Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

Originally posted by OrionStars
Let us not. You made the declarative statement. Own up to it with validation, or retract it with - "I read in the official report in "Popular Mechanics" Thomas Eagar said the bolts sheared off........"

I've stated before - Popular Mechanics isn't all that popular here, I've never seen it on the shelves of the local newsagent and hence never read the article you refer to so often. Thomas Eager wouldn't exactly be on the best-seller list either for that matter.

It's very clear that the bolts attaching the trusses to the seats on the outer walls were the weakest point in that connection and there's no conspiracy in that at all as something had to give and it doesn't really matter what it was. Unless the bolts weren't up to the hi-tensile rating specified or were under-sized - we'll probably never know.

reply to post by gottago
It seems they found traces of all those elements in the dust by spectrographic analysis but it's all common material found in nature and manufactured materials plus such analysis can detect incredibly small concentrations. You'd be amazed at what can be found in a shovelfull of dirt from your backyard or an industrial site for example.

Alarm bells would definitely go off if a short half-life isotope were detected in any concentration above normal background but there's no mention of that.

It's definitely interesting but hardly conclusive of anything which is the general problem with all the evidence collected. These guessing games I tip will go on forever.

Originally posted by OrionStars

I wish I had paid more attention to that chart when you first posted it. I am astounded at the ppm rate of iron, barium and strontium. Uranium as in DU nuclear WMD uranium?

Re: uranium, I don't know I haven't been able to locate any breakdown of the isotopes. If this was done I haven't seen it yet.

And yes, that chart and the USGS study in general is quite some interesting reading. It confirms that all sorts of heavy contents were turned to particulate. States it in b&w, in fact. Why it doesn't get more attention is beyond me.

Edit to add for Pilgrim above: So, short of finding signature concentrations of radioactive materials, you don't find it remarkable that a USGov't study admits that WTC contents were turned to fine particulate? As they say here, "Move along folks, nothing to see..."

[edit on 25-1-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by gottago
It seems they found traces of all those elements in the dust by spectrographic analysis but it's all common material found in nature and manufactured materials plus such analysis can detect incredibly small concentrations. You'd be amazed at what can be found in a shovelfull of dirt from your backyard or an industrial site for example.

Trace means excessively low ppm. Yes, trace amounts can be found anywhere land exists on this planet. What you stated is a well-known fact.

However, you left out these documented facts:

High ppm concentrations of particulate iron are not normal, except in locations where mines and foundaries exist. Iron is the base of steel alloy.

High ppm concentrations, of radioactive particles, are not normally found, except at sites where nuclear products and by-products exist.

Some of the highest concentrations at the WTC site were tritium (radioactive hydrogen isotope), barium and strontium when water was tested. As it is, there have been astronomical increasing cases of illnesses, very much akin to radioactive toxicity, affecting anyone having worked at clean-up, plus, working and/or residing near the empty WTC site.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by OrionStars
Let us not. You made the declarative statement. Own up to it with validation, or retract it with - "I read in the official report in "Popular Mechanics" Thomas Eagar said the bolts sheared off........"

I've stated before - Popular Mechanics isn't all that popular here, I've never seen it on the shelves of the local newsagent and hence never read the article you refer to so often. Thomas Eager wouldn't exactly be on the best-seller list either for that matter.

Whether you realize it or not, that has been your complete promotion in these discussions. Do you not realize Eagar's article, in "Popular Mechanics", became the original and only "official" report of the Bush administration?

It's very clear that the bolts attaching the trusses to the seats on the outer walls were the weakest point in that connection and there's no conspiracy in that at all as something had to give and it doesn't really matter what it was. Unless the bolts weren't up to the hi-tensile rating specified or were under-sized - we'll probably never know.

That is indeed interesting. The architect, structural engineers, and trade artisians did not see it that way. How is it you do? And on what experience and expertise do you base your opinion?

I have already stated a spent a few years earning a living in the construction industry. It was with one of the sub-contractor trades. Yes, trades talk to one another and teach another about one another's trades.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Weight and momentum are completely unrelated terms.

No kidding? Thanks for the earth shattering info.

I was pointing out the fact that his question about weight only is a dumb one.

Originally posted by ANOK


No that's not the answer. You can't take one physical reaction and hope it explains the lack of other physical reactions that should have occurred. Momentum alone won't overcome friction. There is not enough energy in a gravity fed collapse for the buildings to completely collapse themselves, eject themselves, and turn themselves into fine dust without encountering friction and resistance. The speed of all 3 collapses proves there was no resistance. Something had to take away that resistance. This is simple high school physics.

The physics works fine when you remove all the erroneous factors from the equation.

Like ejecting, turning to fine dust, friction, etc. Use realistic, observed factors and gravity works fine.

