Debunked: NIST's collapse theory contradicts Newton's Third Law of Motion

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you imagine a collapsing building could ever NOT produce "flying debris"?
Well, maybe flying debris is the wrong thing to say. These bits of debris and steel and people were being ejected at very high very high speeds. This is not a normal thing to happen if a building is collapsing naturally.
 
Got some examples of unprepped for demolition 100 story buildings collapsing to compare it to?
If not, what makes you think that?
 
Just that a building is prepped for demolition to minimise debris, so won't really replicate the debris flying out in the same way.
Obviously there are no other 100 story buildings collapsing you can compare it to, so what are you basing the idea on that things wont be ejected in the way observed unless propelled by explosives?
 
Just that a building is prepped for demolition to minimise debris, so won't really replicate the debris flying out in the same way.
Obviously there are no other 100 story buildings collapsing you can compare it to, so what are you basing the idea on that things wont be ejected in the way observed unless propelled by explosives?

" so what are you basing the idea on that things wont be ejected in the way observed unless propelled by explosives?[/QUOTE]" It's newton's third law again. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So SOMETHING had to be push these 4 tonne bits of steel (aswell as other things) out wood. I mean there were bits measured going at 56 miles an hour. So what was the force that pushed all this flying debris out so fast? It's just common sense to know that this is not normal.
 
Well common sense is wrong if that's what it thinks. Common sense is certainly not infallible or applicable to all situations, especially in physics.

Having that much energy unleashed within a failing mega-structure is not normal in the first place, so you cannot make a judgement that it's not normal without a baseline of similar events to compare it to. To say it's not normal implies you have seen enough catastrophic failures of buildings to know that, but you haven't provided any evidence for such an assertion.

And yes something had to push these objects out, but what is not accounted by the forces of gravity, mass, and momentum? There's a lot of stored energy being released in those materials without having to invoke explosives.
Also consider how far they had fallen, they could easily have picked up considerable energy and careened off the still solid part of the building to 'eject' themselves from the main collapse.

While a steel girder being ejected is not totally inexplicable, can you actually show one doing that? Most steel would have been in the center of the building, so it may have been lighter material from the outside that you saw. We just need to establish first that it is actually what you say.
If you can cite a specific piece of ejecta and are able to provide a gif or short video of it that will give people something to focus on.

(disregard, found an example below)

Perhaps provide the particular evidence of things claimed to be measured at 56 miles at hour.
How do you know that is a speed for ejecta that is not possible without explosives?
 
Last edited:
So SOMETHING had to be push these 4 tonne bits of steel (aswell as other things) out wood. I mean there were bits measured going at 56 miles an hour. So what was the force that pushed all this flying debris out so fast?


Here is some information which addresses this...
This girder hit wtc3


And here are some calculations which only use those forces known to be present.

Still, it remains a sizable piece of debris. How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour.
Is this possible? The following analysis, emailed to us, suggests so,
...

In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.​
Content from External Source
http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html
 
Last edited:
Well common sense is wrong if that's what it thinks. Common sense is certainly not infallible or applicable to all situations, especially in physics.

Having that much energy unleashed within a failing mega-structure is not normal in the first place, so you cannot make a judgement that it's not normal without a baseline of similar events to compare it to. To say it's not normal implies you have seen enough catastrophic failures of buildings to know that, but you haven't provided any evidence for such an assertion.

And yes something had to push these objects out, but what is not accounted by the forces of gravity, mass, and momentum? There's a lot of stored energy being released in those materials without having to invoke explosives.
Also consider how far they had fallen, they could easily have picked up considerable energy and careened off the still solid part of the building to 'eject' themselves from the main collapse.

While a steel girder being ejected is not totally inexplicable, can you actually show one doing that? Most steel would have been in the center of the building, so it may have been lighter material from the outside that you saw. We just need to establish first that it is actually what you say.
If you can cite a specific piece of ejecta and are able to provide a gif or short video of it that will give people something to focus on.

(disregard, found an example below)

Perhaps provide the particular evidence of things claimed to be measured at 56 miles at hour.
How do you know that is a speed for ejecta that is not possible without explosives?


"Perhaps provide the particular evidence of things claimed to be measured at 56 miles at hour" I believe that is in the top video on this page.

