WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
No I am quite sure now that I am not explaining myself good enough.
I shall get to work on the animation.

Cool. Looking forward to it. It's more than I could do.

And I at least don't view your theories as a "dark" side. I just have contrary opinions.

There is nothing wrong with contrary opinions. That is why I like this site. We can agree to disagree. Sometimes it gets heated, but most of the time, it's a learning experience. I say, as long as we take that out of this, we are all gaining something.

And the crux from what I am seeing is most if not all of you treats structures as one piece which will never be the case til we somehow come up with molecular bonding that essentially makes a bunch of material and bonds them on the molecular level into one piece.

You make a good point. But, in contrast to what you believe we are doing, it is the first people to postulate that the kinetic energy was enough "to ensure global collapse" to begin with that used the top "caps" as one piece of structure falling onto one floor. And we still see that postulated to this very day.

I believe I have read you even state that it was 10 or so floors falling onto one, then eleven falling onto one, etc.

If I'm in error, I apologize. It's hard to keep track who's who anymore. No offense ment.

Is that not the same as you are accussing us of doing? Only in reverse?

reply to post by Griff

Cool. Looking forward to it. It's more than I could do.

It won't be anything flashy but I hope it better illustrates what I am saying. Basically I am using Vista's paintbrush program and a movie maker program, it will be ,well, basically a computer generated cartoon.
Hope to have it completed tomorrow or the next day.
Being a security guard means you have lots of time at night to do other stuff.
Just as long as you don't neglect the other stuff you gotta do.

I believe I have read you even state that it was 10 or so floors falling onto one, then eleven falling onto one, etc.

No its more of my inability to fully illustrate my thoughts. Getting thoughts from brain to fingers (or mouth even) is a MAJOR pain in my butt.
When I say "10 floors hitting 1 floor" I mean "the material that made up 10 floors hitting 1 floor".

Oh! And.....

So, my examples have EVERYTHING to to do with the physics involved. BTW, I use caps to emphasize, not yell. So, when I do, I'm not yelling.

Me too.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
No its more of my inability to fully illustrate my thoughts. Getting thoughts from brain to fingers (or mouth even) is a MAJOR pain in my butt.

Don't worry about it. I have the same problem. That's why I feel I'd be a lousy teacher.

reply to post by Griff


LoL!!
You and me both brotha. The lousy teacher thing. Coupled with the fact I tend to get impatient with someone when they can't grasp what I said because I am a lousy communicator. The problem is after all is based in me but still darn frustrating and well sometimes you never know if they can't grasp it our just won't.
Perhaps we could twist that to our advantage and make it some kinda confirmation of our super intelligent glory. Disagreements aside.

Originally posted by bsbray11
One floor would have to fall first, and we know that each floor could withstand multiple floors impacting it (more than 5 intact floors as I remember).

Would you have any references to this 5 floor figure?

My guess is it's a simple expression of the static load bearing capability of a typical single floor and in this case it's an impressive figure if the failure loading for a single floor was 5 times the force exerted by a single floor falling the height of a single floor.

In very general terms and calling the mass of a single floor complete with its typical contents M and a 4m typical floor separation, I come up with a force (0.5M.V^2) of 39.M exerted by one floor falling onto another so 5 times that gives us approx 200.M as the point beyond which the floor impacted can be expected to fail. This is an exceptional safety factor but not beyond the realm of possibility.

Considering that at least 3 floors were massively damaged by the plane's impact and the tilting mass of the upper floors of WTC2 greatly exceeded 20.M because it included the outer wall and upper core in its mass and it had at least 3 standard floor heights to accelerate through with minimal resistance before meeting an intact full strength floor:

The final velocity after falling 12m:
V^2=2.a.S = 2x9.8x12 = 235 therefore V = 15m/S (roughly)

Force exerted on that first intact floor:
0.5M.V^2 = 0.5 x 20.M x 235 = 2350.M

That's more than an order of magnitude in excess of the 200.M static strength of that floor and I suspect I severely underestimated the actual mass of the initial falling section.

I'm just putting this out there for discussion, not argument and I'm happy to be wrong about it.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would you have any references to this 5 floor figure?

