problem with twin towers

[justrealizedit]

I think one of the problems with the 911 truth seekers argument about the collapse of the twin towers is that many of them say the towers came down in a classic controlled demolition. This is not really the case and i think it hurts the truth movement and makes people less likely to realize the truth. Obviously, the towers did come down in a controlled demolition, and anyone who denies this after watching video of the collapse is either stupid or a liar, but they did not come down in a classic fashon. The classic way is when the bottom is blown out first and then the building just collapses in on itself, as was the case with wtc 7. In the case of the towers, though, they basically blew outward, starting from the top and going down, and they didn't simply collapse on their footprint, but they were blown outward. My point is that the towers were a different kind of controlled demolition than wtc7 and most other demolitions, and 911 truthers need to address this instead of saying the towers were a classic demolition.

[AuGmENTor]

Or, we could read this thread and realize that this topic isn't as important as all the air time it gets...
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/sho...ition+movement

[werther]

From the reading I have done it seems most truthers realize this. For some reason it is only (or more predominantly) when a truther is on television that this fact is skewed. I am not blaming the media, but the truther. I don't know why this happens. Perhaps in the rush to get the word out with the limited time one has, it simply slips out?

You are correct no doubt, but you over generalize.

[MrDark71]

I think one of the problems with the 911 truth seekers argument about the collapse of the twin towers is that many of them say the towers came down in a classic controlled demolition. This is not really the case and i think it hurts the truth movement and makes people less likely to realize the truth. Obviously, the towers did come down in a controlled demolition, and anyone who denies this after watching video of the collapse is either stupid or a liar, but they did not come down in a classic fashon. The classic way is when the bottom is blown out first and then the building just collapses in on itself, as was the case with wtc 7. In the case of the towers, though, they basically blew outward, starting from the top and going down, and they didn't simply collapse on their footprint, but they were blown outward. My point is that the towers were a different kind of controlled demolition than wtc7 and most other demolitions, and 911 truthers need to address this instead of saying the towers were a classic demolition.

Maybe it's just me....but a classic controlled demolition may not produce the desired "it was hit by a plane" visual effect. These aren't stupid people.

[MrDark71]

LOL@ "Or we could read this thread"

[psikeyhackr]

In an exchange on another site someone brought up a link to an EXPERT that is so dumb I just had to share it. So far my google searhes have not turned up anyone else pointing out this stupidity and I find that somewhat shocking. So let's see if anyone here can point out something wrong with my reasoning.

This is an exchange about the grammar school physics of the collapse.

Apparently the experts can get away with really dumb mistakes.

================ First Post by Lurid Larry ====================

Maybe with psikeyhacker and "many others" but not with engineers.

When you care enough to read the very best.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

By F. R. Greening

www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Lurid Larry

================= Firsst Response by Me ====================

Greenings report is here:

www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

On page 3 it says this:

For the general case of n floors collapsing we define a collapsing mass Me:

Me = n m(f) ............................(1)

where m(f) is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the entire mass of an entire WTC tower, namely m(f) = (510,000,000 / 110)kg = 4,636,000 kg.

Now the World Trade Center was 117 stories tall. The foundation was sunk into bedrock which was necessary for a building that tall and massive and there were 7 sub-basements. So when people quote figures for the mass of the building are those levels included or not? Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor? If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.

So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.

Why don't you check out the NIST reports yourself Lurid Larry.

Some people need experts ... to tell them what to think.

psik

== Next Response by me skipping a couple by LL that weren't informative ==

If you have a problem with the data, I suggest you do some research.

Lurid Larry[/B]

I had already done it, but I think about the research I do not just believe it. Here are some thoughts about yours, maybe you can handle blocks. :D :D

Suppose we do some simplified collapse calculations with 3 sets of blocks to get some basic principles settled. The blocks are all 1 unit on the side. Two stacks of blocks are made with sequentially wieghted cubes that weigh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 pounds each. One stack is built with the heaviest toward the bottom and the other with the heaviest toward the top. These stacks weigh 66 pounds so the average is 6 pounds therefore the third stack is built with 11, 6 pound blocks.