"And yes something had to push these objects out, but what is not accounted by the forces of gravity, mass, and momentum? There's a lot of stored energy being released in those materials without having to invoke explosives." Gravity mass and momentum? What do you mean? Gravity doesn't account for them flying sideways. Something had too force them out and they were incredibly strong beams. The official pancaking theory is physically impossible according to Newton's third law. So it can't have been that. So what was it if it wasn't explosives?
 
Gravity doesn't account for them flying sideways.
It sort of does though, as an object falling due to gravity has mass and momentum and builds up a lot of energy, and then if that energy meets an opposing or diverting force (hits something which changes its direction), then yes it would contribute to the force that sends it flying sideways.
However, note that in the above calculations there is a significant 'explosive' force just in the air being expelled from the floors as they collapse. This also will have an effect.

The official pancaking theory is physically impossible according to Newton's third law.
Can you set this argument out step by step? ie, What does the pancake theory say, and what does Newton's 3rd law say that directly contradicts it in your understanding? Try not to generalise, be specific.
 
It sort of does though, as an object falling due to gravity has mass and momentum and builds up a lot of energy, and then if that energy meets an opposing or diverting force (hits something which changes its direction), then yes it would contribute to the force that sends it flying sideways.
However, note that in the above calculations there is a significant 'explosive' force just in the air being expelled from the floors as they collapse. This also will have an effect.


Can you set this argument out step by step? ie, What does the pancake theory say, and what does Newton's 3rd law say that directly contradicts it in your understanding? Try not to generalise, be specific.
"It sort of does though, as an object falling due to gravity has mass and momentum and builds up a lot of energy, and then if that energy meets an opposing or diverting force (hits something which changes its direction), then yes it would contribute to the force that sends it flying sideways."

You lift something up, by lifting it up you created potential energy, when you drop it, this potential energy is then converted into kinetic energy(energy of motion) and will continue like this until acted upon by an external force. This is Newton's first law. But the fact remains something had to force it side ways. Nothing to do with gravity. "However, note that in the above calculations there is a significant 'explosive' force just in the air being expelled from the floors as they collapse. Are you talking about air pressure? The building falls out woods. See Mr chandlers video above. So how could there be air pressure contained if there were no walls? I'm talking about the top of the building. Also bit's are being expelled just before the building starts to collapse.


"Can you set this argument out step by step? ie, What does the pancake theory say, and what does Newton's 3rd law say that directly contradicts it in your understanding? Try not to generalise, be specific."

I don't completely understand it myself but I'll give it a go. Here is NISTS theory .....

1. A falling block with a huge amount of energy (due to its motion) strikes top floor of bottom block.
2. This impacted floor is overwhelmed and gives way.
3. This collapsed topmost floor becomes part of falling mass, increasing both the mass and energy of falling mass.
4. This more massive, higher energy-containing block strikes the next floor.
5. Repeat steps 2 through to 4 until the falling block reaches the ground.
6. The building is demolished.

David Chandler deduces from the application of Newton's third law (For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction) to the visual evidence of the North Tower collapse, that the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block while it was at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred.

Newton's third law states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Two objects acting each other they exert equal and opposite forces.
If one is going to tear apart the other it is going to go both ways.

WTC 1 falls down at constant acceleration about 64% off of free fall.

What are the forces acting on the falling piece of the building? Well you have the weight of it, which is mass x acceleration ie gravity. The falling block is the weight acting down wards, Up woods there is a resistive force because the building isn't falling at free fall. What is the net force acting on the falling piece of the building? The down wood force acting on the piece of building is the weight of the building minus the resistive force. the net force is equal to mass x acceleration ie the weight of the building. You know that the acceleration is 64% off of gravity you've taken away the upper force leaving 0.36% of gravity the force of interaction is 36%. The falling block is 36% of the weight of the top block. What would the force of the top section be if the block were just sitting there? It would be 100% of its own weight. As it falls it is only 36% of it's own weight. The interactive force is a third of the weight of the top of the building. The bottom half was built to with hold 3-5 times the weight above it. So 90% of the strength of the bottom building has been lost. What should have happened if NISTS theory were true is this ... 1. A falling block with a huge amount of energy (due to its motion) strikes top floor of bottom block.
2. This impacted floor is overwhelmed and gives way.
3. An equal and opposite force is exerted upon the bottom floor of the falling block in a manner identical to the way the force is exerted upon the top floor of the stationary bottom block. The bottom floor of the falling block is therefore also overwhelmed, as it is essentially identical to the topmost floor of the bottom block, and so collapses.
4. This collapsed topmost floor becomes part of falling mass, increasing both the mass and energy of falling mass.
5. This more massive, higher energy-containing block strikes the next floor.
6. Repeat steps 2 through 4 until the top block, which has fewer floors than the bottom block as is losing floors at the same rate, no longer exists.
7. The collapse stops. Watch the video above.
 
