911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Would you mind explaining what aspect of the building's construction would cause that tilt to correct and the vector to turn straight down?

Did you ever once stop and think what was meant when it was said of the WTC that they were tube-in-tube designs? That means it was built without a conventional box-frame skeleton as you would find in say, the Empire State Building, or other conventionally buildings and highrises. Those have skeleton frames of steel I-beams connected in box shapes giving rigid vertical and horizontal stability. Floors are laid on the I-beams and the whole things stands up pretty solidly.

The WTCs were tube-in-tube. Rather than a whole skeleton of I-beams, they used box-columns for an interior core of vertical columns arranged in a box shape. This would give the core for the stairs and elevator shafts and have the floor trusses something to attach to. The exterior involved another set of columns, however these were arranged in a puzzle like set, with column trees interconnected. These formed an exterior that is more flexible. Each column tree had three small columns connected together by three larger flat plates. Then each tree was interconnected in a staggered pattern, and then bolted together at each end. The floors consisted of light steel trusses, similar to those used in warehouse roofs. These were connected at each end to the exterior and interior columns with 1" and 5/8" bolts as well as dampeners on the exterior columns, to allow for flexibility when the wind blows. The floors had a pan of light concrete poured out and these were placed on the trusses.

When the tower began to collapse, the top 30+ floors tilted as one unit, while the floors where the failure began failed and sagged down. One side stayed intact while the other sagged down and began the tilt and collapse. Pretty soon the floors below began to collapse downward, and the tilting section began to plummet down telescoping into the rest of itself. The floors just sheared away as the connections severed from the incredible amount of force above.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Did you ever once stop and think what was meant when it was said of the WTC that they were tube-in-tube designs? That means it was built without a conventional box-frame skeleton as you would find in say, the Empire State Building, or other conventionally buildings and highrises. Those have skeleton frames of steel I-beams connected in box shapes giving rigid vertical and horizontal stability. Floors are laid on the I-beams and the whole things stands up pretty solidly.

I understand what it means just fine. I do not see how it overcomes the laws of physics though.

When the tower began to collapse, the top 30+ floors tilted as one unit, while the floors where the failure began failed and sagged down. One side stayed intact while the other sagged down and began the tilt and collapse. Pretty soon the floors below began to collapse downward, and the tilting section began to plummet down telescoping into the rest of itself. The floors just sheared away as the connections severed from the incredible amount of force above.

That is quite and interesting little story. I cut it short but do not take offense, I know people can scroll up to see it all from the main man himself. It is imaginative, I will give you that much. It sounds to me like a guess and reach. Can you back any of that up with anything as it really does not make any sense in the real world, especially when watching the video. In fact, everything you claim violates what we can see but that is for another time. I would be happy if you could just back some of this up.

reply to post by GenRadek


So then something supplied the energy to break up this huge chunk of building, falling with enormous momentum. What was it? All that was left was a pile of rubble and clouds of pyroclastic concrete, (unless you have photo evidence to the contrary). What supplied the energy to do this massive grinding? Gravitational collapse cannot supply the energy to pulverize all the concrete and steel, either in the top section, nor the bottom. It was ejected outwards as if in a volcanic eruption. Please be clear if you have any knowledge

Blueprints for the North tower

The building had 47 interior core columns, that would not allow for a disintegrating upper section to fall through them at near free-fall speed. It's very simple, the core was very strong. Comon sense should prevail here.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
Gravitational collapse cannot supply the energy to pulverize all the concrete and steel, either in the top section, nor the bottom.

It most certainly can, just look at how much KE the building contained.
www.911myths.com...

[edit on 11/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by dereks


Thanks for bringing up KE.

If you look at the previous posts with photos, the kinetic energy was being directed off to the left at a significant angle. KE is a vector quantity, because velocity is a vector. The KE was huge, because KE = 1/2 m*v^2, the mass was enormous and the angular velocity to the left and downward(when squared) was also. In the photos, the vector of the velocity of the top 1/6th of the building is pointing to the left. There would have to be some other force to alter that vector and cause it to point straight downward through the building and all its core columns to disintegrate the top and the whole bottom of the building.
ATS link



[edit on 11-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Comon sense should prevail here.

