Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

***WARNING***

The next post that is outside the guidelines for this forum will receive a permanent account ban.

This PSA has been posted in a few different threads over the last few days. Please do not test the staff's patience on this policy.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

sorry, staff, I'm not sure if I broke any rules with my reply to -PLB-, so I'm editing my post, please delete it.

reply to post by Akareyon


I don't think it applies to our discussion. I have seen your PM but I rather continue any discussion in here so post away.

If you say it's safe :-)

So to mimic truss seat failure (which is the main resistance in the WTC), in our model the paper needs to bend, and start pulling itself from underneath the blocks and overcome the friction (which is the main resistance in the WTC).

[...]

You bring up a good point in how the the model is different from the WTC. The actual falling over of the blocks decreases the friction of the floors. This did not happen in the WTC. In order to overcome this difference, you would have to build some sort of floor connection instead. This complicates the design significantly.

Now you're saying it yourself (yes, I know you are referring to building a scaled-down model).

What I was trying to say is that in order to build a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse progressively from top to bottom you would have to deliberately design a complicated mechanism that works for 80+ iterations. It would have to work in several steps. It would only trigger when a certain force threshold is exceeded so it doesn't go off accidentally when somebody is ropeskipping in his office. But once one floor fails, the next one must already be on his way down. So: first floor fails, pushing out or releasing its set columns, which in turn already releases the next floor even before it is being hit by the floor above; once this floor is not holding the columns anymore the next floor is being released. This is the only way to reach the speed necessary (this calculation has been done before: if each floor had to accelerate the next one by crashing (pancaking) into it, it would have taken the towers forever to come down). The acceleration of the collapse front would stop at a final speed because of the friction force of the mechanism itself, just as a stone dropping through gas or liquid doesn't accelerate all the way down but reaches its top speed..

You managed to model this on a small scale for 10 iterations and a few centimeters, intending to build a tower that collapses progressively, and even then there seems to be a slight leaning to one side; so I think a taller tower like this would have leaned and tilted eventually (due to slight asymmetries), stopping the beautiful progression. Also, I would love to know if this particular design would "work" everytime, with drops off-center or higher up etc... In real life, this mechanism would need to work for a few hundred meters and dozens of floors, smoothlessly, no matter at what angle the top above the impact zone comes down.

Now you have brought up costs as an argument. Let's say building a tower with the same "office space" yours had would cost you 40 dishwasher tablets, 10 sheets of thin paper and the time it took you to erect it. Would you say that you would design the tower the way you did, or do you believe you would build a more stable tower with the budget given?

But as far as I know the towers were not designed to accommodate for everything that happened that day, like the high speed of the plane, and the subsequent fires.

Let's agree with the NIST that the towers survived the plane (?) impact.

In central europe's middle ages entire cities (like the one I've grown up in) have burned down due to the mud and oak beam framework architecture. Incidents like these led to fire departments and fire safety regulations all over the world. So, yes, the towers were designed to accomodate for a fire, and have survived more than one before.

If you say that the towers were flawed to such a degree that a real, raging office furniture inferno - anything could have started that, not just a plane crashing into them - would have led to the same phenomenon of one floor failing, bringing the whole structure down, the design was not just "flawed", it was effed up big time.

And surely the NIST would have had good reasons to examine this stuff further than to brush off the results of this little "flaw" as "inevitable". Surely someone should have called the architects for some answers. Surely engineers all over the world would have investigated the incident and the blueprints of the WTC so nothing of this sort can ever happen again.

Instead, a host of contradictory and inconsistent explanations have been put forward, one less believable than the other: pancaking (which happens due to heavy roofs (used in typhoon regions so the houses don't sail away) which squeeze the structure in the case of an earthquake), progressive collapse (requiring a mechanism), slipshod architecture (which would result in leaning and tipping), CD (requiring skill and months of preparation), high-energy weapons (wtf), unique design (owlry?), card house architecture (though even card houses are more stable), aliens (no comment), relativistic theories ("too big to not fail").

