yup ... indeed ..

reply to post by -PLB-

Although its unscientific nonsenes, in no way that link supports your claim that a building can not collapse through the "path of most resistance". In fact, verniage demolition completely debunks that notion.
----
Though they get stuck on explaining how the collapse would arrest after x floors. You will see explanations like "its common sense" or "its basic physics" but you will never see actual models or calculations. To a laymen that may seem insignificant, but to someone who is versed in the sciences its one huge red flag.

As I see it, the Vérinage technique debunks the notion that the top portion crushed the bottom. I think collapse through the "path of most resistance" happens when there is no way for the building to move to the side and collapse through the "path of least resistance". Also I doubt the Vérinage technique would be successful in the steel reenforced concrete skyscrapers demolition in the first place.

You can clearly see that with verinage they first weaken the supports structure on the same floors half way to the top throughout the ENTIRE width of the building and then they use hydraulics to initiate the collapse.








In order for the building to symmetrically collapse, it must symmetrically begin.

Not what happened on 9/11.

reply to post by whatsecret


That is why the towes did not collapse symatrically and created such chaos. It was not a controled demolition.

A building collapse is always straight down, unless something is blocking it and preventing it from going straigh down. I have asked people many times on this forum to show the model or physics that show that this bloking must have existed in case of the WTC buildings. Without any exception the answer always is a oneliner like "3rd law", "simple physics", "common sense".

Something that always seems to be missed is that once one section of the building is no longer physically connected to the other, structural integrity is lost. The columns that were once carring all the weignt can no longer do their job because the are not longer attached to the load. Its like puting two stool on top of each other leg to leg. Once you move the top stool a couple of inches the path of the supporting legs is disturbed and it will fall down. Of course in the WTC a lot more happened but it must be clear that you can not explain it away with a oneliner. You need to show solid physics.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

That is why the towes did not collapse symatrically and created such chaos. It was not a controled demolition.

A building collapse is always straight down, unless something is blocking it and preventing it from going straigh down. I have asked people many times on this forum to show the model or physics that show that this bloking must have existed in case of the WTC buildings. Without any exception the answer always is a oneliner like "3rd law", "simple physics", "common sense".

Something that always seems to be missed is that once one section of the building is no longer physically connected to the other, structural integrity is lost. The columns that were once carring all the weignt can no longer do their job because the are not longer attached to the load. Its like puting two stool on top of each other leg to leg. Once you move the top stool a couple of inches the path of the supporting legs is disturbed and it will fall down. Of course in the WTC a lot more happened but it must be clear that you can not explain it away with a oneliner. You need to show solid physics.

You just ignored the excellent post above you .please show a non controlled demolishion ( besides rio. Im looking into it atm but seems wwwaaayy lax building codes , a gas leak ,and close proximity to other building ( that I think also fell) where the building falls straight down.

Your assertion that all buildings fall straight down unless something is preventing it it completely true and when something prevents it the path of least resistance goes to one side.

Now appy that to the wtc1 and 2 . They had an entire structure( the "spires") preventing its straight down motion

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Now appy that to the wtc1 and 2 . They had an entire structure( the "spires") preventing its straight down motion

The core was not a single block. It was made of "stool legs". Now compare my stool analogy with the top section of the tower falling on the lower section. Do you think all columns would land head to head?

This kind of simplification (core being a block) is only usefull in some very specific situations. When you use this kind of simplification to model the actual collapse, you will fail.

I cant believe you said this plb

" You will see explanations like "its common sense" or "its basic physics" but you will never see actual models or calculations. To a laymen that may seem insignificant, but to someone who is versed in the sciences its one huge red flag."

nist told me its common sense basic physics and that I would never see and actual model or calculation.

Now why do you not apply that reasoning to the os?

ETA if it was "like stool legs" then why did most of the structures survive collapse below the impact zone only to be brought down 15-30 seconds later.

Eta again. Your stool representations so full of bad analogy ( sideways motion of the top stool) as to be unusable

Originally posted by Alfie1
It didn't collapse at freefall speed :-

Nor did it fall in its own footprint. It damaged adjacent buildings.

At 11 years plus it is really far too late to keep posting this old long debunked stuff.

I have explained this to you many times. A building landing in its footprint does NOT mean it will NOT damage other buildings. It is impossible to put 100% of any building in its footprint, especially one that is 47 stories. You take the term literally in order to think you have an argument, but all you ever do is show your lack of understanding.

