SPreston

Aug 13 2008, 02:39 PM

These video analyses by David S Chandler show heavy steel pieces being hurled out from the North Tower alleged gravity collapse at 70 mph.
Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor, where the vertical motion of the building was no more than half that speed


These photos show heavy steel pieces being hurled up and out and away from the towers with explosive force. Some very heavy steel pieces were hurled a hundred yards into neighboring buildings in different directions. A gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect.

Grit1645

 

Wouldn't giant explosions producing such an effect have had giant concussions? We don't hear those on the videos. There are no concussion waves spreading out from the building.

Grit1645

 

What proof do you have that a gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect?

Flippy

Aug 13 2008, 10:25 PM

Grit1645

 

What proof do you have that a gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect?

Call me crazy, but I doubt engineers and architects design steel buildings to collapse from... gravity.

Your scenario is quite ridiculous.

Grit1645

Aug 13 2008, 04:55 PM

SPreston

Aug 13 2008, 02:39 PM

These video analyses by David S Chandler show heavy steel pieces being hurled out from the North Tower alleged gravity collapse at 70 mph.
Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor, where the vertical motion of the building was no more than half that speed


These photos show heavy steel pieces being hurled up and out and away from the towers with explosive force. Some very heavy steel pieces were hurled a hundred yards into neighboring buildings in different directions. A gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect.

The vertical velocity would not necessarily have to be the same as the horizontal velocity - it would be dictated by the forces being applied to the ejected pieces. Wouldn't giant explosions producing such an effect have had giant concussions? We don't hear those on the videos. There are no concussion waves spreading out from the building.

What proof do you have that a gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect? There isn't really much to compare it to is there? Traditional controlled demolitions don't produce this effect either.

Flippy

Aug 13 2008, 10:25 PM

Grit1645

 

Wouldn't giant explosions producing such an effect have had giant concussions? We don't hear those on the videos. There are no concussion waves spreading out from the building.

Really, what about this video? (Video of WTC 7, I do not know of video close enough to the towers to hear the explosions)



5:00 to end.

Grit1645

Aug 14 2008, 05:00 PM

Flippy

Aug 13 2008, 10:25 PM

Grit1645

 

What proof do you have that a gravity induced collapse would not produce this effect?

Call me crazy, but I doubt engineers and architects design steel buildings to collapse from... gravity.

Your scenario is quite ridiculous.

Engineers design buildings to withstand static loads and wind loads. Not in general to withstand large impact loads. In no way would the bottom of the building have been designed to resist having the top fall ONTO it. Obviously there is a difference between a falling load and a static load.

DoYouEverWonder

Aug 14 2008, 06:11 PM

Grit1645

 

"The load increased because it began to move. The forces being applied to the non-moving components were impact forces rather than static ones, and were thus much larger.

Also, once it impacted the lower portion of the building it was not distributed where it had been before. The structure is designed to carry the load in a certain configuration. If you change the configuration or arrangement of the load, the structure may no longer be able to carry it even if it weighs the same amount."

Miragememories

Aug 15 2008, 08:55 AM

I would like to hear a reasonable explanation for these "impact forces".

Certainly, if the upper section moved downward "as one", at a high enough
rate of speed, the intact floor below would be overwhelmed.

No one has ever provided a believable scenario that would adequately explain
how enough of the upper section could suddenly "pile drive" into the lower
intact section.

Grit1645

 

"I can try to explain how this can play out, structurally, if that would be interesting to people on here. It would probably take a few days (because of work) so I might break it into sections. That would require some patience and indulgence on the part of the readers."

Miragememories

Aug 15 2008, 07:36 PM

Grit1645

 

"I can try to explain how this can play out, structurally, if that would be interesting to people on here. It would probably take a few days (because of work) so I might break it into sections. That would require some patience and indulgence on the part of the readers."

My point was that no reasonable explanation from those supporting the Official Theory has been presented that agrees with what was clearly observed.

Controlled demolition of some form does explain how the 3 WTC Towers could collapse so rapidly and uniformly.

MM

JackD

Aug 15 2008, 04:39 PM

See Scotsman Gordon Ross for some analysis:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Quote:

 

for instance, look at that photo from the JIm Hoffman book posted by SPreston, where collapse/demolition wave is halfway down.

THERE IS NO LONGER AN UPPER PORTION PUSHING DOWN. the upper region has disintegrated into a mixture of powder, dis-incorporated steel, floor, and office contents.

Quote:

 

for 30 years, the floors 0-50 have been faithfully supporting 60 more floors above them. Now you tell me that you are turn (???) the top 40-50 floors to NONCOHERENT falling mass of powder, steel, floors, acting as individual components rather than a single, united block, and the bottom 50% of the building can no longer
support that load?

Quote:

 

Your argument about dynamic load COULD, with a lot of tweaking, explain the first floor or two of collapse. However, the CONTINUATION of the collapse seems unlikely to occur, given that the upper area was by and large DISINTEGRATED into separate components, which on their own were insufficient to maintain the thrust.

Quote:

 

Look how much material is falling OUTSIDE the footprint of buildign

Freq Band

Aug 16 2008, 06:45 AM

And a few floors of that falling debris will still crush into the still-intact floors directly beneath it......which in turn, becomes even more debris, crushing more floors.

Can you lift a 150 lb person off their feet ? Probably.
Can you catch a 150 lb person falling.... even 5 feet ? Doubt it.

Quote:

 

for 30 years, the floors 0-50 have been faithfully supporting 60 more floors above them. Now you tell me that you are turn (???) the top 40-50 floors to NONCOHERENT falling mass of powder, steel, floors, acting as individual components rather than a single, united block, and the bottom 50% of the building can no longer
support that load?

Gee....I won't say what I'm thinking....
For 30 years, floors 0 to 50....have been supporting a load that was intact, bolted, welded, and designed to stay together as one piece.
Floors 0 to 50 were NOT designed to "catch" a falling, fragmented, chaotic load.
But floor 6 or 7 or 8 is relatively unaffected as floors 49,48,47 crash into floors 46,45,44....and so on down the gravity trail.

Quote:

 

The falling debris becomes more like an avalanche, picking up material and densely packing it as it goes along. As each new floor is picked up, it becomes compressed onto the moving chunk, which is ALL moving along together at the same velocity. They are more of a single united block than a bunch of individual components - that's a wrong characterization.

The debris falling outside the footprint is mainly the exterior walls and concrete dust, but the building is 208 feet by 208 feet, so that leaves a lot of stuff still falling INSIDE.

Quote:

 

Engineers design buildings to withstand static loads and wind loads. Not in general to withstand large impact loads. In no way would the bottom of the building have been designed to resist having the top fall ONTO it. Obviously there is a difference between a falling load and a static load.

tower

Aug 24 2008, 06:00 AM

Why do you start from the assumption that the upper part must have collapsed onto the lower part, and then provide your explanation based on that assumption?

Freq Band

Sep 14 2008, 10:06 PM

tower

Aug 24 2008, 06:00 AM

Why do you start from the assumption that the upper part must have collapsed onto the lower part, and then provide your explanation based on that assumption?

Because all reasonable logic points to it.

You can see it in almost every video.

If you have more evidence of something to the contrary, do tell.

=FB=

Quote:

 

They [NIST] require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

Quote:

 

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

scott75

Sep 18 2008, 08:33 AM

I have not yet read the following link, but it shows a lot of potential. It is essentially a list of linked articles criticizing various NIST literature:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...d=97&Itemid=62

Freq Band

Dec 1 2008, 01:38 PM

That article was poppycock.....
But what you do prove, is that there are some quaky peer paper referee's.