columns and beams and just let them land where they may, they probably wouldn't fill the basement.


The perimeter walls were like thin skins on the building, relative to their widths. And when they fell, the columns went everywhere around Ground Zero and are laying around in piles in places, which is hard to get a feel for in photos, especially aerial ones.





Try to get a grasp of all the columns in these photos. They're little tiny pieces in some of them:










And at any rate, saying you don't think there's enough steel laying on the ground, isn't really something you can back up with numbers very easily. It's very subjective. Without more solid reasoning behind it, it's hardly even worth addressing.

Personally, I see plenty enough of them to be convinced the columns are still there by and large. There's just more steel concentrated into smaller areas, just like when you build anything and then knock it into pieces.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by gottago
Intheshadows posted a series of WTC construction photos on page 2 of this thread. The first one is an excellent view of the core going up on the first few floors. The columns match the 9/11research blueprints quite well--you can even see that the pair of box columns at the center of the long face are set tighter than the rest, forming that stabilizing cross I mentioned and diagrammed earlier.

The best one shows what looks like a ring of box columns going around the core, and it's hard to make out what's inside.

Here are a bunch of other construction photos: www.studyof911.com...

And here are a lot more images in general that I try to keep up: www.studyof911.com...