Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by psikeyhackr


2 faults with your video link

Its a tube in tube design the floors connection take the floor loads the floors are one acre in size the bulk of the falling mass DIDN'T hit columns it hit FLOOR.

The mass below an impacted floor cant help the floor conections of the floor impacted, if the max capacity is exceeded they fail and the floor can drop internally thats the major problem with the design once that floor is no longer their that then causes problems for the wall colums look up slenderness ratio or slim column buckling.

Look at the construction pictures of the towers the steel was never very high above a floor level in a traditional steel frame with an internal grid of steel work many floors can be built without having to start puting in floors.

Small bits of steel angle with a couple of bolts at each end of the truss thats all that held them in positon, why dont you find out how much load to break the angle or shear the 5/8" blots .

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The mass below an impacted floor cant help the floor conections of the floor impacted, if the max capacity is exceeded they fail and the floor can drop internally thats the major problem with the design once that floor is no longer their that then causes problems for the wall colums look up slenderness ratio or slim column buckling.

You are only assuming that the capacity was reached. Even IF it was and the collapse started to pancake, as in ALL other pancake collapses it could not be complete, leaving the majority of the mass outside the footprint.
So you can waffle on all day about loading, you do, it makes no difference as it is already considered when we talk about the laws of motion.

You keep ignoring 'equal opposite reaction' and 'momentum conservation' laws. Include those correctly in your assessment, and see if it changes anything.

Small bits of steel angle with a couple of bolts at each end of the truss thats all that held them in positon, why dont you find out how much load to break the angle or shear the 5/8" blots .

Again, a statement based on a misunderstanding of how collapses work. You seem to assume a failure of floors would cause a complete collapse, without addressing the physical laws involved. Of course this is because NIST claimed that very thing, but your problem is they didn't explain how the collapse actually happened, and your attempts to fill in the holes is based on nonsense, not real physics. Why does NIST not support your claims, have you asked them that? You only support pancake collapse because you have nothing else, no one has offered an alternative for you parrot as fact. Pancake collapse has been proven impossible, no one has offered an alternative excuse, NIST didn't even attempt to offer an excuse. You have nothing to stand on but hollywood physics and misunderstandings of reality.

Originally posted by ANOK

You are only assuming that the capacity was reached. Even IF it was and the collapse started to pancake, as in ALL other pancake collapses it could not be complete, leaving the majority of the mass outside the footprint.
So you can waffle on all day about loading, you do, it makes no difference as it is already considered when we talk about the laws of motion.

ANOK, where exactly was the majority of the mass outside the footprint? Can you point out the floor trusses, concrete slabs, steel decking outside the footprint? The floors started pancaking after collapse was initiated by the exterior columns buckling. The top began its descent, causing the floors below to start pancaking onto each other.

You keep ignoring 'equal opposite reaction' and 'momentum conservation' laws. Include those correctly in your assessment, and see if it changes anything.

This from someone who cant even get what NIST correctly, and needs to be reminded every time.

Again, a statement based on a misunderstanding of how collapses work. You seem to assume a failure of floors would cause a complete collapse, without addressing the physical laws involved. Of course this is because NIST claimed that very thing, but your problem is they didn't explain how the collapse actually happened, and your attempts to fill in the holes is based on nonsense, not real physics. Why does NIST not support your claims, have you asked them that? You only support pancake collapse because you have nothing else, no one has offered an alternative for you parrot as fact. Pancake collapse has been proven impossible, no one has offered an alternative excuse, NIST didn't even attempt to offer an excuse. You have nothing to stand on but hollywood physics and misunderstandings of reality.

Well ANOK, the floors failed inside the tube. What was going to hold up the rest of the tower? Wishful thinking? Even after the top section is bulldozing its way down to the ground?

What physical laws? Anok, the floor's resistance was overwhelmed by the falling mass. 30 floors impacting one floor will cause that floor's connections to fail. Why? Sheering forces sheered off the connections. Apparently, those floor truss seats were not designed to withstand the dynamic loading of 30 floors impacting it at once. And then the floor below is dealing with the mass of 30 + 1 floors impacting it, with the new momentum gained from that new floor section. There were NO blast marks on any of the recovered samples ANOK. None on the seat areas. None on the truss remains. No thermite either. Strange.

