Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. Isn't it better
to concentrate on the facts only and try to explain them without rants and raves. I'm not
interested whether a flight got 444 passengers or 443, whether the collapse is 8.4 seconds
or 15 seconds, I would like to have proper explanations. The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.
The problem that we are having is that such a collapse is not something you can reproduce each day to
check your pancake or inverse CD theory. I'm always a pro-America guy, but if you are skeptical about
the pancake collapse you aren't automatically a ufo believer or think that Elvis is alive. I think that's
the medieval way of burning people who disagree with the offical thing. I don't believe in UFOs,
I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.
 
Last edited:
Einsteen, welcome to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your views, regardless of what they are, will be allowed, if not accepted.

I appreciate your post, and what it has to say. Here on the JREf you will find all sorts of people posting. I think what you are seeing is the result of frustration. Most of the people who post here have been doing so for a long time. Much longer than I. As a result, I tend to be a little more benign when the repeat offenders come in here and begin to throw their theories all over the place.

A skeptic, by definition, requires evidence to prove a theory or hypothesis. When certain Consipracy "Nuts" as you (and others) have dubbed them, come in here making all sorts of claims, people here will call them on it, and demand evidence. When they cannot provide reliable evidence, their theories are called "speculation".

This place is far from a "love in". If you have a theory, than present it, but be prepared (1) to back it up with SOLID EVIDENCE, or if unable to do so, then be prepared to (2) have it called "speculation" or worse.

You mention the "pancake theory". Interesting point. Earlier, perhaps about a month ago, I used it in a debunking of the CTers and got called on it by my fellow Debunkers. Most here do not believe in the "classical" pancake theory, as it is too simple a theory to explain the complexity of what occured. NIST itself has come out not in favor of it. The top part of the buildings were heavy enough, and accelerating enough, that the floors underneath the area of collapsed were collapsed almost like paper, offering little resistence. This is the reason why the buildings fell in "NEAR" Freefall speed, at least the majority of the building (part of the core seems to have stood for 10-20seconds longer than the building that surrounded it).

Anyone else with any thoughts?

TAM
 
Last edited:
First of all welcome to the forum

I also don't believe in a pancake collapse,
Click to expand...

Its not a question of belief, its a question of what the evidence and the laws of physics tell us.


I have several reasons for that which I will write down later.
Click to expand...

Please do.


I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
Click to expand...

You do know that a "theory" in the scientific sense means something that is well documented and supported by nearly all the experts. It doesnt mean just a guess.


in physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable
Click to expand...

Try reading the NIST report, they tested it throughly.
 
einsteen said:
IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way. (etc etc)
Click to expand...
First of all, welcome to the forun einsteen.

It will be easier if you just throw out your best evidence for con trolled demolition, if that's the CT you subscribe to. Too hard to handle 35 things at once. So what in your opinion is the single best piece of evidence?
 
G'day Einsteen, welcome.
I have only been posting here for a month or so, but I did learn early on that this place is not like the Loose Change Forum. There is no moderator here hovering over a ban button waiting to silence dissenting points of view. There are however a large number of short tempered people who have spent months already debunking all of the main CTs around 9/11. So please don't be offended if someone jumps down your throat for proposing a "theory" which has been thoroughly discredited several times.
It is probably a good idea to try reading some of the threads about these ideas and if you find something that you feel hasn't already been addressed, by all means tell everyone about it.
These guys love to debate and none of them will flame you for holding an honest opinion no matter how much they disagree with you. They will however expect you to support that opinion with more than a video and a few comments of the-"It doesn't look right to me"-kind.
Anyway that's how I see it.
Cheers.
 
I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)

- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction but if you have conduction you also have thermodynamic equillibrium which will keep the frame strong (and what about those people who say that the wtc is 6 times stronger than needed and the temperature at which steel weakens) The opposite is that there is no heat conduction which will certainly keep the steel frame strong and each floor will remain strong enough to carry the whole building

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?

(and here I cannot post a youtube vid)

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?

I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible. In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ? Did they solve a coupled set of nonlineair PDVs to explain what happened or did they present a nice picture with a nice pancake story...