And YES it did fall at free-fall speed as admitted by NIST.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have debunked nothing!

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Now appy that to the wtc1 and 2 . They had an entire structure( the "spires") preventing its straight down motion

The core was not a single block. It was made of "stool legs".

The core was essentially a single block. Columns that are cross braced work essentially as one block. In fact it is stronger than a single block, because it can twist and sway without causing as much stress on the steel.

One of the first things you learn in engineering school is how geometry works physically, as in triangular shapes used in cross bracing and trusses etc. Triangle being the 2nd strongest shape in geometry after the arc. A structure created using triangular shapes is much stronger, per weight, than a sold structure. It has a higher strength to weight ratio.

Using only paper, straws, tape and paper clips, they create structures that can support the weight of at least one textbook. In their first attempts to build the structures, they build whatever comes to mind. For the second trial, they examine examples of successful buildings from history and try again.

www.teachengineering.org.../cub_/activities/cub_intro/cub_intro_lesson01_activity1.xml

You laugh at Richard Gauge with his boxes analogy, when that is exactly what engineers do. Use the simplest possible way to demonstrate physical laws.

This is why we say it is basic physics mate, because obviously basic physics are beyond you.

reply to post by -PLB-

That is why the towes did not collapse symatrically and created such chaos. It was not a controled demolition.

The towers did collapse symmetrically and created such chaos because they were so huge. There's no way for a building so large to be imploded without creating such chaos.

That's why they disassemble skyscrapers floor by floor.

How to make a skyscraper disappear

In Japan alone there are 797 skyscrapers over 100 metres tall, around 150 of which will be between 30 and 40 years old in the next decade, says Ichihara. This has historically been the age when such buildings are earmarked for demolition, but conventional methods are not suitable for such tall skyscrapers.

reply to post by ANOK

So how do you explain that a significant part of the core was still standing after the rest had collapsed if the core acted as a single block? Can you also source your claim that the columns were cross braced?

reply to post by whatsecret

The collapses were not symetrical. Its clearly visible that the top sections tilted in a non symmetric way.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

So how do you explain that a significant part of the core was still standing after the rest had collapsed if the core acted as a single block? Can you also source your claim that the columns were cross braced?

.
think of it as a bunch of little blocks.

There is a pic in my hijacked spire thread that may show cross bracing. But no vertical plans are available. So cross bracing can neither be proven it disproven.

Im also going to watch the "concrete core" video later if I can find . Ill be back with more info when I can

reply to post by Another_Nut


Show me your model including those blocks, and show on what data you base your model of these blocks, and show how they should have made the collapse as we saw it impossible. It seems to me you are just making this up as you go in order to make it suit your preconceived idea.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

So how do you explain that a significant part of the core was still standing after the rest had collapsed if the core acted as a single block? Can you also source your claim that the columns were cross braced?

Only one corner of the core was left standing for a short time. Obviously there was some external energy acting on the core that ripped it too shreds, eh?

Of course the columns were cross braced. How is that even in question?



Cross bracing clearly visible. It's a common form of structure for steel, vertical columns with cross bracing.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Show me your model including those blocks, and show on what data you base your model of these blocks, and show how they should have made the collapse as we saw it impossible. It seems to me you are just making this up as you go in order to make it suit your preconceived idea.

Show me nist's model.

I suggest your reread the last two pages .

Realize how many times you have been wrong

Realize how many of my questions you have avoidded.

Then take your child's building blocks. Build a tower . And drop a 9/11 equivalent portion of blocks on top

And you will get 2 spires. Just like real life did.

The core at sub levels and perimeter walls had cross bracing in certain areas also at machine floor levels in certain areas but it was not as much as you think!

Here is an image further up the tower HORIZONTAL bracing was used to weld the cleats to for the floor trusses as can be seen on this image.


The cross bracing at the corner of the core is the TOWER CRANE used during construction one at each corner.


Base of core showing footing horizontal bracing (no cross bracing)


Perimeter wall base footings (cross bracing)


Perimeter base sub floor 1 (no cross bracing)


Higher up core construction horizontal beam to support truss connections cross bracing the tower cranes.


You can also see that on the drawings for the towers!!!

That last picture shows just how thin the external steel really was.
Given the size of the planes how could they NOT penetrate.

Originally posted by ANOK
Only one corner of the core was left standing for a short time. Obviously there was some external energy acting on the core that ripped it too shreds, eh?