No wonder we have a hard time communicating.

The mast fell first. What if the structure seen in the vid is not the base, but the top of the core?

Originally posted by Akareyon
Now you're saying it yourself (yes, I know you are referring to building a scaled-down model).

What I was trying to say is that in order to build a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse progressively from top to bottom you would have to deliberately design a complicated mechanism that works for 80+ iterations.

Not at all. The truss seats were designed to hold the floors. It seems to me that it is the most simple design. How would you have attached the floors in a way that it would not be susceptable to progressive collapse?

It would have to work in several steps. It would only trigger when a certain force threshold is exceeded so it doesn't go off accidentally when somebody is ropeskipping in his office. But once one floor fails, the next one must already be on his way down. So: first floor fails, pushing out or releasing its set columns, which in turn already releases the next floor even before it is being hit by the floor above; once this floor is not holding the columns anymore the next floor is being released. This is the only way to reach the speed necessary (this calculation has been done before: if each floor had to accelerate the next one by crashing (pancaking) into it, it would have taken the towers forever to come down). The acceleration of the collapse front would stop at a final speed because of the friction force of the mechanism itself, just as a stone dropping through gas or liquid doesn't accelerate all the way down but reaches its top speed..

I disagree completely here. This is not the mechanism in the WTC. In theory, the columns didn't have to fail at all. The whole building could have collapsed with all columns still standing. Column failure was only a result of the collapse.

A single WTC floor can never hold the mass of 15 other floors, even not in a static situation. The truss seats were simply not strong enough to hold such a mass. This condition is already enough to ensure global collapse. Unless you design some special mechanism that makes all the rubble fall to the side or something like that. Sounds like a challenge.

You managed to model this on a small scale for 10 iterations and a few centimeters, intending to build a tower that collapses progressively, and even then there seems to be a slight leaning to one side; so I think a taller tower like this would have leaned and tilted eventually (due to slight asymmetries), stopping the beautiful progression. Also, I would love to know if this particular design would "work" everytime, with drops off-center or higher up etc... In real life, this mechanism would need to work for a few hundred meters and dozens of floors, smoothlessly, no matter at what angle the top above the impact zone comes down.

We have pretty solid proof that what you describe did not happen. Even if you believe in some sort of explosives, then there still has to be some resistance during the collapse. Yous same arguments would still apply. In other words, you have to quantify what you are saying. Come with some figures of how much resistance would result in your predicted behavior and why, how much resistance there is without explosives, and how much there is with explosives. Only then people will start to have something to work with. Simple assertions like "resistance was too high" without anything to back it up are completely meaningless.

Now you have brought up costs as an argument. Let's say building a tower with the same "office space" yours had would cost you 40 dishwasher tablets, 10 sheets of thin paper and the time it took you to erect it. Would you say that you would design the tower the way you did, or do you believe you would build a more stable tower with the budget given?

How would you improve upon the WTC towers design so that cost does not increase but stability, or even better prevention of progressive collapse, does increase?

Let's agree with the NIST that the towers survived the plane (?) impact.

In central europe's middle ages entire cities (like the one I've grown up in) have burned down due to the mud and oak beam framework architecture. Incidents like these led to fire departments and fire safety regulations all over the world. So, yes, the towers were designed to accomodate for a fire, and have survived more than one before.

If you say that the towers were flawed to such a degree that a real, raging office furniture inferno - anything could have started that, not just a plane crashing into them - would have led to the same phenomenon of one floor failing, bringing the whole structure down, the design was not just "flawed", it was effed up big time.

But is was not just the fire. It was high speed plane impact + rapid spread of fire due to kerosine + broken sprinklers + no way to fight the fire + damaged fire proofing.

And surely the NIST would have had good reasons to examine this stuff further than to brush off the results of this little "flaw" as "inevitable". Surely someone should have called the architects for some answers. Surely engineers all over the world would have investigated the incident and the blueprints of the WTC so nothing of this sort can ever happen again.