Well, maybe flying debris is the wrong thing to say. These bits of debris and steel and people were being ejected at very high very high speeds. This is not a normal thing to happen if a building is collapsing naturally.

Exactly why is it not a normal thing to occur in a collapse? Has there been a study? Is there some fundemental issue that would be contravened? If so, what is it?
 
It's newton's third law again. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So SOMETHING had to be push these 4 tonne bits of steel (aswell as other things) out wood. I mean there were bits measured going at 56 miles an hour. So what was the force that pushed all this flying debris out so fast? It's just common sense to know that this is not normal.


Take a long 2X4 piece of lumber up a fire escape. Now drop it lengthwise so that it hits the pavement end on. What does it do? It would be very rare that it bounces straight up. Do it a few times and sooner or later it will launch itself off to the side if it does not split down the middle. How does that happen if all you are working with is Newton's third law?

Have you ever hit a nail with a hammer and been slightly off center sending the nail a dozen feet away? how does that work, after all the only forces involved were vertical?

Now look up inelastic collission.
 
Last edited:
You only get clean opposing forces like that with a flat surface against a flat surface.

The opposing force is the normal force. It's called the normal force because it's normal (that is, perpendicular) to the plane of contact. It is not parallel to the direction of motion or any previous forces.

With irregular surfaces (like, say, one pile of rubble smashing into another pile of rubble), the plane of contact is a plane tangent to the point(s) of contact, and that plane doesn't necessarily correspond to any visible surface of the objects involved. This is what makes an American football or a Plinko chip bounce irregularly. Now imagine dropping a football down the Plinko board so both objects are irregular, and aside from Bob Barker yelling at you for wasting air time you're halfway to seeing how the forces in a complex situation like a building collapse act.

The falling top of the building and the standing bottom are both irregular, giving many points of contact, happening at different times, each with its own normal force in its own direction. To make things worse, because neither piece is solid and both are being torn apart by this process, you've got all kinds of points of contact inside each one. So while gravity is the dominant force on the building as a whole, you get millions of opposing forces in every direction throughout the building acting on individual parts. (this, by the way, is also why there is no jolt - there is no single moment of impact but a prolonged process of many impacts).

Where downward forces hit a plane of contact that isn't horizontal, they'll experience sideways acceleration. Now, if three objects are involved, and the one in the middle is experiencing sideways acceleration from its collision with the top and bottom, it will be shot out of the gap just like Jaydeehess's nail. No sideways forces required.
 
You're right pancake isn't accurate at all because the buildings were blown up. You talk about complex chaotic interactions, just watch the building come down. The flying bits of debris, whole bits of steel, and the victims were pulverized. There were flying bit's of debris measured at 56 miles an hour. The pancake theory explanation for this goes against the laws of physics. It amazes me anybody can watch those buildings come down and not believe that explosives were used.
Thread on explosive use plausibility: Be amazed...

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-plausibility-of-demolishing-wtc7-with-explosives-on-9-11.2518/
 
"On the contrary. Buckling initiates itself very smoothly indeed. You will never see a jolt." this is complete utter rubbish. This was 100 foot building. You would clearly be able to see if there were jolts.
You are rather rudely ignoring advice offered, ignoring your comment.

Buckling is a stability failure. A steel column can fail by buckling yet remain undamaged. It can fail this way without making any noise. But it will always move sideways, causing the load it carried to fall some distance away from its vertical axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

You aren't going to get very far calling civil engineering practice (a three-hundred year-old discipline) rubbish.
 