               				Weights
        Fall distance  Btm Hvy  Top Hvy    Avg
 10		 1		 11		 6
 9		 2		 10		 6
 8		 3		 9		 6
 7		 4		 8		 6
 6		 5		 7		 6
 5		 6		 6		 6
 4		 7		 5		 6
 3		 8		 4		 6
 2		 9		 3		 6
 1		 10		 2		 6
 0		 11		 1		 6
                  220		 440         330

Multiplying the distance fallen times the weight of the block and adding that for all of the blocks in the stack yields 220 for the bottom heavy stack. The top heavy stack is double that amount and the average is right in the middle as expected. But what tall building is going to be built top heavy? And the average stack is 50% higher than the bottom heavy arrangement. Would you want to go into a building designed by supposed engineer that tolerated a 50% error?

Now since I am using 11 blocks and the WTC was 110 stories then 1 of my blocks is representative of 10 floors of the WTC. Your engineer talks about the mass of the top 30 stories so that must mean the south tower and equivalent to my top 3 blocks. The top 3 in the bottom heavy case have a total mass of 6, but the top 3 in the averaged case have a total mass of 18. So if the WTC was in fact bottom heavy then the data your engineer is working with could be way off even if his equations for collapse energy are correct because he is assuming too much mass toward the top.

So what about the bottom heavy case with basements.

               		   Weight
               Fall distance	 Btm Hvy
   	10			1	
   	 9			2	
   	 8			3	
   	 7			4	
   	 6			5	
   	 5			6	
   	 4			7	
   	 3			8	
   	 2			9	
     	 1			10	
     	 0			11	
 	 0		 12	underground sub-basements
               			 220

If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

================ The End ====================

FR Greening is a Canadian chemist. What is a chemist doing getting media time if he is talking about the energy of collapsing masses?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2279963&page=2

psik

[Christophera]

I think one of the problems with the 911 truth seekers argument about the collapse of the twin towers is that many of them say the towers came down in a classic controlled demolition. This is not really the case and i think it hurts the truth movement and makes people less likely to realize the truth. Obviously, the towers did come down in a controlled demolition, and anyone who denies this after watching video of the collapse is either stupid or a liar, but they did not come down in a classic fashon. The classic way is when the bottom is blown out first and then the building just collapses in on itself, as was the case with wtc 7. In the case of the towers, though, they basically blew outward, starting from the top and going down, and they didn't simply collapse on their footprint, but they were blown outward. My point is that the towers were a different kind of controlled demolition than wtc7 and most other demolitions, and 911 truthers need to address this instead of saying the towers were a classic demolition.

You are correct. The truth movement needs to address that. I do, but I cannot seem to get the others to recognize facts of hard evidence, images from 9-11. There has been an effective psyops, counter information program executed which targets the 9-11 truth movement.

Controlled demolition does not mean the demo is conducted in any specific fashion, it just means it is controlled by many delayed charges which are carefully placed. The downing of the WTC towers was by no means a classic controlled demolition. The fact is they were too tall for this no matter how you were to start from the bottom up. Toppling would always have the upper portions falling intact on surrounding buildings smashing them.

Accordingly, this controlled demolition worked from the top down. Of course when you do this, outwardly blown materials are going to continue outward as they fall. Within this, we can see that there was a great deal of control. For 1,300 foot towers, the debris field was actually well contained.

I viewed a 1990 documentary called "The Engineering and Construction Of the Twin Towers". It was produced by PBS in 1987 and aired in 1990. Apparently not only has the US government been infiltrated, but the infiltrators also infiltrated PBS and removed the video from the archives.

The reason for this is the documentary detailed the building of a steel reinforced cast concrete core. Not 47 steel core columns as FEMA states were inthe core area.

I have found 3 people who watched the documentary or clips from it which were sold to other documentary producers. Apparently there were 3 other made which were 1 hour and had segments showing or talking about the concrete core.

By 2,003 I had remembered enough of the documentary to assemble a web site incorporating those recollections into a scenario which provides a feasible and realistic explanation for free fall and pulverization. To date it remains the only explanation for those events as well as other issues associated with 9-11 at the WTC.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[AuGmENTor]

How did I know Christophera would be chiming in on this? I still believe it to be a moot point. You can't prove any of this without more access.