If you can prevent initiation, you automatically prevent collapse.

Instead, a host of contradictory and inconsistent explanations have been put forward, one less believable than the other: pancaking (which happens due to heavy roofs (used in typhoon regions so the houses don't sail away) which squeeze the structure in the case of an earthquake), progressive collapse (requiring a mechanism), slipshod architecture (which would result in leaning and tipping), CD (requiring skill and months of preparation), high-energy weapons (wtf), unique design (owlry?), card house architecture (though even card houses are more stable), aliens (no comment), relativistic theories ("too big to not fail").

No wonder we have a hard time communicating.

It seems to me that, at least among structural engineers, the collapse mechanism is pretty clear. It was rubble consisting of floors, columns, and everything that was in the buildings, falling on floors below it, which were only designed to hold the load of a single floor, so were completely chanceless.

To me it isn't really a big mystery, and I am not even a structural engineer.

The mast fell first. What if the structure seen in the vThe mast fell first. What if the structure seen in the vid is not the base, but the top of the core?

That seems entirely impossible to me. first of all it is too high, and second it would never have survived to impact with the ground.

reply to post by Akareyon

"... But once one floor fails, the next one must already be on his way down. So: first floor fails, pushing out or releasing its set columns, which in turn already releases the next floor even before it is being hit by the floor above; once this floor is not holding the columns anymore the next floor is being released. This is the only way to reach the speed necessary (this calculation has been done before: if each floor had to accelerate the next one by crashing (pancaking) into it, it would have taken the towers forever to come down). The acceleration of the collapse front would stop at a final speed because of the friction force of the mechanism itself, just as a stone dropping through gas or liquid doesn't accelerate all the way down but reaches its top speed..
"
this is where I was telling Anok good luck quantifying what was happening inside the towers. what was holding the columns above the impact zones? people talk about floors impacting floors, why aren't we talking about columns hitting floors? floors caught between columns moving/not moving? lateral/diagonal forces against structures designed mainly for compression or tension loads? the forces all the components of the entire upper mass generated unevenly and unbalanced over the lower mass are probably impossible to quantify in relation to the strength of the resistance of the lower mass. people talk as if the upper mass was moving level and balanced ala stone dropping through gas/liquid which is moving evenly across the surface of the stone. I told Anok he was thinking of two blocks of wood one smaller than the other and you are thinking of the stone (actually the jagged upper mass) moving through the water (which was actually the jagged lower mass). notice the remaining jagged core standing in the video. the upper mass became a shredded mess mutually shredding what was below it and that would be one hell of a model to build.

reply to post by -PLB-
I understand what you are trying to say. The floor slabs held the vertical core columns and the perimeter columns in shape. When the top came down, they sheared the floor slabs away, and so the columns buckled under their own weight, like 4 meters of upright copper wire would bend and buckle under their own weight.

We seem to have fundamentally different takes on how the towers were built. If I understand you correctly, the core had neither horizontal bracings (except for those where the floor slabs were attached) nor diagonal bracings - and no stabilizing triangles at all. I am very sure that this is not true, firstly because historic photographic evidence clearly shows the core being a classic framework structure with horizontal and diagonal beams, secondly because a tower made up of quadrilaterals only would lean if given the slightest excuse (because each joint is treated as potential "hinge" in architectural engineering and everything with more than three hinges is deformable). I will retract my statement and publicly admit I was wrong when the official blueprints show that the towers were designed without any protection against leaning.