So what was it if it wasn't explosives?

Your replies show consistently fundamentally incorrect assumptions, and a misunderstanding of the actual Newton's Laws.

But, to directly answer this question (and attempt, again, to help you understand why Mr. Chandler is flat wrong), consider that in NONE of the videos of any of the collapsing WTC buildings are there any sounds of explosives!

Compare to any number of YT videos showing actual CD of buildings, and you will clearly hear AND SEE explosives detonating.

Totally different from the WTC buildings, where all of the energy involved great mass accelerating downward due to gravity.
 
2. This impacted floor is overwhelmed and gives way.
3. An equal and opposite force is exerted upon the bottom floor of the falling block in a manner identical to the way the force is exerted upon the top floor of the stationary bottom block. The bottom floor of the falling block is therefore also overwhelmed, as it is essentially identical to the topmost floor of the bottom block, and so collapses.
4. This collapsed topmost floor becomes part of falling mass, increasing both the mass and energy of falling mass.
5. This more massive, higher energy-containing block strikes the next floor.
6. Repeat steps 2 through 4 until the top block, which has fewer floors than the bottom block as is losing floors at the same rate, no longer exists.
7. The collapse stops. Watch the video above.

Why would the collapse stop if the top block is continually getting more massive, and faster?

Think about it. Even in the very simplistic model you suggest here, if there's a collapse sufficient to destroy one floor without stopping the block then you've got two things known for sure: A) the block is moving faster than when it started (it started at zero speed), and B) it's heavier, and with a denser leading edge, as it's accumulated another floor's worth of material.

You might argue about the actual rate, but once one floor has been destroyed, full progressive collapse (in this simple model) is inevitable.
 
But the fact remains something had to force it side ways. Nothing to do with gravity.
Nothing to do with gravity.

But everything to do with slender column buckling, where LATERAL movement is the first to occur.

A falling block with a huge amount of energy (due to its motion) strikes top floor of bottom block
Is neither logical nor true. The idea is irrelevant.

David Chandler deduces that the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the bottom block was less than the force exerted by the top block while it was at rest, and so logically no collapse should have occurred.
It would be more accurate to write that "the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the very next discrete component it met" followed by "overcame it".

In other words he misled you to believe the top applied itself equally to what was beneath it, when it quite obviously didn't. His scenario has nothing to do with 911.

What are the forces acting on the falling piece of the building?
Gravity and an average (negative) force caused by a succession of impacts from beneath as it was both destroying, and being destroyed by, the building it was falling into.

Upwards there is a resistive force because the building isn't falling at free fall.
Yes. There must have been. Otherwise it would have fallen at G.

What is the net force acting on the falling piece of the building?
0.64G, obviously.

The downward force acting on the piece of building is the weight of the building minus the resistive force.
Is that the "falling piece of the building"? Or is it the lower part?

the net force is equal to mass x acceleration ie the weight of the building.
Is that the "falling piece of the building"? Or is it the lower part?

The falling block is 36% of the weight of the top block.
Are there three blocks now?

As it falls it is only 36% of its own weight.
No. 64%. But even stopped, it would be 100% of its own weight. So you are arguing that it's lighter when it falls. That's true, in that if it fell unrestrained it would be WEIGHTLESS.

By your own reasoning, then, it would be harmless to walk beneath an avalanche (as long as it was freely-falling), and it would only be dangerous if it were slowed down in some way*. Well, try it out.

I'd be happy to hold your coat. Not that I need one...

* Ain't that the truth!
 
Last edited:
You might argue about the actual rate, but once one floor has been destroyed, full progressive collapse (in this simple model) is inevitable.
Especially true in a real circumstance if the building were to be well-designed. In the case of the towers - they were.
 
the three columns directly below the antenna were the least strong of all the core columns by perhaps 10% of the columns at the corner.
The antenna was supported by the top hat truss, I believe.

The core could stand alone as a steel frame with all its bracing intact... perhaps the floor plates in there to help keep it square…
Mmm. No idea. Possible, maybe.

The facade likely could not stand with out the floor plate bracing.
WTC7 demonstrated that quite nicely.
 