NIST:

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case)

But how six floors were already falling, NIST never tells you, because they never analyzed (or even tried to analyze) the global collapse sequence. Only the initiations.


Oh yeah, almost forgot to throw in the link: wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 1-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would you have any references to this 5 floor figure?

It comes from NIST and it's actually 6 floors worth of dynamic loading.

My guess is it's a simple expression of the static load bearing capability of a typical single floor and in this case it's an impressive figure if the failure loading for a single floor was 5 times the force exerted by a single floor falling the height of a single floor.

Actually, I believe NIST states that the static load bearing was 11 floors worth.

Edit: Thanks bsbray for the link.

[edit on 3/1/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Whodunnit
The only floors that were stronger were those on the mechanical floors, since they had to hold the weight of elevator motors, HVAC, etc.

Whodunnit makes the important point that the floors of the 2 sky lobbies were reinforced, but exactly how? The blueprints at 9/11 research don't reveal anything; if anyone has more information please post links.

Likewise if anyone has reliable information about the use of concrete in the core; specifically the claim that a concrete "tube" was poured with 2-3 in. rebar reinforcement to provide stability against the torque of all-steel tube-in-tube construction on that scale that would otherwise lack the necessary structural rigidity.

Originally posted by gottago

Whodunnit makes the important point that the floors of the 2 sky lobbies were reinforced, but exactly how? The blueprints at 9/11 research don't reveal anything; if anyone has more information please post links.

Likewise if anyone has reliable information about the use of concrete in the core; specifically the claim that a concrete "tube" was poured with 2-3 in. rebar reinforcement to provide stability against the torque of all-steel tube-in-tube construction on that scale that would otherwise lack the necessary structural rigidity.

The floors were of a different construction.. Rather than having the long trusses, the floors were made with more traditional techniques. Namely, they had horizontal beams under the floors. Griff could explain it better, I'm sure.

There wasn't any concrete in the core, like you ask. The columns were fireproofed using what they called 'cementious' planks and drywall. These can be seen clearly if you care to find closeup photos of 2's core after the collapse. The area where the survivors were found.

I believe that the core columns in the basements had concrete poured around them. Maybe to protect from cars since it was a parking lot? But I've never seen any reference to any concrete tube, even down there.

reply to post by Whodunnit


This is why the original construction docmentation is valuable. It amazes me that the architect and/or engineer wouldn't have kept a copy of their documents for something they would have considered their pride and joy. At every firm I have worked for, we kept all our past documentation. Even for little things.

But, going by photos of the construction, the mechanical floors had cross bracing also.


[edit on 3/1/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Whodunnit

 

This is why the original construction docmentation is valuable. It amazes me that the architect and/or engineer wouldn't have kept a copy of their documents for something they would have considered their pride and joy. At every firm I have worked for, we kept all our past documentation. Even for little things.

But, going by photos of the construction, the mechanical floors had cross bracing also.

For sure you'd think they'd keep 'em.

As a SE, what opinion do you have about the towers supposedly not being built to local codes, since the Port Authority, as owners, weren't subject to them?

Also, 2 members of NIST were Magnusson, a partner of the design team, and the wife of Leslie Robertson - who worked for them, but now has his own design shop in NYC. Coverup, perhaps, for a shoddy design?

The design has been heavily criticized by a prof from Berkeley. He was asked to be on the NIST team, since he had set up shop at the landfill and collected steel that showed eutectic melting and gave it to NIST. He backed out when he smelled something fishy, that there was going to be a whitewash of the design shortcomings, etc.

Maybe this is why the plans have never been made available? To do the CYA shuffle?

reply to post by Whodunnit


Any place to point one to have a look at the actual construction?

I'm asking as I think the point of the reinforced sky lobby floors would have had some bearing on the progression of the collapse, i.e., impeded it. However, that's not what one sees--the collapse wave just blows right through them, preceded by those infamous squibs.

Also, that's always been my understanding of the core, but I'd recently come across this poured concrete tube claim and wanted to see if anyone had further info about it.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Whodunnit

 

Any place to point one to have a look at the actual construction?

I'm asking as I think the point of the reinforced sky lobby floors would have had some bearing on the progression of the collapse, i.e., impeded it. However, that's not what one sees--the collapse wave just blows right through them, preceded by those infamous squibs.

