1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Doesn't change the argument significantly - whether 98% or 99.75%, nearly 100% of the floor area is floor, and so the floors would bear almost all of the impact of chaotically falling debris and distorted structure.
    My calculation was quick and dirty, let me see if I can reproduce it:
    - Total area is 209 ft x209 ft = 43681 ft^2 (that's ignoring the oblique corners)
    - Each perimeter column was 1'2" x 1'1.5" = 1.31 fr^2; we have 240 of these -> 315 ft^2. That's 0.72% of floor area
    - Add a bit for spandrels: Spandrels are 2/3 of the total perimeter of 4X209 ft, and, say, 1/2 inch thick, that's 23 ft^2 - almost negligible
    - The core columns are fewer (47) but bigger; I have assumed that their total area would not exceed that of the perimeter columns, but also would not be far less. Make that anywhere between 0.5% and 0.7% of total area. Of course that depends much on the height.

    So hmm yeah, 2% was a bit of an overestimate, but not wildly so. I like to err on the conservative side.
     
  2. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    If you technically compute the foot print of the steel... not the OAL column area... my figures are more accurate. If you consider a WF column as a rectangular area... the percentage would be more for sure. But you can't impact "air" and so I am not sure what the point is. And example... see what happens when 2 columns of the same size are displaced by 1"... very little area of contact.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Zett eL

    Zett eL Member

    It´s from the clip that begins at 5:33 in this video:



    Here´s a slow motion:



    Or the gif again:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Understood.
    So there are even a few more angels that can dance on the tip of that needle :p
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. DropTheBass

    DropTheBass New Member

    The potential energy stored in the towers released during the collapse was what made the facade peel out like that. And that 47-story vertical gash on building 7 was caused by a chunk of the perimeter wall slicing through it like a sword.
     
  6. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Could you you provide evidence to support your claims?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    The walls do not peel away, they explode into debris. How you can even suggest this despite the clear visual evidence is astounding. As the buildings erupt outwards no walls remain to fall away. All beams flying outwards are unexplained by a gravity driven collapse. They are not falling away, they are flying energetically sometimes close to 80 mph.

    No you cannot disprove the notion of ejected debris by noting that they go down, it's called gravity, that's the direction it works in. If you shoot a cannon from the top of a skyscraper, it goes out and down, not up. Gravity only works perpendicular to the Earth, so there cannot be lateral energy.

    Image : https://ibb.co/iA5dPR



    You can see the eruptions ripping and racing through the facades in close up videos :



    Kinematic analysis proves no collapse :

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

    WTC 1 top was in constant downward acceleration, which means there was a net downward force. This in turn means that the normal force of the lower block acting on the top was less than the weight of the top. Due to Newton's third law of motion, this means the force of the top on the bottom is also less than it's own weight. As the building's were built progressively heavier towards the bottom, a force that is less than the weight of the top cannot overcome the rest of the building. There goes NIST-Bazant's explanation of the collapse, which was only a theory anyways.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Okay, so these ejections you posit are not gravity, so why did none of them propel the beams upwards?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    The energy must have been directed straight outwards, like a cannon being shot. If I recall I think I've seen photos or videos of arching debris, I'll see if I can find this.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    We've seen the pictures.

    So, how would a "straight out" explosive work? Were these giant sections inside giant cannons? Can you draw a picture?
     
  11. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    You might want to rethink this line of reasoning. What if the cannon was aimed slightly up? Gravity is one force, but it's obviously not the only one working on the cannon ball that's been fired...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    This is splitting straws and ultimately irrelevant, there is lateral force when there should be none. How do you explain multi ton pieces flying upwards of 80 mph, and ending up 600 feet away?

    Because you can't understand how something works, doesn't mean it didn't happen, you are basically making an argument from ignorance fallacy. It need not be explained how, to show that it did. Are you suggesting explosive force cannot be directed? These lateral high speed ejections prove a force other than gravity is at work.

    How do you explain multi ton pieces flying upwards of 80 mph, and ending up 600 feet away? Kinematic analysis proves the NIST-Bazant theory to be invalid, there was no gravitational collapse, case closed.

    This thread title is spurious, there were most definitely ejected multi ton pieces.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So why are you seeking to explain it with explosives?
     