You only get clean opposing forces like that with a flat surface against a flat surface.

The opposing force is the normal force. It's called the normal force because it's normal (that is, perpendicular) to the plane of contact. It is not parallel to the direction of motion or any previous forces.

With irregular surfaces (like, say, one pile of rubble smashing into another pile of rubble), the plane of contact is a plane tangent to the point(s) of contact, and that plane doesn't necessarily correspond to any visible surface of the objects involved. This is what makes an American football or a Plinko chip bounce irregularly. Now imagine dropping a football down the Plinko board so both objects are irregular, and aside from Bob Barker yelling at you for wasting air time you're halfway to seeing how the forces in a complex situation like a building collapse act.

The falling top of the building and the standing bottom are both irregular, giving many points of contact, happening at different times, each with its own normal force in its own direction. To make things worse, because neither piece is solid and both are being torn apart by this process, you've got all kinds of points of contact inside each one. So while gravity is the dominant force on the building as a whole, you get millions of opposing forces in every direction throughout the building acting on individual parts. (this, by the way, is also why there is no jolt - there is no single moment of impact but a prolonged process of many impacts).

Where downward forces hit a plane of contact that isn't horizontal, they'll experience sideways acceleration. Now, if three objects are involved, and the one in the middle is experiencing sideways acceleration from its collision with the top and bottom, it will be shot out of the gap just like Jaydeehess's nail. No sideways forces required.
"
"]You only get clean opposing forces like that with a flat surface against a flat surface." Newton's laws are universal.
 
Nothing to do with gravity.

But everything to do with slender column buckling, where LATERAL movement is the first to occur.


Is neither logical nor true. The idea is irrelevant.


It would be more accurate to write that "the force being applied by the falling block of floors to the very next discrete component it met" followed by "overcame it".

In other words he misled you to believe the top applied itself equally to what was beneath it, when it quite obviously didn't. His scenario has nothing to do with 911.


Gravity and an average (negative) force caused by a succession of impacts from beneath as it was both destroying, and being destroyed by, the building it was falling into.


Yes. There must have been. Otherwise it would have fallen at G.


0.64G, obviously.


Is that the "falling piece of the building"? Or is it the lower part?


Is that the "falling piece of the building"? Or is it the lower part?


Are there three blocks now?


No. 64%. But even stopped, it would be 100% of its own weight. So you are arguing that it's lighter when it falls. That's true, in that if it fell unrestrained it would be WEIGHTLESS.

By your own reasoning, then, it would be harmless to walk beneath an avalanche (as long as it was freely-falling), and it would only be dangerous if it were slowed down in some way*. Well, try it out.

I'd be happy to hold your coat. Not that I need one...

* Ain't that the truth!

"A falling block with a huge amount of energy (due to its motion) strikes top floor of bottom block
Click to expand..."
"Is neither logical nor true. The idea is irrelevant." So the official pancaking theory isn't true then? Because that is what the official story is claiming. That the top part of the building falling struck the floor below this created a knock on effect etc. So if that didn't bring the building down what did then?
 
Why would the collapse stop if the top block is continually getting more massive, and faster?

Think about it. Even in the very simplistic model you suggest here, if there's a collapse sufficient to destroy one floor without stopping the block then you've got two things known for sure: A) the block is moving faster than when it started (it started at zero speed), and B) it's heavier, and with a denser leading edge, as it's accumulated another floor's worth of material.

You might argue about the actual rate, but once one floor has been destroyed, full progressive collapse (in this simple model) is inevitable.
Because the top part would eventually run out floors and the bottom part was strong enough (or it should have been) to hold 3-5 times the weight above it.
 
"A falling block with a huge amount of energy (due to its motion) strikes top floor of bottom block
Click to expand..."
"Is neither logical nor true. The idea is irrelevant." So the official pancaking theory isn't true then? Because that is what the official story is claiming. That the top part of the building falling struck the floor below this created a knock on effect etc. So if that didn't bring the building down what did then?

Why don't you just point out the exact bit of "the official story" you think is incorrect?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
Content from External Source
 
Because the top part would eventually run out floors and the bottom part was strong enough (or it should have been) to hold 3-5 times the weight above it.