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..

- I think there are tons of other things even when not looking at the other strange things surrounding the event (wtc7, strange ploom at bottom before collapse,
anomalies at the bottom of the planes etc)

But I think the last words are not said about this
 
einsteen said:
- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..
Click to expand...

This just demonstrates that you really don't know what goes into controlled demolition. "Some explosives" would require so much work and so many people to plant - and if you're going to use explosives, why bother hijacking aircraft?

I'm afraid, at least on this point, that Ockham's Razor favors the official theory, not explosives.
 
einsteen said:
1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because
Click to expand...

The building didn't collapse immediately on impact because the forces pushing down on the building (i.e. the weight of the upper floors) was redistributed to other columns.

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on.
Click to expand...

The floors don't carry the weight of the building, the building is designed to carry the weight of the floors. The world trade center had two sets of columns designed to carry the weight of the building. The outer skin was actually hundreds of columns, and a set of columns in the interior core space. The floors were attached to these columns and it was the columns that supported the building and floors.

Floors in buildings are designed to carry 2 loads, dead load and live load. Dead load is weight of office equipment and other inanimate objects. Live load is people moving around. The floors are not designed to hold up against an immense object (like the top 20 floors of a building) being dropped on them.

The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction)
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by symmetry of construction, but in putting in columns for a building you size them for the load they have to carry. This means as the world trade center went up the columns got smaller. So the columns at the top could support less load than those at the bottom. By the time the collapse reached the first floor it was no longer the force of just the top 20 floors that hit, but the force of 109 floors.


- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?)
Click to expand...

No.

, but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)
Click to expand...

Seeing people only proves that it was cooler in the area where there were people. Here's an analysis of the column temperatures in the north tower after 5400 seconds. You'll notice the area around the opening is fairly cool while many of the columns are over 800 C (the missing columns are ones severed by the crash).

578944fa3ed51ad8c.png


And here is the analysis for the floor trusses. Again cool in some areas, over 800 C in others.

578944fa3ed551479.png


- If the whole frame became week that must be because of heat conduction
Click to expand...

No. In addtion to heat many columns were severed and the forces they were holding were distributed to other columns. So the frame was also weakened from the crash, plus the remaining columns were carrying additional loads, further weakening them.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?
Click to expand...

Computer models. Scale models were used in wind loading tests before the towers were built, and again for an insurance renewal (I forget the year that occured, it was recently though).

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..
Click to expand...

The official explanation for the collapse is this: Planes hit WTC, severed and damaged many columns (including removing the fireproofing from many of these columns). Jet fuel exploded igniting many fires of office equipment, carpet, wood desks, paper, computers, etc.... These fires further weakened the structure. The top floors then collapsed striking the floors and causing them to collapse too.

Controlled Demo explanation is: Wait for planes to hit, sneak people and thousands of pounds into WTC at floors of impact, work around fires, install thousands of pounds of explosive and escape from building. This of course includes at least foreknowledge that planes would be hijacked and many people killed when crashed into the building on a particular date. Not one person could reveal this knowledge before or after.

I believe I know which one occam's razor would find simpler.
 
I'll hit a few of these, I'm sure others will be by later and give more evidence.

einsteen said:
I'm probably in the hole of the lion here.. he he

It's late and I have to sleep but shortly the problem that I have:

1) The collapse happened not immediately after the plane crashed in, as far as I understand the official explanation is that the frame became weak, which rises more questions, because

- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on. The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom. If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.
Click to expand...

All floors are not as strong as the first floor, as height increased the strength/size of the steel was reduced since there was not as much building to hold up. IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.

The twenty or thirty stories that fall one story have several times the energy that any one floor can support. This is the difference between a live load and a dead load. The best analogy I know of this is to take a 5 pound hammer and set it on your toe, that is no problem. Now take that 5 pound hammer and drop it on your toe from 10 feet up, now you have a problem.


- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)
Click to expand...

The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.

The whole floor appeared to weaken all at once because it was like the straw that broke the camel's back. There was a gradual weakening as the steel heated up and then at some point the building system could no longer support the load. Then the top of the towers tilted to the side that failed first and that broke the remaining support structures and started the collapse.