  14. I may be something missing here, but where were in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 pieces of debris or steel or whatever flying upwards?!?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Show the multi-ton pieces at 80 mph, where is your study?
    There is not Kinematic analysis showing the academic work of Bazant to be invalid. Do you have a source for this opinion, and proves your claim gravity did not do the ejections? Source please.
    NIST was not shown to be invalid on this issue, there is no kinematic analysis to prove this. Can you source this? Please.

    Actually it is gravity, mass, and height which caused the ejections. If you do the physics, or study this forum, you will see evidence gravity, mass, and height will cause ejections, it is physics. Please show a study which proves with physics objects can't be ejected from an event like a gravity collapse.

    An explosive strong enough to blast a multi-ton piece would be heard for miles, and would have been captured as the sound of an explosive on 9/11, and there would be visually evidence of the explosion. There are none. Do you have the calculation and evidence a multi-ton piece was ejected 600 feet? Is there a study showing the physics?

    The energy of the WTC collapse for one tower due to gravity, mass and height (E=mgh) is more than the energy from 100 2,000 pound bombs. That energy released during the collapse is more than enough to do the damage seen on 9/11. Controlled Demolition events done to remove building use tiny amounts of energy from explosives to start the collapse, and E=mgh released does the work of demolition, not the explosives. Explosives are used in CD to start the collapse. Do the physics, the energy in a tower due to E=mgh was more than 100 2,000 pound bombs (TNT). Do you agree on this fact?

    Please review this thread, it has examples using science and experiments to prove ejections can be driven by gravity. Plus the videos do show the Shell being peeled away and falling over. The energetic ejections of dust is driven by the floors failing, faster and faster, reaching the speed of over 50 m/s. Did you calculation the speed of collapse?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    giphy.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Because it fits all the evidence, including but not limited to energetic ejections.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  18. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Lmao, oh boy that is an absurd analogy, the buildings aren't giant fruits and they weren't crushed by anything. We've already eliminated the pile driver remember, via kinematic analysis. This is a done deal, they exploded.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Whoops, meant outwards.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    really? then where did all the dust come from?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Explosions. How did gravity pulverize concrete and other building materials? And why was there so much of it that it blanketed lower Manhattan in 2 or 3 inches?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Not true, the buildings were crushed by the falling mass of the upper section of the buildings. There is no kinematic analysis to support the claim you imply. In addition, there is no evidence for explosives.

    Please source the kinematic analysis which supports explosives, and proves gravity, mass and height did not cause the ejections. Saying there is a kinematic analysis is hearsay. Please produce the analysis, and the journal it is published in. Note: if you have the evidence for explosives you claim you do, please run to the nearest newspaper, team up, and earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate for exposing this crime. Or contact the FBI with the evidence, no one has done this for over 16 years: you will be the first. Famous stuff.

    Yes, the WTC towers were crushed by anything, parts of the WTC.
    Please list the evidence explosives were used for the ejections, and produce the kinematics associated with the size of explosives required. Show one multi-ton piece of the WTC ejected 600 feet, and show the damage due to explosives on any WTC steel. As of this date, no one has shown damage done by explosives to WTC steel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  23. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Lol can't let go of your belief system can you? No matter how many times you state it, it's still wrong, there was no crushing. It's not hearsay because you don't know about it. I've done what you asked, wonder what your next excuse will be. The FBI, which is a governmental agency, is going to do what? Arrest the government? The criminal deep state has been operating for decades without prosecution. Nobody was arrest or tried for Operation Northwoods.

    Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics - http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

    Constant downward acceleration disproves the pile driver hypothesis, entirely. Despite this Chandler goes ahead and calculates a "load" based on the amount of acceleration :

    Even if there was a load, it would only have 36% of the weight of the top, that's less than a full static load, much less a dynamic load.