How can it run out of floors if it was constantly adding floors?

Read the description above. It's a falling mass. The mass increases with every floor it destroys. Some falls to the sides, but mostly it's falling down. It does not "run out" of floors, it gets bigger, and faster.
 
Your replies show consistently fundamentally incorrect assumptions, and a misunderstanding of the actual Newton's Laws.

But, to directly answer this question (and attempt, again, to help you understand why Mr. Chandler is flat wrong), consider that in NONE of the videos of any of the collapsing WTC buildings are there any sounds of explosives!

Compare to any number of YT videos showing actual CD of buildings, and you will clearly hear AND SEE explosives detonating.

How have I fundamentally muss understood Newton's laws of motion?

Totally different from the WTC buildings, where all of the energy involved great mass accelerating downward due to gravity.

How have I fundamentally muss understood Newton's laws of motion?


Failing to hear explosives doesn't prove that Mr Chandler is wrong. He is talking about Newton's laws so if you want to "debunk" him then show he is wrong. Don't just claim that because you couldn't hear explosives there were none.
 
How can it run out of floors if it was constantly adding floors?

Read the description above. It's a falling mass. The mass increases with every floor it destroys. Some falls to the sides, but mostly it's falling down. It does not "run out" of floors, it gets bigger, and faster.

"How can it run out of floors if it was constantly adding floors?" it's adding it's own floors, because it was detached from the bottom of the building. So it would have ran out of its own floors if that makes sense and then stopped because the bottom part of the building was built to withstand 3-5 times it's own weight and the top was weaker than the bottom.
 
"How can it run out of floors if it was constantly adding floors?" it's adding it's own floors, because it was detached from the bottom of the building. So it would have ran out of its own floors if that makes sense and then stopped because the bottom part of the building was built to withstand 3-5 times it's own weight and the top was weaker than the bottom.

No, that makes no sense.

The falling mass is getting bigger, it's not losing floors, there's nothing to run out of.

And the bottom part of the building was designed to support a static load, not a load that was dropped on it. That's an utterly different thing. I refer you back to the hammer and wineglass example.
 
Why don't you just point out the exact bit of "the official story" you think is incorrect?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
Content from External Source


"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." if you cut through all the gibberish it just says the pancake theory. that the buildings pancaked. That is the bit which is obviously wrong according to NewTon's laws. NIST have been caught lying before so they cannot be trusted.
I know this is going slightly off topic but Jazzy has mentioned building 7 in his comment so I'm going to briefly mention building 7 in relation to NIST lying. NIST has admitted that the building collapsed at freefall after being caught out by Mr Chandler, they were going to leave it out because they know that again, the laws of physics state that only buildings that have been blown up fall at freefall, that is why they left it out of their original report. Them admitting freefall still hasn't convinced people that the building was demoloished, so if NIST were to be believed then Bin Laden has managed to rewrite the laws of physics from his cave and outsmart Isacc Newton. The look on their faces here is priceless .....
 
How have I fundamentally muss understood Newton's laws of motion?
Failing to hear explosives doesn't prove that Mr Chandler is wrong.

Firstly, yes....you seem to have an overly simplistic impression of the Laws of Motion. This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

And secondly, yes, the FAILURE of any sound of explosives?? Proves that there were NO explosives!

Examples:


(In just the FIRST 30 seconds, note the HUGE amount of "dust"!!!)

(PLEASE also note that the "title" of this video is deceptive....added by whomever uploaded it....there is NOTHING at all to do with "Nuclear Explosions" in these few examples. Just pure hyperbole.....).
 
So, you think that:
"The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass"
is
"obviously wrong according to NewTon's laws"

Can you explain why?

Is the mass not getting bigger?

Is it not getting faster?
 
No, that makes no sense.

The falling mass is getting bigger, it's not losing floors, there's nothing to run out of.

And the bottom part of the building was designed to support a static load, not a load that was dropped on it. That's an utterly different thing. I refer you back to the hammer and wineglass example.
"The falling mass is getting bigger, it's not losing floors, there's nothing to run out of." Yes the mass is its floors.