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?
Click to expand...

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

Without calculations I would say that a pancake collapse would be even more symmetrical than a CD, how did NIST test the collapse, with scale models ?
Click to expand...

You could always go read the report, its pretty detailed on how they tested.

Short version the tested recovered samples of steel, reviewed thousands of videos and photos, and ran a FAE (finite element analysis) computer model.


I've seen some calculations on internet, a stupid one with billiard balls which in fact calculates N times t_per_store but also a detailed one which
takes a simplified wtc consisting of blocks with no walls and cores, that gives 15 seconds, but that is the ideal situation of no resistance.
Click to expand...

Try reading the NIST report, its much better than crude approximations.

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..
Click to expand...

No, what is complex is the effort needed to plant thousands of pounds of explosives with nobody noticing.
 
Kevin and Woody...

Now look what you've gone and done...now there is nothing left for me to do...oh well, maybe next time...

:)
 
Woody- said:
IIRC some of the core columns became I-beams in the upper floors.
Click to expand...

Core columns, if they existed, were of the strongest structural elements in the towers. Why do no images of the demolition show these toppling outwards?

Woody- said:
The progressive collapse was mainly the floors joists failing, when they failed the pulled the exterior columns in and the interior columns out. While the columns could hold a great deal of vertical load it took very little horizontal load to cause them to fail.
Click to expand...

Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Many words, no images proving what you say.

I have images proving what I say.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11corexplosions.html
Click to expand...


No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.
 
einsteen said:
I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse, I have several reasons for that which I will write down later. I don't care if someone then
calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.
Click to expand...

The NIST report reevaluated the "pancake theory", as noted in their FAQ page

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.
Click to expand...

Anyways, to even consider the CD theory is a complete waste of time. It is such an improbable theory, it goes beyond the realm of possibilities (the amounts of explosives needed, the time of preparation, the damage to the buildings required for rigging everything, the labourforce, the secrecy of the operation considering the WTC towers are working offices, etc.).

As one of the posters called Manny once said, let's focus on preventing these events from ever happening again by changing our ways of building scyscrapers.

Also, let the professional engeneers do it.
 
Last edited:
Woody- said:
No Christophera you have images that you choose to belief show something that never existed. You can harp all you want on lack of images of core columns during the collapse but the fact is you have no images that show a concrete core anytime, either before or after 9/11.
Click to expand...

You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.


core​
 
He has proven there are steel columns in the core through his series of pictures Christophera, however, you have not proven there is a concrete core within, based on your one smoke obscured pic. You are the one claiming there is a concrete core, so it is up to you to prove it. That picture does not.
 
einsteen said:
- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?
Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing explosions, you must be refering to the fire that was expelled by the collapse initiation process.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible.
Click to expand...

How so?

In some movies you see those strange plooms a couple of stories lower which means that there is a correlation between what happens at the top. Of course that can be explained by transfer of momentum/energy through the (weakened ??) steel frame for example, but then it should already be included in the official explanation, wasn't that explanation done very quickly ?
Click to expand...

Remember that the NIST investigation concentrated on the events leading up to the collapse, and the collapse initiation. They did not make a study of the actual collapse sequence (the collapse all the way down). This is a mistake all CTists do.
 
Christophera said:
You cannot say that until you explain what this is and how it stands after all the steel has fallen around it.


core​
Click to expand...

Yes, I can say that. Your pic shows "something" in the cloud of dust that formed when WTC2 collapsed. It might be your "inviscrete" core, it might be the some or all of the 47 columns that were in the real core, or it might just be a thick dust cloud that looks like something solid.

There simply is not enough information in that pic to make a definite statement about what it shows. So I can't "explain what this is" and neither can you. Even the Hi-res version of that pic doesnt give us a better view.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc18.JPG
 
Christophera,
Do you now agree that what you've been calling "3" rebar on 4' centers" is not that at all, but huge steel columns where you believed a concrete core to be?
 