Yes it should, but it obviously hasn't. If it had, you wouldn't be trying to convince a few yahoos of what is painfully and most conspicuously obvious. Your observations are correct, besides I think a couple of these guys must have brail keyboards anyways.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings

If you look at the previous posts with photos, the kinetic energy was being directed off to the left at a significant angle.

That's irrelevant when you consider the only thing that happened while that section was falling into the gap, cause the tilt in the tower was force the other side of the building to fail, break from the structure, combining both sides into 1 object and then fall as one.

There would have to be some other force to alter that vector and cause it to point straight downward through the building and all its core columns to disintegrate the top and the whole bottom of the building.

Not really, it's still falling through itself, which is going to result in the portion on top going through the remaining structure. Unless you have a have a reason WHY the top portion, being slightly titled, would be unable to drop through the rest of the building.

Again, why would the portion on top be unable to just drop into and through the remaining structure? What would stop it?

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Whyhi]

"I would be leery of comments from this person, no matter what his final rank. There are fruitcakes and there are also General Officer fruitcakes."


But aren't we all just "fruitcakes" in the eyes of everyone else anyway, if we somehow go against what they believe, that is......

I love to come to ATS to read...but I SURE get tired of all the name-calling and bull poop I come across in the process.......

come on, ya'll....even a 3 year old could see that the OS is a bunch of hogwash...now the details? we'll NEVER, EVER...no not NEVER...know the truth......

can't we all just get along and play nice?

reply to post by Cornczech

even a 3 year old could see that the OS is a bunch of hogwash...now the details? we'll NEVER, EVER...no not NEVER...know the truth......

The details / facts / truth are out there, but conspiracy theorists do not want the truth if it hurts their comfy believe of their conspiracy filled world.

The only ones who don't know the truth are conspiracy theorists.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by Whyhi]

Originally posted by Whyhi
Again, why would the portion on top be unable to just drop into and through the remaining structure? What would stop it?

The remaining structure.

For WTC1 for example you have 13 floors of structure suddenly dropping straight down into 97 even more redundant floors of structure and never stopping until it got to the ground. Pancake theory seemed to explain this superficially but it was also total trash and even NIST tells you as much now. Instead of "pancaking" the buildings exploded outwards in all directions anyway, there was not a pile of floors at the bottom of either building.

Someone should also point out that thermodynamically it makes the least amount of sense to choose the path of MOST possible resistance when falling. WTC2 started tilting, it should have KEPT tilting. That not only makes sense thermodynamically, it's simple conservation of momentum. What was there to stop such a massive amount of angular momentum? NOTHING. So then what happened? The fulcrum that was being tilted off of was destroyed and the building simply started sinking straight down vertically. Come on, if you guys really know physics like you claim you do then you KNOW what it would take to cause such a counter-intuitive action from the building.

reply to post by bsbray11

The remaining structure.

For WTC1 for example you have 13 floors of structure suddenly dropping straight down into 97 even more redundant floors of structure and never stopping until it got to the ground

The energy that those floors were putting on the one below was no competition, it was getting crushed. Buildings are not made to have over a dozen floors fall onto itself and expect to just it shrug.

Pancake theory seemed to explain this superficially but it was also total trash and even NIST tells you as much now

So you're saying the building didn't 'pancake'? Where did NIST say it was trash? NIST did not study "structural behavior" of the global collapse, as they did "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse". Their original hypothesis said pancaking was responsible for the collapse, it's now fully understood that the pancaking of the floors was a result of the collapse caused by the thermal expansion the tower experienced.

Instead of "pancaking" the buildings exploded outwards in all directions anyway, there was not a pile of floors at the bottom of either building.

You mean dust and debris flew outwards? That does sound like what a pancaking floor would do, floor coming down, pushing all of the air / dust / debris out to the side.