I find that hard to believe. If I were to design the towers, the core would be the spine of the structure, stable on its own against lateral and vertical forces, just like overhead power line pylons or the upper half of the Eiffel Tower... or any other truss system. The perimeter would be the skin of the structure, stable on its own like cupcake paper or a coke can, but slightly prone to deformation due to lateral and torsional forces around the vertical axis. There would be a slight, increasing gradient for weights and strengths of the joints and beams from top to bottom so it invisibly mimics a pyramid, structurally and dynamically. Then I would hang light-weight floors, barely consisting of much more than steel rod lattice, between the core skeleton and the perimeter skin. This would stabilize the whole structure in a very simple way: when the wind comes from the left, it would bend the perimeter to the right, so in turn a pull would be exerted on the rods on the right, thus being transmitted to the core which would keep the tower in perfect and stable balance through its triangular truss structure. Basically, I'd build them just like Ikea's Ivar bookshelf system is made, the 500 year old oak beam framework house I grew up in was constructed and the way tubular skyscraper construction is explained in every engineer's study book and on Wikipedia.

This structure wouldn't pancake or collapse progressively from top to bottom due to it dropping on itself. The worst thing that could happen would be failure modes like this (thanks GenRadek) and this (buckling) or like this (classic gravitational collapse because of base pulled away, for example due to leaning).

If you wanted to bring this thing down from top to bottom, you'd have some thinking to do. I would most probably attach a strong rope to the rooftop and pull the whole thing straight down like the telescope it is. As the strength gradient increases, each lower floor would remain upright until all weaker floors above it are crushed.

That's why I don't quite understand the video footage. Not just in the end of the tower collapse, as seen in OPs video, but also at the onset of the south tower collapse a "spire" of the core remains standing at first, and I can't find the footage anymore where the top can clearly be seen (from above) just breaking apart, exposing the core before it also sort of... crumbles like a sand castle and sinks into the dust ejection fountain. For this to happen, the rubble would have to maim the core structure underneath in regular intervals, while at the same time being ejected to all four sides like a giant sparkler, ripping down the floors and crushing the perimeter, all while having no more mass than it had all the time before, just from its momentum, which is hardly counteracted (decelerated) by any of the force vectors that have been pointing upward for 30 years.

If you ask me: extreme fast forward a candle burning down would best describe the whole thing. The "spire" that collapses/desintegrates last is just the bottom end of the wick.

reply to post by Akareyon


almost all debunkers seem to be under the impression there was no crossbrqcing of the core columns.

In my hijacked spire thread linked to earlier dreugene finally admitted that if the was crossbrracing he would have to rethink his argument about the spires after i showed him the cross brace pictures.

Man it just so easy. The spires are so obvious.thats why they are mostly ignored by os and conventional cd sides.

Because the spires prove them both the frauds they are.. Ment to keep the people argueing indefinatly.

And make those of use that think there (might) have been tv fakery and black tech used seems outlandish for our assertion of basic principles..

Even though all evidence points towards it

reply to post by Another_Nut

And make those of use that think there (might) have been tv fakery and black tech used seems outlandish for our assertion of basic principles..

Even though all evidence points towards it

Wait a minute.
They can't bury the IRS scandal.
They can't smother Bengazi.
They can't secretly review the AP phone records.

But they can put in place secret 'tv fakery' and 'black tech' 12 years ago? And no one's the wiser?
Does that really make any sense to you?

Originally posted by Akareyon
I understand what you are trying to say. The floor slabs held the vertical core columns and the perimeter columns in shape. When the top came down, they sheared the floor slabs away, and so the columns buckled under their own weight, like 4 meters of upright copper wire would bend and buckle under their own weight.

That is more or less my idea of the collapse. If you look at the videos, you see complete section of perimeter columns just fall over. They don't even buckle, just fall over like a tree. The video of the spire in the OP also supports this idea.

We seem to have fundamentally different takes on how the towers were built. If I understand you correctly, the core had neither horizontal bracings (except for those where the floor slabs were attached) nor diagonal bracings - and no stabilizing triangles at all. I am very sure that this is not true, firstly because historic photographic evidence clearly shows the core being a classic framework structure with horizontal and diagonal beams, secondly because a tower made up of quadrilaterals only would lean if given the slightest excuse (because each joint is treated as potential "hinge" in architectural engineering and everything with more than three hinges is deformable). I will retract my statement and publicly admit I was wrong when the official blueprints show that the towers were designed without any protection against leaning.