T.A.M. said:
He has proven there are steel columns in the core through his series of pictures Christophera, however, you have not proven there is a concrete core within, based on your one smoke obscured pic. You are the one claiming there is a concrete core, so it is up to you to prove it. That picture does not.
Click to expand...

As far as I know I've explained how the construction photos are misinterpreted and those explanations are consistent with the demolition images.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not a tubular concrete core. Something thing that must be done before any conclusion can be made.

You do realize there was a core do you not?
 
Gravy said:
Christophera,
Do you now agree that what you've been calling "3" rebar on 4' centers" is not that at all, but huge steel columns where you believed a concrete core to be?
Click to expand...

This must be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because the spire is a 20 inch box column at the same distance 1 second before. The concrete was behind the spire and when the spire fell the rebar at the corner of the concrete core remained standing.
 
Christophera said:
This must be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because the spire is a 20 inch box column at the same distance 1 second before. The concrete was behind the spire and when the spire fell the rebar at the corner of the concrete core remained standing.
Click to expand...

879044f9a5254a103.jpg

I must be missing something here because that picture you keep saying is 3" rebar on 4' centers has been shown to be the central steel support beams teetering momentarily before collapsing.
What makes you say it is 3" rebar?
I'm not an engineer so I guess its possible I just don't get it, but it really does seem to me that you are just lying to avoid admitting an error.
Is ignoring all contrary evidence and restating an invalid argument over and over again a strategy that works for you?
Are you just waiting for everyone to get bored with you so you can claim victory when noone will bother debating anymore?
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
I'm not an engineer so I guess its possible I just don't get it, but it really does seem to me that you are just lying to avoid admitting an error.
Click to expand...

I'm an architect who works on tall buildings and I do get it. It's steel and linings, not concrete.

Chris, if you're that sure it's concrete then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on a CT site. Go and find articles written when it was built, people who worked on the site. Check the building warrant (permit, or whatever you call them in America) drawings. Go and speeak to retired members of the design team and ask.

Oh, ah, no. Wait a minute. That would involve real investigation, not just googling....l
 
einsteen said:
whether the collapse is 8.4 seconds
or 15 seconds, I would like to have proper explanations. The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.

<snip>

In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.
Click to expand...

Welcome, Eisteen, from a fellow newbie.

Any building is only designed to accommodate credible loads; for example here in the UK, we would take account of wind loads and fire risk, but pay little attention to earthquakes - in stark contrast to, say, California or Japan.

Until 911, or 11-9 as we prefer to call it in the UK, aircraft hitting buildings was not considered a credible risk. There is no requirement in building regulations/codes, nor is there an accepted way of modelling the problem.

Nevertheless the designers of WTC took account - at some level - of a low moving 707 bitting them. What we don't have are the calculations or any detailed breakdown of the assumptions made. It may be (and probably is) well wide of the mark in comparison to the events of 911.

I know you haven't mentioned this, but I give it as an example of how we really design buildings. Here's why:

Collapse of the upper superstructure onto a lower floor was not considered a credible load. Typically there are 3 ways of controlling fire in any building:

1. Automatic firefighting - In-house suppression systems such as sprinklers.

2. Manual firefighting - firemen and hosereels, in other words.

3. Passive or structural fire proofing.


Now in the case of the towers, (1) was knocked out by the explosion and (2) was more or less impossible because of access difficulties. (3) was severely compromised because (a) much of the structure was damaged and (b) fireproofing was dislodged by the explosion.

We therefore had a building which was failing at an accelerated rate.

Now, I'd like you to consider whether any designer would have ever worked on the assumption that the huge mass above was going to impact on the lower structure at an acceleration of 10ms-2 (give or take)?

Would it even be possible to design to resist such loadings?

The simple answer is no, and the CTers typically show their poor understanding of design and structural issues when they harp on about this point.

Yes, the intermediate floors offered nominal resistance. But we're talking milliseconds, not seconds. And that's why the collapse happens at something near free fall speeds.

But it isn't free fall, is it? Because if we watch the videos, we see that columns and pieces of the facade are falling faster than the main collapse.

Progressive structural collapse is physically possible, and is supported by the evidence.
 