    "Chandler ignores E=mgh, and he ignores the fact the gravity collapse of the WTC matches the momentum profile of the WTC collapsing"

    Umm no, you clearly don't understand the physics involved. When an object experiences resistance it decelerates. That is why an object in free fall eventually reaches an acceleration of zero, terminal velocity. The top of WTC 1 is in constant downward deceleration, ruling out NIST-Bazant hypothesis. Chandler proved that the top could not have crushed the bottom, period.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  24. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Chandler ignores E=mgh, and he ignores the fact the gravity collapse of the WTC matches the momentum profile of the WTC collapsing. The rate of collapse is gravity driven, it is a fact. In fact CD is a gravity driven event, using explosives to start the collapse - the WTC towers started to collapse due to fire.
    The energy to make the ejections as seen was due to E=mgh, not explosives. Try calculating the energy, and decide if the energy of over 100 2,000 pounds bombs found in a falling building is enough to do all the damage seen. Chandler has not shown or proved gravity, mass and height can't do the ejections.

    Chandler work makes no sense, and are not valid. The speed of collapse is exactly what it should be, and he can't wave his hands and ignore E=mgh. The WTC collapse continues because the upper section weight more than a floor in the WTC can handle, and the speed and rapid failure is due this overwhelming mass, and the fact it is moving down. A floor can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, it fails and the shell connections are ripped apart, as are core connections, these fail essentially instantly, and the speed of collapse can be modeled effectively using physics, a simple momentum model, which chandler has not done. The collapse is driven by floor failure, the energy released and as it destroys lower floors parts of the WTC are ejected.

    Chandler's work is nonsense. Does Chandler realize the failing floors drive the collapse, because a floor only holds up itself, not the upper floors. Thus if the upper section comes to rest on a lower floor, the floor fails, even if you place it there with zero velocity - the floor fails above 29,000,000 pounds. This massive collapse front is what is crushing the lower WTC, and ejecting material. We can see it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Chandler doesn't ignore E = mgh, you don't understand the physics or his paper. He shows that due to the constant downward acceleration, the top cannot be crushing the bottom. An object falling though air decelerates, let alone one supposedly crushing a skyscraper. Where is deceleration?

    Chandler's work makes perfect sense and is totally valid, unlike your replies. No the speed of the collapse is not exactly what it should be. The acceleration is 64% of gravity which yields a 36% of the weight of the upper block load, in contrast to NIST-Bazank's dynamic loading fantasy.

    Bazank's papers are hypothetical, they involve no actual kinematic analysis and don't model the collapses. They only deal with a potential explanation for the events leading up to a collapse, and thus are self limited and of little practical value.

    Failing floors don't drive the collapse, if they did the cores would remain standing. Now you seem to be confusing the pile driver hypothesis with the long discarded pancake collapse theory, which is it? You are clearly confused on all ends.

    There is no collapse front, the constant downward acceleration proves this. The material ejected must then be from another source. How could such a front send multi ton pieces at high speeds up to 600 feet away?

    Here is another paper :

    The missing jolt : A simple refutation of the Nist-Bazant collapse hypothesis
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ation-of-the-nist-bazant-collapse-hypothesis/

    If the top is a pile driver that impacts the bottom, it should decelerate upon contact, it does not. Thus the NIST-Bazant hypothesis is easily discarded.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    That paper is about collapse initiation. Which is off topic to this thread.
     
  27. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    No it's about "collapse" in progress until the roof line disappears, or the first four seconds. NIST-Bazant's papers would be off topic by this reasoning.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    This thread topic is about sections of the tower flying horizontally away from the building. It is not about the first 4 seconds. It is not about collapse initiation.

    Probably, I'm not really listening to you two.
     
  29. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    The cause of such phenomenon is in question. If it can be shown that the "collapses" were not gravity driven, then it stands to reason that neither was the debris ejection.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    you are confusing the collapse initiation with the collapse. Arguing about the collapse initiation can be done in other threads.

    From the truther video above.. here is where the roofline disappears
    roof.JPG

    and this is the projectile they complain about
    bb.JPG


    Even if the initiation was started by CD, the rest of the building fell due to gravity just like in every Verniage Demolition. Nobody would waste money planting explosives all the way down.. because they wouldn't have to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    No I'm not confusing the initiation with the collapse, and it's not a collapse, that's the whole point of the published papers including Chandler's. Gravity cannot be at work due to the constant downward acceleration.

    Verinage demos are not done near the top, but in the middle. And in order to be successful the damage must be levied uniformly with explosives.