Someone should also point out that thermodynamically it makes the least amount of sense to choose the path of MOST possible resistance when falling.

Gravitationally, it makes the most sense for something to be pulled down, vertically. Yes, there is less resistance 100 feet to the left where there is nothing but air, but the tower cannot magically teleport itself over there because it likes to fall where the least amount of resistance is. But again, with the amount of energy coming down, there wasn't much resistance to be had.

WTC2 started tilting, it should have KEPT tilting. That not only makes sense thermodynamically, it's simple conservation of momentum. What was there to stop such a massive amount of angular momentum? NOTHING. So then what happened? The fulcrum that was being tilted off of was destroyed and the building simply started sinking straight down vertically. Come on, if you guys really know physics like you claim you do then you KNOW what it would take to cause such a counter-intuitive action from the building.

I explained this to 1SawSomeThings before, here is the link

Edit: This link would also expain it

And yes, I'm aware the sentence about Richard Gage at the end of my post shouldn't have "then fell that way. " in it.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Whyhi]

Again, why would the portion on top be unable to just drop into and through the remaining structure? What would stop it?

AAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let's see: common sense or maybe the rest of the freaking huge ass building there built to support the weight of the top. Wow, I have seen and heard some pretty lame arguments but I wasn't prepared for that one!

[edit on 2/12/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by Whyhi
The energy that those floors were putting on the one below was no competition, it was getting crushed. Buildings are not made to have over a dozen floors fall onto itself and expect to just it shrug.

The problem is floors would not really be falling onto more floors. Your entire way of imagining the collapse is extremely naive and simplistic. The core columns themselves have no described mechanism of failing or telescoping down into themselves, and the core structure was a significant amount of the total floor area already.

Pancake theory seemed to explain this superficially but it was also total trash and even NIST tells you as much now

So you're saying the building didn't 'pancake'?

It is extremely obvious that the floors did not pancake. Again, there is no stack of floors at the base of either tower. They were exploded in all directions the whole way down, for both towers.

Where did NIST say it was trash? NIST did not study "structural behavior" of the global collapse, as they did "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse".

I know NIST didn't investigate the global collapses at all, and I don't agree with most of what NIST says, but they refuted pancake collapse because it interfered with their initiation hypothesis:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

In short it directly contradicts the failure mechanism they eventually settled on because it requires the connections to fail before the exterior columns could be deflected, though they did NOT conclusively prove that this mechanism initiated the collapse sequence like they say here. They didn't even physically reproduce the hypothetical mechanism to prove it was even possible for trusses to pull the exterior columns so far inward simply by being heated.

Their original hypothesis said pancaking was responsible for the collapse

I'd like to see a reference for that.

it's now fully understood that the pancaking of the floors was a result of the collapse caused by the thermal expansion the tower experienced.

I'd especially like to see a reference for that.

Pancake theory is officially dead as of 2006 at least as far as government reports go, and unfortunately they were the only ones with access to debris and structural documentation necessary for engineers to make such an assessment, and never released any of that for the public to investigate or for peer review, etc.

And like I said, no "pancakes" at the bases... the biggest give-away.

Instead of "pancaking" the buildings exploded outwards in all directions anyway, there was not a pile of floors at the bottom of either building.

You mean dust and debris flew outwards?

In all directions, explosively, yep. So since you see that much I know you at least aren't blind.


Even FEMA shows they were exploded in all directions:




Any "pancaked" floors here?



None there...




None there either...




Not seeing it. The debris in that footprint doesn't even rise beyond the former lobby of the building, and the core structure at ground level was still intact so it didn't all go underground either. That's it. What you see is what you got, and you'll notice the vast majority of the building is NOT there, and all the rest was blown in all directions around it.


What's the use in having a theory if it obviously doesn't fit observations, and the government has even already realized that they can't technically defend the theory and had to abandon it?

That does sound like what a pancaking floor would do, floor coming down, pushing all of the air / dust / debris out to the side.