Maybe you should take some higher level physics, since your high school physics isn't cutting it.

Originally posted by gottago

And yes, that chart and the USGS study in general is quite some interesting reading. It confirms that all sorts of heavy contents were turned to particulate. States it in b&w, in fact. Why it doesn't get more attention is beyond me.

Surely you're not suggesting that ALL, 100%, in their entirety, of the contents were turned to dust, are you?

Contents were turned into unrecognizable junk, but that is FAR AND AWAY from 100% of them turning into dust sized particles. Some %age would be turned to particulates fine enough to be called dust, but not all.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Originally posted by gottago

And yes, that chart and the USGS study in general is quite some interesting reading. It confirms that all sorts of heavy contents were turned to particulate. States it in b&w, in fact. Why it doesn't get more attention is beyond me.

Surely you're not suggesting that ALL, 100%, in their entirety, of the contents were turned to dust, are you?

Contents were turned into unrecognizable junk, but that is FAR AND AWAY from 100% of them turning into dust sized particles. Some %age would be turned to particulates fine enough to be called dust, but not all.

Well, I'd suggest you actually read what you just quoted from me.

My words are pretty clear, and I'd like to know why you bring up such a bizarre and patently obvious distortion cum insinuation?

(BTW, don't bother to answer, that was a rhetorical question, I have a very good idea why.)

Now, it's my turn to play your game:

Surely you're not suggesting that I'm suggesting that the USGS study is suggesting that all, 100%, the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the contents were turned to dust, are you?

Here's a pic to ground your misleading innuendo and your blithe dismissal of the dust in a bit of reality:




Gravity-driven collapse dust. Just caused by building members falling and hitting each other and crushing wallboard. Please.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Surely you're not suggesting that ALL, 100%, in their entirety, of the contents were turned to dust, are you?

Contents were turned into unrecognizable junk, but that is FAR AND AWAY from 100% of them turning into dust sized particles. Some %age would be turned to particulates fine enough to be called dust, but not all.

Actually, the greatest part of that "junk" was molecular disintegration not necessarily dust. Dust particles are not granules/grains. Dust is an often overused word, which can be highly misleading for accurate distinction between the two different molecular structures.

From another of your posts - momentum related to what? Does momentum mean anything if not related to something else? If you think it does, why don't you explain that to the rest of us?

Originally posted by gottago


Surely you're not suggesting that I'm suggesting that the USGS study is suggesting that all, 100%, the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the contents were turned to dust, are you?

Gravity-driven collapse dust. Just caused by building members falling and hitting each other and crushing wallboard. Please.

I don't know what you're suggesting, TBH.

Why should anyone talk about some of the contants being ground up into dust sized particles? What is unusual about that?

Watch any collapse video. Charges go off. Some dust from that, sure, but not much. The building hits the ground and a huge dust cloud blows out. Did the explosives or the fall cause the dust?

The fall did. This is normal.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Richard Gizinu


Then see my post here which gives a link to the relevant GSPS spectrographic analysis of the WTC dust, where the samples were taken, and a table of the elements ID'd in the particulate and their concentrations.

Note also that it is they who ID glass, building furnishings and components, concrete, computers, piping, etc. as the sources of the elements found in the dust.

If you believe that all those things the GSPS identified as the sources for the elements in the charts is normal, I'd like to read a convincing reason about how they were turned into particulate, other then 'a really big building fell on them, this is normal.' It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by gottago]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Thank you Pilgrum.
All the substances listed have other sources if anyone'll remember my previous posts. All of the easily pulverized.
It need not be ALL from copper pipes etc.

reply to post by ANOK

Problem you have now though is all that highly abrasive concrete, and 'all the rest' (steel columns), would create friction, which creates resistance, which causes objects colliding into each other to slow down...

So with enough friction you can stop gravity from working its magic?
That heavy objects with NO form of support are not going to hit the ground HARD with enough friction?
Also when we are talking about in the weights we are talking about of conditions within the collapse of the towers?


reply to post by gottago

Have you watched the dust kicked up but an empty building being imploded and they use the bear minimium to bring the building down. Economic concerns you know.
Now put into that picture 2 VERY TALL buildings filled with stuff due to still being in operation when it unfortunately fell down and went boom.

And let's pause a moment and reflect upon logic--it is a wonderful tool to bring understanding. You seem to have had a glimmer of it when you started to hypothesize: "do you realise the amount of explosives that would have to be set up to make all the dust?"

Logic is a straight line.
You can go in a completely incorrect direction and still be logical.
Hate to tell you. (Not really)

Those four sentences would keep Derrida busy deconstructing them for a good month. Suffice it to say not one of them is correct, in whole or in part, and they are a train wreck of non sequiturs.