And here you go again, talking about how pancaking was impossible, about how NIST does not support pancaking, well my GOD, ANOK, your sheer ignorance, or I dont know what to call it, cause if I did, I'd violate T&C protocols, is mind numbing. Do I really need to go over with you again, for what seems like the billionth time, about what exactly NIST said about pancaking? But hey, best to ignore facts when they mess with your illusions and fantasy world delusions, right? But for posterity's sake, I will repost it again, along with a definition of "initiate". That way, some ATS reader will know exactly what is going on, and will not be misled by your attempts to hide the facts and directly misquote NIST.

This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

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.

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

wtc.nist.gov...

You know, I'd rather take the words of some actual professionals, who know what they are doing in their field, rather than the words of someone who cant even get a quote or the main idea of a paragraph right. NIST states that pancaking did not start the collapse. The floors pancaked after the collapse had started. Get at least that fact straight before you start trying to tackle something more complicated like the laws of physics. If you cant even read something simple correctly, and correctly deduce what is being stated in the article, then how are you suppose to go on and try to tell others about something even more complex?

Oh I almost forgot, the definition:

initiated
past participle, past tense of in·i·ti·ate (Verb)
/u]1. Cause (a process or action) to begin: "initiate discussions".

initiator [ɪˈnɪʃɪˌeɪtə]
n
1. a person or thing that initiates

to initiate: to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going

www.thefreedictionary.com...
www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by GenRadek

And then the floor below is dealing with the mass of 30 + 1 floors impacting it, with the new momentum gained from that new floor section.

Collecting extra mass via a new floor section does nothing to the momentum of the falling mass. It is conserved throughout the collision.

The floors pancaked after the collapse had started.

Could you quote where NIST state this? I haven't seen it.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

Wow. So portions of this collapse were apparently exempt from the laws of physics.

The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Don't learn physics from NIST, kids. The momentum of a moving object cannot be increased by it coming into contact and collecting more stationary mass, only decreased via inefficiencies in energy transfer. It is an increase in velocity provided by gravitational forces which would provide any extra momentum. What are they teaching on momentum in high school these days (srs question if anyone knows)?

You know, I'd rather take the words of some actual professionals, who know what they are doing in their field, rather than the words of someone who cant even get a quote or the main idea of a paragraph right.

What about the AE9/11Truth professionals? I think they have a pretty good understanding of momentum.

Originally posted by GenRadek
...NIST states that pancaking did not start the collapse. The floors pancaked after the collapse had started. Get at least that fact straight before you start trying to tackle something more complicated like the laws of physics. If you cant even read something simple correctly, and correctly deduce what is being stated in the article, then how are you suppose to go on and try to tell others about something even more complex?

I know what 'initiation' means thank you, you seem to be confused about what a 'pancake collapse' actually is, and what NIST says.

You claimed NIST rejected 'pancake collapse' as the initiator of the collapse, which is illogical nonsense because 'pancake collapse' is the result of collapse initiation, not something that initiates a collapse. NIST rejected the hypothesis that the collapse, after initiation, was a pancake collapse and instead ONLY covered the collapse initiation, choosing to ignore the actual collapse.

Pancake collapse was never anything to do with what initiated the collapse. The only people still claiming pancake collapse are you lot, against all known physics that shows pancake collapse did not happen.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Don't learn physics from NIST, kids. The momentum of a moving object cannot be increased by it coming into contact and collecting more stationary mass, only decreased via inefficiencies in energy transfer. It is an increase in velocity provided by gravitational forces which would provide any extra momentum. What are they teaching on momentum in high school these days (srs question if anyone knows)?

I don't really see what your problem is with that statement. Sure, at the moment of impact the momentum is conserved. But when the original mass plus the additional mass falls distance x, it will have a greater momentum than only the original mass falling distance x. Ergo, at the moment of impact of the successive floor, momentum will be larger in the case that mass was added.

Woops, I just realized the last bit I quoted from NIST in my previous post should have been in ex tags instead of quote tags.
reply to post by -PLB-


They are exploiting the fact that the layman doesn't really understand momentum to a great depth and purposely word it this way to make what they are saying sound more plausible to someone who largely relies on intuition for physical predictions. It is actually worse than that, they are making an incorrect statement and outright lie, stating the momentum was increasing "due to the increasing mass."