Not hardly. A pancake collapse would mean the mass is falling straight down and "pile-driving" through the rest of the building. That OBVIOUSLY did not happen. Or else... most of the mass would still be in the footprints. If you didn't have neat-looking pancaked floors you would at least have a giant pile of rubble that contained the majority of the mass of the towers. Instead, the majority of the mass (upwards of 80%, estimated at 90-95% by various sources) was ejected outwards in all directions and did not land in the footprints.

Gravitationally, it makes the most sense for something to be pulled down, vertically.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but gravity is the weakest fundamental force in nature, by far. The electromagnetic bonds holding matter together, and keeping matter from passing through other matter, are many times stronger than the force of gravity itself. That is why there is such a thing as "path of least resistance." That's why gravity doesn't just pull you through your seat right now and to the center of the Earth. I know "gravity is strong and gravity goes straight down" is really nice and dumbed-down for the masses to repeat, but it still doesn't mean a damned thing or even make any sense as an excuse for the towers to come down like they did.

Yes, there is less resistance 100 feet to the left where there is nothing but air, but the tower cannot magically teleport itself over there

Yes it can, it's called tilting. It's what trees do, so I know you aren't completely ignorant of the phenomenon. It's what happens when the EM forces holding matter together/apart are much stronger than the gravity forces, which is what one (at least with some education) would expect from a massively redundant steel-framed skyscraper. Steel can hold many times its own weight in loading; that's why it's used for skyscrapers in the first place. And tilting is exactly what WTC2 was doing before it somehow lost its angular momentum, ie when its fulcrum was destroyed and it just started dropping straight down.

I explained this to 1SawSomeThings before, here is the link

Edit: This link would also expain it

I have no interest in deflecting arguments to web pages like "debunking911.com" which is far worse and less professional than most "truther" websites. You can repeat his argument here in your own words if you want to make a case for why the buildings should fall straight through themselves instead of tilting, or how the momentum could be suddenly stopped. Or else I might as well start linking to Loose Change.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Y'all might as well know (sorry I said Y'all, but I'm from TX:wow that the official schpeil is turning into a ball-and-chain for those who promote it ad-nauseum (you know who you are!). The truth of 9/11 is breaking loose, and it doesn't matter how long it takes. When the whole world figures this thing out, you will understand. The truth always comes out, maybe not in this lifetime, but you know .....
See Nuremburg Trials

edit to say: tell the truth, you'll be better off in the long haul!

[edit on 12-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


Its called kinetic energy and gravity. Both were enough to destroy the WTCs. All the buildings needed was enough damage and the structural integrity to be severely degraded, and collapse was imminent.

Since when is gravity not enough to cause total destruction when you have 30+ floors moving as one down? Its all that was needed. And there was no "pyroclastic" material at all. Thats a volcano. No volcanoes in NYC. That cloud was the result of the tons of drywall and LIGHT concrete getting crushed in the collapse.

The core was not a single solid set of vertical beams 110+ floors high, but rather, connections of multiple core beams stacked vertically. This is where the majority of the failures will occur, and did, at the connections.

No the kinetic energy was NOT directed to the side. It was going down, but since there was a "hinge" at the other end, it caused the tower's top to tilt prior to total collapse down. It was NOT pushed to the side, as so many of you believe. There was no external force that "pushed" the tower to lean like that. That was the direct result of the way the collapse point sagged inward, and then tilted while the other side remained "hinged" until that too failed and allowed for the rest to go down. allow me to repeat one more time: There was NO EXTERNAL FORCE PUSHING ON THE SIDE OF THE WTC'S TOP SECTION causing it to tilt. None. Had there been an external push you would have seen the top fall off to the side like a tree. But in this case, the Tower sagged into itself, and then telescoped into itself.

reply to post by bsbray11


You guys should look a little farther around:



There is an image of the floors, all stacked up on top of each other. Obviously you are not going to see it from above since you also had the TOP of the WTC to go down and cover it up as well. But it would be better to go a little lower to see it where the ended up, not from the top (I would have thought at least THAT was obvious, but I guess I was wrong)

Another image:


Here we see the power of the collapse squeezing the floors compacted into a small cube.