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt.
I could in fact decide your are a duck.
I can label you a duck.
Does it make you a duck?
See where I am going with that?

And as I said earlier, you could drop those metals that the USGS cited--pipes and wiring, etc.--from the height of the WTC, and as Griff remarked, batter the hell out of them as well until the end of time and they won't turn to particulate.

All the stuff found in that dust are found in multiple materials.
All of which could have been found in those buildings.
Just because there is copper in the dust it doesn't mean its all from the pipes my friend.
Like I said before a great number of those things I listed. Easily reduced to dust or has dust produced easily.

Originally posted by gottago
I'd like to read a convincing reason about how they were turned into particulate, other then 'a really big building fell on them, this is normal.' It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

You're wrong.

If you're looking for an explanation other than the logical and observable fact that contents in a 1/4 mile tall bulding will be destroyed when it falls, and some of it will be ground into dust sized particles..........

Well then, you've got to came up your own theory. Then post it here if you please....

reply to post by gottago

If you believe that all those things the GSPS identified as the sources for the elements in the charts is normal, I'd like to read a convincing reason about how they were turned into particulate, other then 'a really big building fell on them, this is normal.' It's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I could show you a floor by floor with date/time and location stamps watermarked for 9/11 and the twin towers security camera footage of EVERY floor and nook and cranny showing no teams of explosive experts or explosives being set up. And I rather doubt you'd accept it even then as legit.

You attack the statement that it collapsed, well wouldn't a collapse also be caused by explosives? It would of course be an intentionally caused collapse but a collapse all the same.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
So with enough friction you can stop gravity from working its magic?
That heavy objects with NO form of support are not going to hit the ground HARD with enough friction?
Also when we are talking about in the weights we are talking about of conditions within the collapse of the towers?

LOL first off gravity isn't magic and yes friction is a more powerful force than gravity as the physics law explains. This is funny, you are not arguing with me you are arguing with laws of physics that haven't changed, ever...You are arguing with Newton...

Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.

The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.

The study of friction is called tribology.

Source

Does it say anything about gravity effecting friction and resistance? Does it say that gravity can reverse the damping of motion?

Ever heard the physics term 'an object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force'?

That's Newtons 1st law of 'Inertia'. All that steel and concrete bellow the aircraft impact point, and office fires, was that unbalanced force acting against the falling upper building. Sry but no where in the laws of physics does gravity become a more powerful force than sold rigid columns, or any object that a falling mass encounters. Especially when the mass of the falling object is less than the object it's falling on.

Where are you thinking this extra weight is coming from? The building was designed to hold itself up and had done that quit successfully since 1972.
You are assuming that the whole top section fell as one mass on the bottom section. Have you really thought about how that is possible? How does enough sections of columns disappear at the same time all around the building to allow a complete free-fall drop of the top section on the bottom?
That's just not a realistic scenario. If columns failed due to heat, they would bend and sag, not suddenly fail all at once.

How do you explain WTC2 and the tilt of the top? How did that manage to crush the building when it's momentum was angular? Laws of physics tells us that the top should have continued it's 'angular momentum'. How do you account for this?

reply to post by ANOK



[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

mabye that is the point that with out CD it wouldent have been possible with the laws of nature to occure

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
The physics works fine when you remove all the erroneous factors from the equation. Like ejecting, turning to fine dust, friction, etc. Use realistic, observed factors and gravity works fine.

Maybe you should take some higher level physics, since your high school physics isn't cutting it.

Oh yes it works wonderfully well if you ignore observable FACTS in the collapses (Just as NIST and PM did). You can't be seriously be telling me to go to school when it's obvious you don't understand the physics, and come up with silly 'hollywood physics' rebuttals like the above.

Do you really think friction has no relevance to the collapses? Can you not read Newtons laws and understand them? If I am wrong then please explain where I am wrong. So far you have offered nothing but naive rebuttals. Maybe you are the seven year old?

Even without ejecting columns and dustification (which are facts btw) you're still not going to get a global collapse with no sign of friction/resistance. Ignore this fact all you want, it won't go away.

Originally posted by zerbot565
mabye that is the point that with out CD it wouldent have been possible with the laws of nature to occure

BINGO!! Is it so hard to grasp this concept that someone had to point it out?

A lot of people have the assumption that global collapse was inevitable once initiated. They want us 'truthers' to explain how the towers should have collapsed. Well they shouldn't have collapsed, as the laws of physics proves.

There had to be something that took away the resistance as the towers fell.
I won't theorise what because it doesn't really matter at this point. All I can say for sure is plane impacts and office fires cannot account for the lack of resistance, and other physical anomalies in the collapses.