The truthful way for them to describe it would make the momentum sound less impressive and the claim less plausible:
Momentum of the falling top section decreased to an extent due to energy conversion inefficiencies as it collected extra mass via collisions with lower floors. Gravity is thought to have provided a net downwards force by being larger than the upwards structural resistance forces at certain times during collapse and this is what caused an increase in momentum, but this is mainly just speculation because we CBF modelling the collapse past initiation lolsoz.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Gravity isn't providing the downward force that causes the connections to fail, at least not directly. This force is the result of an abrupt deceleration. If gravity ceases to exist just a microsecond before impact, the floor would still fail.

I personally do not find the description misleading. The end result is all the same, and if you understand the subject you also understand what they mean.

reply to post by -PLB-

Gravity isn't providing the downward force that causes the connections to fail, at least not directly. This force is the result of an abrupt deceleration. If gravity ceases to exist just a microsecond before impact, the floor would still fail.

I agree with this description, but it is besides the point because failing connections do not increase momentum, they decrease it (they are on the list of energy transfer inefficiencies).

I personally do not find the description misleading.

Why is that? Are you saying momentum is gained at the points when collisions provide extra mass?

and if you understand the subject you also understand what they mean.

My technical understanding of their description and my speculation of their motives for it is detailed in my previous post.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Why is that? Are you saying momentum is gained at the points when collisions provide extra mass?

They say this additional momentum is available at the moment of impact with a successive floor. They don't say that momentum increased at the moment the mass is added. I don't really see the problem here.

reply to post by -PLB-


I quoted what they said above.

(the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Due to increasing mass is incorrect and misleading due to reasons stated in posts above. Is there something in my explanation that needs clarifying?

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
Due to increasing mass is incorrect and misleading due to reasons stated in posts above. Is there something in my explanation that needs clarifying?

It is not incorrect. The momentum actually was even larger as result of the additional mass at the moment it impacted the successive floor. Larger than in the case there was no additional mass.

Or your argument is that the loss in downward momentum was so great that the additional mass could not make up for it. But in that case you need to provide evidence for that.

reply to post by -PLB-

It is not incorrect. The momentum actually was even larger as result of the additional mass at the moment it impacted the successive floor. Larger than in the case there was no additional mass.

It is incorrect. The momentum actually was even smaller as result of the additional mass at the moment it impacted the successive floor (due to energy transfer inefficiencies). Smaller than in the case there was no additional mass (due to it losing no momentum via inefficiencies). You cannot gain momentum by colliding in some extra mass. Doing so will reduce velocity.

Or your argument is that the loss in downward momentum was so great that the additional mass could not make up for it. But in that case you need to provide evidence for that.

There's no hidden argument. I'm just pointing out the deception.

Free petrol saving tips (from NIST):

-Look for a large mass on the side of a highway.
-Collide with the large mass hard enough that it gets stuck to your car.
-Congratulations, you now have extra momentum.
-Turn off engine and repeat for duration of journey.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Well the bulk of the falling debris would fall on the floor area so DYD your the structural engineer so how much resistance to the falling mass would the angles and 2no 5/8" bolts provide ballpark figs would be ok shouldn't take you to long to work out?

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
It is incorrect. The momentum actually was even smaller as result of the additional mass at the moment it impacted the successive floor (due to energy transfer inefficiencies). Smaller than in the case there was no additional mass (due to it losing no momentum via inefficiencies). You cannot gain momentum by colliding in some extra mass. Doing so will reduce velocity.

No it isn't. Lets look at the actual physics:

Without additional mass:

Downward momentum: P1
Mass: m1
After distance x, increase in velocity is vx.

new momentum after distance x: P2=P1+(vx m1)

With additional mass:

Downward momentum before collision: P1
Downward momentum loss as result of collision: Pl
Downward momentum after collision: P1 - Pl
Mass top: m1
Mass added floor: m2
After distance x, increase in velocity is vx.

new momentum after distance x: P2=P1-Pl+(vx m1)+(vx m2).

Only if (vx m2) < Pl the momentum is smaller. The validity of this depends on distance x. In a drop of 3.5m, vx =~ 8m/s. I think x is more than enough to make this untrue. If you do think it is true, you need to show that Pl > (vx m2).

reply to post by wmd_2008


The majority of energy went into destroying a lot more than just angles and bolts. This would be of no relevance.