[edit on 2/12/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by impressme


FLIGHT 93




From all the numerous sources I have read over , I am of the opinion that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville as mentioned in the official goverment investigation statement . I also believe some supposed witnesses were either coerced or intimidated into making false statements to the fact that it did . Until someone comes forth with difinitive proof that I may be mistaken in my beliefs , I will continue to hold the US goverment as suspect number 1 in a Conspiracy to withold the Truth of that event from the american people .

killtown.911review.org...



As for the WTC Attack , I truely do not know who or what to Believe about that for the last 9 years now .


[edit on 12-2-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

reply to post by GenRadek


I'd just like to ask you specifically what is it that has you convinced that the OS is true? Dr. Jones is a Phd in physics and he, among many many others, says its all crap. Seriously, you'd have to be blind not see clearly with your own eyes that a lot of the OS is ridiculous. What am I missing about the OS? Nothing you have shown on this thread or any that I've ever seen you post on has been even a little convincing. That isn't an attack on you, but it just seems that you refuse to accept reality.

[edit on 2/12/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by GenRadek
There is an image of the floors, all stacked up on top of each other. Obviously you are not going to see it from above since you also had the TOP of the WTC to go down and cover it up as well.

So just curious Gen but are you completely blind to the amount of debris OUTSIDE of the footprints as opposed to what relatively little was left INSIDE of them?

Here we see the power of the collapse squeezing the floors compacted into a small cube.

Just like it fused steel, concrete and paper together somehow.



You know that just raises more questions than you are failing to answer already, Gen. Like how concrete and steel are fused together in the first place like that, because you don't get that just by slamming them into each other with tons of weight. Concrete breaks. This is another unexplained anomaly from 9/11 for which nothing similar has ever been observed, especially from a building "collapse."

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

The problem is floors would not really be falling onto more floors.

What would they be doing?

The core columns themselves have no described mechanism of failing

Fires and the impact of the plane? Redistributing the load of the failed columns? Specifically, the large portion that's about to hit the remaining building.

It is extremely obvious that the floors did not pancake. Again, there is no stack of floors at the base of either tower.

First I'm wrong about the floors falling, now allegedly I'm wrong again. What do you think happened to the floors then, if they didn't fall onto each other?

Why are you expecting the floors to be neatly piled at the bottom? Again, the amount of energy that was being exerted crushed the floors, as seen in pictures with debris flying out. There isn't going to be a 110 floor pile up in the middle of ground zero...

GenRadek's picture even show a pile of collapsed floors...

they refuted pancake collapse because it interfered with their initiation hypothesis:

They refuted the hypothesis of the pancake collapse being responsible for the complete destruction of the tower by explaining how heat made the trusses/floor system sag in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction, which, led to the bowing of the exterior columns. After collapse was initiated the floors pancaked, as in the building falling onto the floors below, crushing them.

I'd like to see a reference for that.

"Failure of the gusset plate welded to the top of the truss chord was again almost exclusively observed regardless of location. This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking"."

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Sect 3.5.3

I'd especially like to see a reference for that.

The floors fell down, the remaining building was below, floors coming down crush floors below. Silly gravity.

A pancake collapse would mean the mass is falling straight down and "pile-driving" through the rest of the building.

Instead, the majority of the mass was ejected outwards in all directions and did not land in the footprints.

"Pile-driving" through the building, crushing everything in it's way, pancaking floors + energy of "pile-driving" eject debris.

I know "gravity is strong and gravity goes straight down" is really nice and dumbed-down for the masses to repeat, but it still doesn't mean a damned thing or even make any sense as an excuse for the towers to come down like they did.

Controlled demolitions are gravity driven. Therefore, the towers couldn't be a controlled demolition...?

And tilting is exactly what WTC2 was doing before it somehow lost its angular momentum, ie when its fulcrum was destroyed and it just started dropping straight down.

I explained this is my post that I linked, GenRadek explained this. Read my post that I linked before.