There is quite some information available in the NIST report, including all the original documents supporting it. Here are some relevant sections:

Perimeter columns

The exterior wall columns , built-up of steels plates, from the foundation level up to Elevation 363 ft (column splice point below floor 7, see Fig. 2–3) were spaced 10 ft on center, and they were connected by spandrels. Between the Concourse Level and the foundation, these columns were braced diagonally to form braced frames in the plane of the exterior walls (Fig. 2–3). Between Elevation 363 ft and floor 7, single exterior wall columns spaced 10 ft on center transitioned to three columns spaced 3 ft 4 in. on center (Fig. 2–8) to form “tree” assemblies.

So most perimeter columns were connected by spandrels. Diagonal bracing was only in the foundation.



core columns

Each tower was comprised of five structural systems: a framed tube for the exterior walls above grade, simple frames (beams and columns with simple connections) for the core, braced frames for the exterior walls below grade, composite floor framing, and hat trusses at the roof level.

Diagonal bracing was used at the mechanical floors and in the area of the hat truss.

So the core was a simple (horizontal) beam and column frame, with diagonal bracing just on the mechanical floors and near the hat truss.

I find that hard to believe. If I were to design the towers, ... Basically, I'd build them just like Ikea's Ivar bookshelf system is made, the 500 year old oak beam framework house I grew up in was constructed and the way tubular skyscraper construction is explained in every engineer's study book and on Wikipedia.

Maybe your design is better, but the WTC was not build like that. All wind loads were handled by the perimeter columns, and not transfered to the core.

This structure wouldn't pancake or collapse progressively from top to bottom due to it dropping on itself. The worst thing that could happen would be failure modes like this (thanks GenRadek) and this (buckling) or like this (classic gravitational collapse because of base pulled away, for example due to leaning).

I don't see how in your design you prevent your "light-weight floors, barely consisting of much more than steel rod lattice" from collapsing all the way down once one of the floors get overloaded and fails. Which floor is going to hold the falling debris? Why would this floor not also fail while all floors above it did fail? It seems to me that at most your core would still be standing after collapse, and at worst it would topple over and cause even more damage to the surroundings. I don't think that is the desired failure mode.

That's why I don't quite understand the video footage.....

If you ask me: extreme fast forward a candle burning down would best describe the whole thing. The "spire" that collapses/desintegrates last is just the bottom end of the wick.

I really don't see a mystery here. You have a core that is held together by horizontal beams. You have 15+ stories of columns, beams, truss hat and mast falling on it. I expect it to be severely damaged, even if there is cross bracing.

reply to post by -PLB-


I simply want to throw whatever weight I have here behind PLB. He has illustrated in detail the actual construction of the WTC and the likely failure mode.

I have found little in his posts to disagree with, and it's my opinion that you would be well served to read them closely. He is correct about cross bracing and nearly correct about wind loads (They're actually handled by the spandrel moment framing on the adjacent sides to the wind stressed face and the hat truss as well as the rest of the building frame in general)

I don't really post here much anymore, but I feel it's worth an endorsement of PLB here.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

And make those of use that think there (might) have been tv fakery and black tech used seems outlandish for our assertion of basic principles..

Even though all evidence points towards it

Wait a minute.
They can't bury the IRS scandal.
They can't smother Bengazi.
They can't secretly review the AP phone records.

But they can put in place secret 'tv fakery' and 'black tech' 12 years ago? And no one's the wiser?
Does that really make any sense to you?

Yes .

Because it's ALL an act, parts to be played ,dramas to unfold.

All part of the script.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Yes .

Because it's ALL an act, parts to be played ,dramas to unfold.

All part of the script.