Christophera said:
Congratulations,

You have found the only piece of evidence that MIGHT be misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had steel core columns.
Click to expand...

Well, we've seen plenty that HAVE been misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had a concrete core.

The 2 columns toppeling have a base pivot point that can be projected downward at an angle to the lower left to show they are a part of the row of interior box columns on the left that have separated and are falling inward. What you confusingly refer to as hallways are simply rectangular spaces formed by the interior box columns and floor beams on the panel of columns we see that were the inner wall of the outer tube of the "Tube in a tube" construction.

If those columns were inside the core area, at that height, caught falling at that angle, they would be much further to the right and we would see more of them approximately parallel as they topple. With 47 , 1300 foot steel columns toppling in whatever directions, they would be a prominent feature in the images of the towers coming down. As it is this, is the only image that can me even misinterpreted to show "core columns" from the demolition.

Niice try Gravy.
Click to expand...

I'd think that image is simply the same as yours, just better showing that structure, and I'd also think this is from the outside of the WTC, not the core.
 
Christophera said:
As far as I know I've explained how the construction photos are misinterpreted and those explanations are consistent with the demolition images.

No one has offered a reasonable explanation for what this is if it is not a tubular concrete core. Something thing that must be done before any conclusion can be made.

You do realize there was a core do you not?
Click to expand...

Not sufficient Christophera...you see:

If a friend comes over to my house and says to me:

"There is life on mars."

The responsibility is his to prove this is true, If I am to believe it. If he is an expert in astronomy, or astrophysics, or astrobiology (not sure if that is even a science yet) than his opinion might carry extra weight, but if not, he better find me some good articles written by such experts to prove it to me, or else he better have a martian standing behind him.

It is not enough for him, as a layman, to take out a telescope, find mars, then let me look while saying..."now you see those tracks...those are aquaducts...where there are aquaducts there are living creatures." It just doesnt work that way...

TAM
 
Christophera said:
Based on real collapses of steel and concrete structures. Which, by the way, never collapse all the way to the ground. The conservation of energy has them slowing, then deflecting.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you saw 32 storeys of a building fall on the rest of it ? For all we know, it DID slow down, but the force coming down on the undamaged WTC was simply too great. Don't forget that, with each successive floor, the falling mass increased.

It is convienent to say that WTC 2 was damaged more but it is well known that the right engine went entirely through the building and most of the fuel did too.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The point is that the plane hit a corner, damaging the structure, and at a lower point than the first tower.

If the damage was worse then it would be because the core corner was taken out which would mean that the tower would fall to the south east, or more south as the perimeter wall was damaged on the south side.
Click to expand...

Since neither you nor I know exactly which columns or sections of the interior of WTC2 were damaged, I don't see how you can make this statement.

Your argument is self defeatng.
Click to expand...

Yours is circular. Wanna dance ?
 
Christophera said:
Yea, tell me about it. We need an explanation of why the top of WTC 1 fell south when it was hit on the north side. the school kids will lose all confidence in science if you try to explain with your logic.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to explain anything. I simply said that this wasn't a grade-school level problem, while you're trying to make it exceedingly simple. I would dare say, "common-sense" simple.

I only expected to see the 47 1300 foot steel columns if they existed, which they did not.
Click to expand...

I can't even read what's written on the truck in the foreground. I don't know how you could expect to see individual columns on a section that's 30 pixels wide.

I expect you to be able to come up with images of some of the 47, 1300 foot columns clearly in the core area doing something. 72 pages and not one image that clearly shows this. Pretty bad,
Click to expand...

If you'd care to stop labeling them "box columns" you would've seen them by now.
 
einsteen said:
IMO there is a kind of fighting ongoing between the people who believe in the official theory
and people who believe in the alternative theories, I think that's the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Welcom einsteen. That's a very bad way to start a post, though, as if JREFers don't use facts. Have you read this thread ?

The pancake collapse is IMO impossible.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear read why.

I don't believe in paranormal stuff, I even don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in a pancake
collapse
Click to expand...

That's amazing, considering it's happened before.

Do you believe in gravity ?

calls me a conspiracy nutter or something like that because the pancake theory is also just a theory.
Click to expand...