     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  32. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    um... it's getting heavier as it goes.
     
  33. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Actually it goes before the bottom does, that is the top disintegrates before the bottom starts to erupt.

    Chandler addressed this argument and refuted it :

    Makes perfect sense, the accretion would be a hindrance for any pile driver. And remember there is no pile driver, because there is no jolt upon impact.

    On a further note it would rather miraculous that the accretion would perfectly net out the acceleration and make it constant, demolition is far more plausible.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  34. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    You've already caused yourself an issue with:

    In an explosive demolition, chunks of the building can fly quite some distance. But those are relatively small chunks.

    In your example, you are trying to make the case that multi-TON sections of building are being propelled by explosives for a distance of up to 600 metres, at a speed of 80mph...that's quite a lot of bang required to produce that sort of force. Can you see where that might be problematic in the rigging up of said bang? Let alone hiding the explosion convincingly.

    There's no reason that a demolition would require that much explosive to cause a building to come down, as said above it's only used to further weaken a structure enough for it to collapse, usually at key structural points. Not throw a "multi-ton" section massive distances at ridiculous speeds.

    Edit: Sorry - Oy and others already tackled this subject here
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  35. DD-Dude

    DD-Dude Banned Banned

    Quite a lot of bang, but only explainable with explosives. It's a far bigger issue for a gravity driven collapse, no viable explanation for how such an event would propel these pieces. Remember it's probably not just conventional bombs we are dealing with, the USGS report 01-0429 documents radioactive elements in significant quantities and correlations.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  36. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    I don't want to re-hash what's been said earlier in this thread, but if you haven't done so already, I'd head back to pages 2 and 3 to read the discussion there which very thoroughly explains why explosives are unlikely (including the discussion relating to frag and smaller pieces of debris being propelled for some distance, or lack thereof).

    You've lost me on this bit - are you trying to suggest 'non conventional bombs' were used?
     
  37. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    just curious.. where are you getting these numbers from? I'm reading one of ae911 presentations and they have 54mph. and 'over 500 feet'.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    I have read your posts. Hence why I posted.

    ...only if you ignore the physics behind using explosives. There have been several very technical explanations as to why this is not the case, but in summary, seeing how you don't want to acknowledge the previous posts, it's not possible to have enough explosives present to impart the force required to move steel beams like that without it being very obvious and leaving behind some very telling evidence.

    Nope - this is going to need another thread.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    No one has shown a multi-ton piece of the WTC 600 feet away. Please show the piece, and distance, and show the charge required to blast it 600 feet, and why no sounds of explosives were heard on 9/11, and nobody saw an explosive going off with the associated super sonic blast wave.

    upload_2018-2-3_1-7-36.
    http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Szamboti/figure5honest.jpg



    Thus Chandlers constant acceleration is bogus. And no jolt is silly, the velocity graph shows reality. The jolt Tony is looking for is a model, academic. Did you plot the data? The initial velocity of impact in a model hitting the next lower floor at initiation would be 8.52 m/s, and the new velocity when the floor fails due to momentum transfer for that instant would be 7.86 m/s - and the new mass would fall at g. In a CD model, the next floor has been blown up, it would fall before the upper mass hit, or is it after it hits? It makes no sense for CD, since the dynamics of the collapse are exactly what a gravity collapse would be. Are you and 9/11 truth saying the explosives were timed to go off exactly the time the upper mass hits, to fake a gravity collapse? it is silly... the fact is the mass is crushing the lower section, and this kinetic energy is what ejects parts of the WTC. Thus the ejections are a function of gravity, mass, and height. It is physics.

    The velocity graph from a math expert, posted above, is proof Chandler is wrong. The acceleration averages out, but as you can see if you graphed the velocity, it is not constant as graphed by Chandler.

    The velocity of collapse was not constant. The fact the WTC didn't collapse at g, means the floors failed due to mass falling, falling due to gravity. The massive energy of the collapse is responsible for all ejections, and all damage. E=mgh. In addition, it is a fact, a floor fails above 29,000,000 pounds.

    Please take time to calculate the energy of collapse, it is massive due to the height, mass, and gravity. (omg, how big was the nuke... )
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  40. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member