But I can use this explanation for anything. If 911 was revealed as a controlled demolition then I could use this exact explanation to imply it was actually space lasers.

Surely you can see that inherently this is a cop-out explanation, one that doesn't rely on facts or logic, just supposition and belief.

reply to post by -PLB-

"I really don't see a mystery here. You have a core that is held together by horizontal beams. You have 15+ stories of columns, beams, truss hat and mast falling on it. I expect it to be severely damaged, even if there is cross bracing."
that's where the other side misses the reality here. they talk about force acting level and balanced against a resistance and that's just not accurate.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Yes .

Because it's ALL an act, parts to be played ,dramas to unfold.

All part of the script.

But I can use this explanation for anything. If 911 was revealed as a controlled demolition then I could use this exact explanation to imply it was actually space lasers.

Surely you can see that inherently this is a cop-out explanation, one that doesn't rely on facts or logic, just supposition and belief.

You could say that. And I wont fault you . I carried the os line for many years.

Until I really looked into it. It seemed that both os and conventional demos just dont explain what I saw and see.

The nist just seems like a patchwork of bs especially when you have them come out and say they were lied to. not even they believe it was pancaking.

And the conventional cd just doesnt make sense when u consider that the buildings were turned to dust With no apparent explosions and a man rides a dust cloud 200 feet to safety.

and the spires are the cincher for me . The both survived between 15-30 seconds after pulverization of the floors and outer walls.

This indicates they were structurally sound. Had they not been collapse would have been with the rest of the building. There would be no delay and swaying

The disintegration of the spire is also evident. Most debunkers claim it was just dust being shaken loose as it fell. I dont agree. The spire is obviously swaying the wind . Swaying shakes loose all the dust they want to believe was still attached when the spire 10 seconds later after it stops moving and disintigrates.

The fact that all damage to the towers almost completely stops at ground level.

i can say from evidence i was shot. I dont need the gun or bullet
Same with 9/11.

The evidence ,when taken in totality,supports some black tech.

Not pancaking. Not conventional cd. Nothing.

As i like to say.

Once you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, no matter how implausable, must be the truth.

eta I have never seen September clues even closely debunked. And his cymbals for planes crashes in the bids are "spot on" and "freaky" according to my very musically inclined friend. The fade to black was also a big flag.
and lastly the nose out footage happened . Me and my friend both watched it live together. And he lost his dad that day.

Originally posted by Another_Nut

The disintegration of the spire is also evident. Most debunkers claim it was just dust being shaken loose as it fell. I dont agree.

It's dust from the fireproofing that was applied to the core columns. The core columns can be seen in the background of the photo below. The white stuff that has been sprayed on them is fireproofing. Fireproofing does in fact crumble and turn to dust easily.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Another_Nut

The disintegration of the spire is also evident. Most debunkers claim it was just dust being shaken loose as it fell. I dont agree.

It's dust from the fireproofing that was applied to the core columns. The core columns can be seen in the background of the photo below. The white stuff that has been sprayed on them is fireproofing. Fireproofing does in fact crumble and turn to dust easily.

Another bad attempt at debunking.

why didnt it get knocked off WHEN THE TOWER SUPPOSEDLY FELL ON IT? or if you agree no tower hit it .Why didn't it shake loose in the swaying? Why did this fireproofing wait until it comes to a standstill before jumping off?

Because it doesn't.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by -PLB-

 

"I really don't see a mystery here. You have a core that is held together by horizontal beams. You have 15+ stories of columns, beams, truss hat and mast falling on it. I expect it to be severely damaged, even if there is cross bracing."
that's where the other side misses the reality here. they talk about force acting level and balanced against a resistance and that's just not accurate.

The person you are quoting doesn't appear to have said "level" or "balanced". The only person saying that appears to be you.

The 'official story' has no talk of level or balanced falling. The unifying aspect is that all objects undergo the same acceleration due to gravity, but obviously the difference in local design, damage, changes in timing etc will cause 'uneven' elements.