And the bottom part of the building was designed to support a static load, not a load that was dropped on it. That's an utterly different thing. I refer you back to the hammer and wineglass example.
Yes but as demonstrated above by Mr Chandler the falling part of the building weighed a third of what it would if it was at rest and the bottom part was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes but as demonstrated above by Mr Chandler the falling part of the building weighed a third of what it would if it was at rest and the bottom part was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.

OK, I think I see (yet again) where Mr. Chandler's "description" is steering the wrong way.

If you review the comment (above) that I 'quoted'....yes indeed, the lower part of ANY building is designed to withstand the weight above it...this is basic architectural engineering.

BUT, this same structure is NOT designed, nor expected, to withstand a mass above it that is accelerating due to gravity, and thus has MOMENTUM!

It's really quite simple, if you stop to think about it. F=MA.

Force equals Mass x Acceleration. Basic physics. (Not to imply that the collapse of the WTC buildings was "simple", but these physics Laws are undeniable, and were in play entirely).
 
Yes the mass is its floors.
The mass is the mass, the floors are not going anywhere. So you have a falling mass, that is continually getting heavier.

Yes but as demonstrated above by Mr Chandler the falling part of the building weighed a third of what it would if it was at rest
Things weigh the same regardless of if they are moving or not.

bottom part was designed to hold 3-5 times it's own weight.
But only a static weight, not a moving one.
 
So, you think that:
"The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass"
is
"obviously wrong according to NewTon's laws"

Can you explain why?

Is the mass not getting bigger?

Is it not getting faster?
Where have I said this?
 
Where have I said this?

If you don't think that then just say so.

What DO you think was incorrect in the NIST explanation? You can't just say "NIST=Pancakes, Pancakes=wrong, so NIST=Wrong". What did NIST actually say that is wrong? Consider that NIST says quite clearly:
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). 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.
Content from External Source
 
Where have I said this?

This isn't the time to get bogged down on semantics....it's really an attempt (my minor contributions, at least) to help clear up some misconceptions about physics....this is a concept that has LONG been a part of the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement, for over a decade...
....misconceptions about actual real-world physics.

My only intent, here, is to (hopefully) post comments that will make you (and others) think a bit more clearly about the real science, rather than be fooled by the many charlatans out there who tend to spout nonsense.

EDIT: I want to add, also to "lemonlover"....I have an urge to teach, and to help others learn....also to "Unlearn" bad information.

There is NEVER any reason to be embarrassed for thinking something, and then learning that you were wrong before...THAT is the essence of moving forward, and growing.

Anecdote: I used to, in conversation, use the word "irregardless"....constantly, and with some sense of 'authority', as if I sounded "smart".

(This, back in my twenties....yeah, I was pretty cocky!)

It took another person to gently explain to me that "irregardless" is not a proper word.

I was mortified....for a while, but I got over it.

Point is, a mistake in thinking, or acting, or talking is NOT the "End of the World"...it is a learning experience.
 
Last edited:
Newton's laws are universal.
Yes, they are. And this one right there is the one that governs the force/counterforce interaction you so badly misunderstand.

Just look at the first illustration: The vertical downward force of gravity generates a normal force reaction that is not horizontal, creating sideways acceleration with only a downward input force.


This is how ramps work, it's how screws work, it's how a nail can drive into wood and why it can shoot out sideways when you hit it wrong, and it's why a collapsing building can accelerate debris sideways.

The equal and opposite reaction you keep coming back to is not always one vector. It can be the sum of multiple vectors - in this illustration, friction and the normal force. So even if the inputs are only on the vertical axis, all it takes is a surface which is not horizontal to create horizontal acceleration. This is the basis of several of the simple machines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't completely understand it myself but I'll give it a go. Here is NISTS theory .....
Thanks for setting it out. The more you put things in your own words the more we can get to the fundamental misunderstanding.
Obviously many here are in disagreement with Chandler's deduction, and hopefully they can and have made clear why to you.

Are you talking about air pressure? The building falls out woods. See Mr chandlers video above. So how could there be air pressure contained if there were no walls?
The air pressure doesn't need to be contained by walls, bringing two masses together that have a separation (floor and ceiling) will push away the air separating them - if the masses are large and moving fast then the moment the air is squeezed out of the way quickly will be a high pressure moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top