Only one corner? Source?

Did you figure out yet that gravity is an external force? Did you read the links from NASA I gave you some time ago? Or still ignoring?

Of course the columns were cross braced. How is that even in question?



Cross bracing clearly visible. It's a common form of structure for steel, vertical columns with cross bracing.

edit on 4/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

I only see a couple of columns with cross braces. How does that make the core a "block"?

And the cross braces seems to be way smaller than the columns. Yet you seem to think they would be as strong as the columns (which were orthgonal to the load, which is the optimal direction) when they have to endure a top section falling on them.

Like Anothernut, you making this up as you go in order to make it suit your preconceived idea. You have absolutely nothing to base anything you say on. No model, no physics, nada.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

It seems you guys have an answer for everything! How convenient that had 'no water'! I find that very hard to believe that considering how close they were to many water sources!

Rather than your personal incredulity doing all the talking, how about doing some actual research first? If you had bothered to research into the events on 9/11 you would know that the collapses of the WTCs severed water mains all around the site, when debris crashed through streets and the ground. Also, a lot of the NYFD equipment was destroyed by the collapses. They did not the capability to rig up pumps to pump seawater at that time since they just lost 350+ fire fighters, equipment was destroyed, and they were more concerned with S&R than saving a building that was beyond saving.

Can you provide me with some interviews with some of the 4,000 occupants that were evactuated from WTC7 that day? How come we don't have WTC7 occupants telling their story? 4000 of them and none want to talk about that day?!

There are a few interviews out there. Including Barry Jennings who described the impacts of both WTC collapses. But why would that be relevant? WTC7 was evacuated before the collapses. They also dont have too many interviews from the other WTC buildings. So?

You say "the fire commander gave the order to pull" pull what exactly? No men were inside WTC7 or attempting to put the small fires out, (for some strange reason!), so what is there to 'pull'?

There were actual attempts to fight the fires, but they were haphazard and smallscale. No water and manpower lost. There was a serious attempt to go in before they got "Pulled" from WTC7 as well. There are accounts online from NYFD that confirm this. You should look it up.

Typical so called debunker saying things like:

So now, are you suggesting the NYFD commander is in charge of explosive demolition of massive structures and he blew up WTC7? is this what you believe?

Which you know full well I never said anything of the sort! You debunkers are either very stupid, or just trolling, certainly not here to really debate 9/11.

But you are insinuating this. When you say they meant "demolition" of WTC7 with explosives when Larry said pull it, then you are basically saying the NYFD blew up WTC7. Why? Cause the fire commander gave the order to "pull" WTC7. Reading comprehension chief. You said they pulled it. We are not stupid. When you use a direct quote to say they pulled something (code for blew up) they you are saying it.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Only one corner of the core was left standing for a short time. Obviously there was some external energy acting on the core that ripped it too shreds, eh?

Only one corner? Source?

Did you figure out yet that gravity is an external force? Did you read the links from NASA I gave you some time ago? Or still ignoring?

Of course the columns were cross braced. How is that even in question?



Cross bracing clearly visible. It's a common form of structure for steel, vertical columns with cross bracing.

edit on 4/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

I only see a couple of columns with cross braces. How does that make the core a "block"?

And the cross braces seems to be way smaller than the columns. Yet you seem to think they would be as strong as the columns (which were orthgonal to the load, which is the optimal direction) when they have to endure a top section falling on them.

Like Anothernut, you making this up as you go in order to make it suit your preconceived idea. You have absolutely nothing to base anything you say on. No model, no physics, nada.

I will again point you to the spire thread where me and dreugene . Discuss crossbracing and he agrees that any cross bracing would affect the rigidity and he would have to think on it.

I again ask you why don't you apply your statement above concerning red flags to the nist report? Do you not see any major red flags?

Originally posted by Another_Nut
I will again point you to the spire thread where me and dreugene . Discuss crossbracing and he agrees that any cross bracing would affect the rigidity and he would have to think on it.

I agree, it would affect it. But there is a huge step to go from affecting rigidity to to model it as a block.

Without even knowing how many cross bracing there was, nor the strengnth of the cross bracing, its basically just making things up. When you make simplifications in your model you always need to justify those simplifications. You always need to have an approximation of the error margin you end up with. Else the model is basically useless.

I again ask you why don't you apply your statement above concerning red flags to the nist report? Do you not see any major red flags?

No I do not see major red flags.