Also, that's always been my understanding of the core, but I'd recently come across this poured concrete tube claim and wanted to see if anyone had further info about it.

Nah, as Griff points out, no plans.

I've just been going off what I've read from BOTH sides of the fence.

reply to post by Whodunnit


I wouldn't think that any design flaw would encompass planes deliberately flying into the buildings though. So, why would the government cover up for an engineering firm? But, it is quite interesting the connections with NIST isn't it?

But, you may have something with Rockefeller possibly buying substandard steel and what not. Who knows why the document are under lock and key.



[edit on 3/1/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/1/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by gottago
Also, that's always been my understanding of the core, but I'd recently come across this poured concrete tube claim and wanted to see if anyone had further info about it.

I don't know about poured concrete, but the fire protection was definately more than flimsy spray-on fireproofing. Even NIST shows that the fireproofing consisted of drywall, cementitious fireproofing and spray-on. Now, I can understand the spray-on being knocked off, but how do they explain the cementitious and drywall comming off? In areas where the planes didn't hit that is.

reply to post by Griff


And Griff.
That animation. Well.
Might take longer than I anticipated I am finding I have little patience for this stuff but I am making myself.
Might be trying 3d studios here shortly.

But also I think I may have found the inspiration for a verbal example of what I am thinking but I will be getting back to you shortly with that.

Sorry to jump off topic guys just had to relay that message.

Originally posted by Griff
I wouldn't think that any design flaw would encompass planes deliberately flying into the buildings though. So, why would the government cover up for an engineering firm? But, it is quite interesting the connections with NIST isn't it?

Agreed with the implication: 9/11 is one enormous cover-up from soup to nuts and what makes the original engineering firm, a generation later, so special? there are bigger boys, with bigger behinds and bigger deeds, that needed attention. In the scheme of things, covering up for a 40 year-old design flaw is peanuts in this context, though getting cronies on NIST with vested interests is the MO of this administration since day one--just remember them trying to put Kissinger in charge of the commission. Suits everyone fine, no one wants to rock the boat.

But, you may have something with Rockefeller possibly buying substandard steel and what not. Who knows why the document are under lock and key.

It was a staggering amount of steel after all, logic says they had everyone falling over backward to please them to get the contracts, and from all I've seen the steel was up to standards. Have they re-tested the remnants, btw?

It's all locked away to keep us in the dark & guessing. That's also been the MO from day 9/12. Think about it, these buildings are gone for 6+ years now, designed 40+ years ago, they have caused the rewriting of building and fire codes across the country, but their documentation is still withheld and probably even classified. What the...?

Gottago has posed an interesting problem with this thread and it would be a shame to see it go unaddressed or drift off topic or into the archive without some possible explanations coming forth. It's beyond denial that heavy segments of steel structure were ejected large distances horizontally, possibly with a vertical component, and even if it wasn't a very significant percentage of the overall building, it still demonstrates some unexpected force or forces at work whether it was 'natural' or otherwise.

Anyone care to do a little calculation on what it would take to accelerate a 20+ tonne mass to say 15m/sec horizontally in about

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I believe the blast of air escaping from the collapsing building falls far short of this kind of demonstrated energy.

Especially when the escaping air would blast through the windows before causing tonnes of steel to be thrown horizontally.

To everyone:

I have yet to hear an explanation of how pancaking floors can produce a torque in the opposite direction that it should be.

Think about a 2x4 planted in the ground (columns). Now, attach another 2x4 cantilevered onto it. Try any combination of force on the cantilevered 2x4 to produce a torque that causes the column 2x4 to shoot in the direction away from the center of gravity of both members.

It's called moments and a pancaking building will produce moments in the direction of the center of the building. Not away from the building.

Anyone want to explain this? Using physics and mathematics and engineering principles. NOT, "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you. Just move on" type of explanations.

reply to post by Griff


Those are the types of questions we need to ask more of, it seems that the "TRUTH" movement has been so bogged down with "no planes", "controlled demolition" etc, that some basic unexplained phenomena has been ignored.

This has been fortunate for the de-bunkers, because they can settle for the straw-man and ignore the really difficult questions.