Like evolution, right ?

In physics a theory should be tested and be reproducable, think about your pancakes and test your theory.
Click to expand...

<smacks himself on the forehead> OF COURSE!! Gravy! Get me some steel! Huntsman! Get me some concrete trucks, please. Delphi! I'll need some office furniture. Steal it if you have to. Shrinker! Cables and electricity, if you will. Pardalis! I need two 767s ready to roll. I'll get some cranes. Bob_kark... just keep counting those socks, man.

Okay. We should have two brand-new WTCs in just a few years. Then we can test the theory.
 
einsteen said:
- the whole frame then became weak because floor i (i=1,...,N) is strong enough to carry all other N-i stories and so on.
Click to expand...

That doesn't need to happen. All you need is to bring the 78th floor (WTC2) to the point where it CAN'T handle the weight of 32 floors above it. Once the collapse starts, as someone said, the load that comes down on 77th will be 20-100 times greater than what it was designed to handle.

The firemen who made it a few blocks can tell you if there was any damage at the bottom.
Click to expand...

They couldn't get to the impact floors. They can't tell us anything.

If one assumes all floors are as strong as the first floor (by symmetry in the construction) then I would expect that the upper block that is going to fall between the whole building will probably break one floor and then stops.
Click to expand...

Read my comment above. This assertion of yours stems from ignorance of the scale of the collapse.

- A pancake collapse could probably happen if you ignore the core and the walls (isn't that what NIST did?) , but why does a floor become weak after 50 minutes when the whole area went from hot to cold (you can see people standing there, that's no spoof)
Click to expand...

Maybe not directly in the impact hole, but you can clearly see several floors on fire above the impact point. WTC1 was basically on fire from the impact point to the top. That can't be good for structural steel.

- what is the initial starting point of the collapse, if you think about a domino effect what caused the first stone to fall, what about those strange explosions at the top ?
Click to expand...

Look at them again. Dust and debris don't explode, they flow from the building. That's not an explosive charge.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall. This is by definition impossible.
Click to expand...

What's this "faster than free-fall" you're talking about. Free fall isn't a speed.

- And what about Ockham's razor, you must make your sophisticated pancake theory very complex, some explosives would make the theory easier..
Click to expand...

Occam's razor isn't about simplicity, per se. It's about the theory that explains best while making the least assumptions. Presumably, the collapse of a 110-storey building will be a complex event.
 
Belz:

Your description of Occam's Razor is by far the more accurate one, but for the majority who use it, it has often been "simplfied" or "modified" to mean..

"given two answers or solutions to a problem or scenario, the simplest one is the more likely to be correct, all other factors being equal."

This is the definition most go by, but your definition is actually a more accurate description of "Occam's Razor".
 
Gravy said:
Bolding mine. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Click to expand...

About this quote you posted:

Finding 32: The building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the east and south at the onset of structural collapse. The tilt occurred toward the east side with the long span floors. Estimates made from photographs indicate that there was approximately a 3 degree to 4 degree tilt to the south, and a 7 to 8 degree tilt to the east, prior to significant downward movement of the upper portion of the building.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. This is interesting, as NIST also state that the North Tower top section also leant by 8 degrees before it began to move downward. Was an 8 degree lean the maximum strain that the columns on the other side of the building could withstand? Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this than myself (ie. any of you) can shed some more light on this.
 
Give Us Your "Impressions"

WildCat said:
Are you under the impression that each steel column was one piece of 1300 ft. long steel?
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't have the experience to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.

In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".

The concrete core was one piece and intended to resist torsion applied through the "flying" action of the tower faces in high wind.

Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?
 
Last edited:
Repeat for Chris:

I don't understand. Where in relation to the structure in my photo do you believe the concrete core and rebar were?
 
Christophera said:
Maybe you don't have the experince to know that the word "column" implies one piece. The word "core" goes further with that assertion.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. One piece core. Was it prefab ?

In the documentary it was stated that the "interior box columns" (not core columns) were butt welded with 100% weld making them virtually "one piece".
Click to expand...

I assume you're again referring to that non-existent documentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom