I'm right about World Trade Centers and have an idea how they fell

[LA RAM FAN]

I knew it! I knew it made no sense that the much lighter top would collapse the whole "supposedly" undamaged bottom. Now I found scientific engineering papers to PROVE IT! Did you know that the WTC were designed to so that they were holding only 30% of their capacity by weight? That means the WTC towers could hold up to almost 300 more floors! And just 18 floors collapsed the whole building?

Here's the paper: with some quotations:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it. In addition, the rigid block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse?

If the upper block didn't just rest down onto the remaining intact structure and therefore do nothing...it would have either bounced off (as a block) or pulverized on top of the remaining structure and fallen away like a water balloon hitting a post.

There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]

But I'm not willing to be a TRUTHER

I have an alternative theory how the towers fell.

Instead of cutting the core, like most imagine it happened, with pancaking floors which would in fact have just bounced off the rest of the 93 floors below them.

The core remained intact, and loosened by fire and outer shell damage to those support columns, the structure did something it was NEVER designed to do.

It twisted, from top to bottom, head to foot, root to crown.

For an hour, subtle by inches or less and impossible to see by the eye, hundreds of thousands of tons were stuck to the rest of the building fastened by the core columns and these columns were twisting.

What happens when you move a steel beam only centimeters or an inch, in a direction they aren't allowed to move, in a structure held together by super brittle grains of sand we call "Cement"?

It fits all the ground-zero witness descriptions.

Groaning, cracking, explosive sounds, floors giving way at multiple levels, elevator shafts sheering and breaking apart.

As that steel moves the concrete under the pressure of its own structure starts blowing out of the walls like artillery rounds, just like a prybar hitting concrete only with 1,000,000 pounds twisting it.

The towers were designed to sway, not to twist.

So, this is the only reasonable explanation I can come-up with other than explosives, to explain why when the top fell, the rest of the tower was barely able to resist the pancake collapse. Because after an hour the whole interior was already broken up and the shockwave passing through the remains was able to knock floors loose before they were even hit by the floors above (which explains the near free fall speed).

SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT:

What I'm describing is Torsion and is the most dangerous movement a building can sustain. Torsion occurs without symmetry and when mass is significant to one structural support versus another. My theory is that the planes damaged the symmetry and the core still intact, the torsion ripped the building apart at all levels and so the damage WAS in fact complete and through-out the entire structure.

Why has no one discovered this so far?

Because those who aren't looking already accepted a simplistic official answer, those who are looking are looking for the wrong biased reasons such as the building was rigged with explosives.

Here's an explanation of torsion.

HOW BUILDINGS TWIST DURING EARTHQUAKES?

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT:

The structure of the floors was a prefabricated unit of open web steel joists with an insitu structural concrete slab. The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter I History.pdf

I have been hunting for evidence about how the WTC towers are built with regards to torsion and SURE enough we see here that (as would be expected) they are built to resist torsion but look how they are built to resist torsion.

The FLOORS tie together the core and exterior columns!

So this supports my hypothesis in several ways.

With the floors collapsed and severely damaged at the top, the top acts like a giant torsion wrench pulling on the ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

After the core fractures in what is called "Spiral fracturing" and has many green stick fractures running through the whole top to bottom, and the top does collapse...I hypothesize the collapse was so orderly because there was a twisting motion the whole way down.

As each floor broke away the building twisted apart like a zipper coming undone.

It wouldn't have made a 180 degree turn, or 360 degree twist or anything dramatic, but enough to just peel the building down like peeling a banana.

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT: (High Density Polymer)

In the above paper it also cites that High Density Polymer was used to absorb lateral oscillation of the floors against the walls. So hunting it down I found its flammability characteristics.

I believe it to be possible to explain why there were continuous explosions heard internally, the polymer as it burns (also at a higher temperature than most office products) gives off explosive gasses.

Here is the data sheet:

http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/20371/appendix5.pdf

ah because some INTERNET link says it happened that way,you think fires brought them down.Oh my the gullible.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news and break your heart but thousands of credible architects and engineers disagree with you as well as along with demolition experts and witnesses who were there who heard explosions in the basement long before the plane allegedly struck it above and the damage to the basement confirmed it.

nice try but miserable fail

time to get out the crying towel to wipe the shit off your face since you actually believed you were right and wont be able to accpe facts you arr wrong.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No, I'm out, I have enough to do with bitch slapping leftist assholes in political threads!

Sounds like you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about and got in over your head.

the fact you cant accept facts that explosives brought the towers down,while yes he doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about,so are you and neither do you.

i would have read the link until I saw where you lost your credibility when you said on that other thread explosives did not bring them down.

 

[MisterBeale]

Did you read that the HEAT from all that jet fuel burning actually fatigued drastically the steel in the WTC?

By the time this nit wit gets done they will re-name this forum the "Foil Hat Forum".

Read the OP and read the article provided unless you're too damn a fucking coward to talk about the engineering evidence provided.

Elevator shafts are MAJOR structure points in a building okay stupid? Jet fuel burning in a contained area like a shaft builds heat to more then 1600 degrees FAR more then is needed to melt/cut steel.

Those SAME shafts stupid run BELOW street level so the structure IS attacked well beyond what your pin head brain can figure. Unless of course you can prove jet fuel runs AGAINST the laws of nature such as GRAVITY. Good luck with that idiot.

 

[Skylar]

I knew it! I knew it made no sense that the much lighter top would collapse the whole "supposedly" undamaged bottom. Now I found scientific engineering papers to PROVE IT! Did you know that the WTC were designed to so that they were holding only 30% of their capacity by weight? That means the WTC towers could hold up to almost 300 more floors! And just 18 floors collapsed the whole building?

Here's the paper: with some quotations:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it. In addition, the rigid block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse?

If the upper block didn't just rest down onto the remaining intact structure and therefore do nothing...it would have either bounced off (as a block) or pulverized on top of the remaining structure and fallen away like a water balloon hitting a post.

There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]

But I'm not willing to be a TRUTHER

I have an alternative theory how the towers fell.

Instead of cutting the core, like most imagine it happened, with pancaking floors which would in fact have just bounced off the rest of the 93 floors below them.

The core remained intact, and loosened by fire and outer shell damage to those support columns, the structure did something it was NEVER designed to do.

It twisted, from top to bottom, head to foot, root to crown.

For an hour, subtle by inches or less and impossible to see by the eye, hundreds of thousands of tons were stuck to the rest of the building fastened by the core columns and these columns were twisting.

What happens when you move a steel beam only centimeters or an inch, in a direction they aren't allowed to move, in a structure held together by super brittle grains of sand we call "Cement"?

It fits all the ground-zero witness descriptions.

Groaning, cracking, explosive sounds, floors giving way at multiple levels, elevator shafts sheering and breaking apart.

As that steel moves the concrete under the pressure of its own structure starts blowing out of the walls like artillery rounds, just like a prybar hitting concrete only with 1,000,000 pounds twisting it.

The towers were designed to sway, not to twist.

So, this is the only reasonable explanation I can come-up with other than explosives, to explain why when the top fell, the rest of the tower was barely able to resist the pancake collapse. Because after an hour the whole interior was already broken up and the shockwave passing through the remains was able to knock floors loose before they were even hit by the floors above (which explains the near free fall speed).

SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT:

What I'm describing is Torsion and is the most dangerous movement a building can sustain. Torsion occurs without symmetry and when mass is significant to one structural support versus another. My theory is that the planes damaged the symmetry and the core still intact, the torsion ripped the building apart at all levels and so the damage WAS in fact complete and through-out the entire structure.

Why has no one discovered this so far?

Because those who aren't looking already accepted a simplistic official answer, those who are looking are looking for the wrong biased reasons such as the building was rigged with explosives.

Here's an explanation of torsion.

HOW BUILDINGS TWIST DURING EARTHQUAKES?

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT:

The structure of the floors was a prefabricated unit of open web steel joists with an insitu structural concrete slab. The floors tied together the exterior perimeter columns and the interior steel frame to resist twisting, or torsion, of the tower

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter I History.pdf

I have been hunting for evidence about how the WTC towers are built with regards to torsion and SURE enough we see here that (as would be expected) they are built to resist torsion but look how they are built to resist torsion.

The FLOORS tie together the core and exterior columns!

So this supports my hypothesis in several ways.

With the floors collapsed and severely damaged at the top, the top acts like a giant torsion wrench pulling on the ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

After the core fractures in what is called "Spiral fracturing" and has many green stick fractures running through the whole top to bottom, and the top does collapse...I hypothesize the collapse was so orderly because there was a twisting motion the whole way down.

As each floor broke away the building twisted apart like a zipper coming undone.

It wouldn't have made a 180 degree turn, or 360 degree twist or anything dramatic, but enough to just peel the building down like peeling a banana.

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL EDIT: (High Density Polymer)

In the above paper it also cites that High Density Polymer was used to absorb lateral oscillation of the floors against the walls. So hunting it down I found its flammability characteristics.

I believe it to be possible to explain why there were continuous explosions heard internally, the polymer as it burns (also at a higher temperature than most office products) gives off explosive gasses.

Here is the data sheet:

http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/20371/appendix5.pdf

ah because some INTERNET link says it happened that way,you think fires brought them down.Oh my the gullible.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news and break your heart but thousands of credible architects and engineers disagree with you as well as along with demolition experts and witnesses who were there who heard explosions in the basement long before the plane allegedly struck it above and the damage to the basement confirmed it.

nice try but miserable fail

time to get out the crying towel to wipe the shit off your face since you actually believed you were right and wont be able to accpe facts you arr wrong.

If the explosions were in the basements....why did the collapse begin at the impact site, a minimum of 77 stories above....and proceed downward?

Exactly opposite of where the explosions were.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Did you read that the HEAT from all that jet fuel burning actually fatigued drastically the steel in the WTC?

By the time this nit wit gets done they will re-name this forum the "Foil Hat Forum".

Read the OP and read the article provided unless you're too damn a fucking coward to talk about the engineering evidence provided.

Elevator shafts are MAJOR structure points in a building okay stupid? Jet fuel burning in a contained area like a shaft builds heat to more then 1600 degrees FAR more then is needed to melt/cut steel.

Those SAME shafts stupid run BELOW street level so the structure IS attacked well beyond what your pin head brain can figure. Unless of course you can prove jet fuel runs AGAINST the laws of nature such as GRAVITY. Good luck with that idiot.

the shills forget unlike them,that WE did not skip junior high school science classes and actually understand that ALUMINUM "CANT" penetrate in and out of several girders of STEEL like swiss cheese.

their handlers sure pay them well for their evasive tactics and ass beatings they get here constantly.

This is what the shills do with facts like this-

 

[Skylar]

someone farted in here.^

Yeah, I didn't think you could answer the question on why the building began collasping from the TOP when the 'explosions' were supposed to be a the bottom.

But then, avoiding the trucksized, theory killing holes in the absurdly complicated Truther conspiracy is what Truthers do.

 

[Skylar]

Did you read that the HEAT from all that jet fuel burning actually fatigued drastically the steel in the WTC?

By the time this nit wit gets done they will re-name this forum the "Foil Hat Forum".

Read the OP and read the article provided unless you're too damn a fucking coward to talk about the engineering evidence provided.

Elevator shafts are MAJOR structure points in a building okay stupid? Jet fuel burning in a contained area like a shaft builds heat to more then 1600 degrees FAR more then is needed to melt/cut steel.

Those SAME shafts stupid run BELOW street level so the structure IS attacked well beyond what your pin head brain can figure. Unless of course you can prove jet fuel runs AGAINST the laws of nature such as GRAVITY. Good luck with that idiot.

the shills forget unlike them,that WE did not skip junior high school science classes and actually understand that ALUMINUM "CANT" penetrate in and out of several girders of STEEL like swiss cheese.

their handlers sure pay them well for their evasive tactics and ass beatings they get here constantly.

This is what the shills do with facts like this-

This should be interesting. So if the plane couldn't penetrate the building, what did?

 

[Gamolon]

Would you like to discuss the problems with your comparison of the two items above or the inaccurate claims of the "100,000 tons of steel" picture?

 

[MisterBeale]

Would you like to discuss the problems with your comparison of the two items above or the inaccurate claims of the "100,000 tons of steel" picture?

The World Trade Center — Facts and Figures
I'll admit, the analogy is pretty specious at best, however, it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

I'll also admit, NIST makes a pretty convincing case. That is, if you take them seriously. After their analysis and work with WTC 7, I don't. If you do, that's your choice.

Clearly, most of the world, and the free market doesn't take NIST seriously either.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

 

[SAYIT]

Would you like to discuss the problems with your comparison of the two items above or the inaccurate claims of the "100,000 tons of steel" picture?

The World Trade Center — Facts and Figures
I'll admit, the analogy is pretty specious at best, however, it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

I'll also admit, NIST makes a pretty convincing case. That is, if you take them seriously. After their analysis and work with WTC 7, I don't. If you do, that's your choice.

Clearly, most of the world, and the free market doesn't take NIST seriously either.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

Interesting methodology.

In a lame attempt to support your conclusions you post an analogy that even you consider to be "pretty specious at best" (and rational adults consider just plain idiotic) yet continue to cling desperately to those conclusions.

An honest adult in search of "the truth" would have long ago left that CT silliness behind and stepped into the light. You are neither.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther"

 

[MisterBeale]

Would you like to discuss the problems with your comparison of the two items above or the inaccurate claims of the "100,000 tons of steel" picture?

The World Trade Center — Facts and Figures
I'll admit, the analogy is pretty specious at best, however, it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

I'll also admit, NIST makes a pretty convincing case. That is, if you take them seriously. After their analysis and work with WTC 7, I don't. If you do, that's your choice.

Clearly, most of the world, and the free market doesn't take NIST seriously either.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

Interesting methodology.

In a lame attempt to support your conclusions you post an analogy that even you consider to be "pretty specious at best" (and rational adults consider just plain idiotic) yet continue to cling desperately to those conclusions.

An honest adult in search of "the truth" would have long ago left that CT silliness behind and stepped into the light. You are neither.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther"

How slyly you totally skipped over the second half of my post. The whole point is that your postiion is irrelevant.

The free market, actually businesses, local and regional have ignored the official story and continue to conduct business pretty much the same as it ever have. Building structures the same as before.

Building codes haven't changed. They've only made stairwells a little bigger. The fire proofing codes have changed a little, but if you read the link, they were going to do that anyway. Other than that, nothing has changed.


How about all these laws both parties have passed since 911? They have only cost us a lot of money and freedom. They haven't done a damn thing for us. The TSA never caught one damn terrorist, not one. All the wars we fought, they have all probably only made the problem worse.


Next time try reading the link and you won't look like such an idiot.
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

 

[SAYIT]

Would you like to discuss the problems with your comparison of the two items above or the inaccurate claims of the "100,000 tons of steel" picture?

The World Trade Center — Facts and Figures
I'll admit, the analogy is pretty specious at best, however, it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

I'll also admit, NIST makes a pretty convincing case. That is, if you take them seriously. After their analysis and work with WTC 7, I don't. If you do, that's your choice.

Clearly, most of the world, and the free market doesn't take NIST seriously either.

Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports?
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

Interesting methodology.

In a lame attempt to support your conclusions you post an analogy that even you consider to be "pretty specious at best" (and rational adults consider just plain idiotic) yet continue to cling desperately to those conclusions.

An honest adult in search of "the truth" would have long ago left that CT silliness behind and stepped into the light. You are neither.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther"

How slyly you totally skipped over the second half of my post. The whole point is that your postiion is irrelevant.

The free market, actually businesses, local and regional have ignored the official story and continue to conduct business pretty much the same as it ever have. Building structures the same as before.

Building codes haven't changed. They've only made stairwells a little bigger. The fire proofing codes have changed a little, but if you read the link, they were going to do that anyway. Other than that, nothing has changed.


How about all these laws both parties have passed since 911? They have only cost us a lot of money and freedom. They haven't done a damn thing for us. The TSA never caught one damn terrorist, not one. All the wars we fought, they have all probably only made the problem worse.


Next time try reading the link and you won't look like such an idiot.
Are Tall Buildings Safer As a Result of the NIST WTC Reports? Washington's Blog

Garbage in/Garbage out.

Doubling down on your admittedly "specious at best" (and ridiculous at worst) anaolgy by linking FruitLoops Ryan at equally FruitLoops "Washington's Blog" is as lame as it is useless.

Ryan was fired from UL not for whistle-blowing, as claimed, but because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." - Paul Baker, UL spokesman

At the root of every 9/11CT claim seems to be a lie usually "substantiated" by more lies.

What we have here is another of your futile attempts to cover your silliness with more silliness (see: First Rule of the Hole).

Frankly I can't save you from your need to dive into every 9/11 CT wabbit hole but I would remind you again all you ever seem to come up with is wabbit droppings.

 

[Gamolon]

it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

It wasn't "just jet fuel". What about the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns?

 

[SAYIT]

it's just so absurd to think that the fuel in those planes took down those towers.

It wasn't "just jet fuel". What about the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns?

Not one of these 9/11 CTs is interested in the facts or the truth. They simply post their lies, ignore the facts and slither away only to return in weeks or months to post the exact same lies.

Beale has made that same claim a dozen times in my years here, had the truth posted in response, and has posted the same retort (below) a dozen times:

............... (cue the crickets) ..............

 

[Capstone]

Congrats on riling up the OCTards, Crusader. I'm guessing there are 3 tons of ass to be kicked in this thread (and that's a conservative estimate); but take it from someone who's been there and done that: it ain't worth it.

There are bigger fish to fry in the here and now, Bro. Focusing too heavily on the past is not a recipe for success in understanding what's being done in the present to 'We the Peons' ... and by whom.

My $.02 .

 

[MisterBeale]

Congrats on riling up the OCTards, Crusader. I'm guessing there are 3 tons of ass to be kicked in this thread (and that's a conservative estimate); but take it from someone who's been there and done that: it ain't worth it.

There are bigger fish to fry in the here and now, Bro. Focusing too heavily on the past is not a recipe for success in understanding what's being done in the present to 'We the Peons' ... and by whom.

My $.02 .

Agreed.

 

[Gamolon]

My $.02 .

Not even worth that much...

 

[Capstone]

My $.02 .

Not even worth that much...

At least my take on things hasn't carried a negative balance for the past 14-some years.

 

[Dale Smith]

To those that know that 9/11/01 was a false flag event, don't let the naysayers get you down. They are not bad people nor are they stupid....they are simply not ready to accept that things are not what they seem. If everyone could only understand how badly we have been used and abused by the power elites, there would be a march on D.C with torches and pitchforks...of course the shadow government that really calls the shots wouldn't be affected but they would get the message. People need to wake up and understand that there are people running our lives and playing us for suckers that don't give a shit about us....it's strictly business. I am saying that it is time that we stand up and tell them that we don't want to play their rigged game anymore.