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

[Ron J]

Are you being serious? watch the beginning of the video where he explains why he became interested in 9/11 in the first place.

Of coarse i am being serious. In each Tower, without warning, each simply collapsed.

Chandler called his first clip, North Tower exploding. The North Tower didn't explode. The top 15 floors simply fell down upon the rest of the building. What Chandler describes as being explosions, are actually jets of smoke/fine debris being forced out windows as the floor trusses collapse, compressing the air space. Chandler claims he can't find any cause other than explosives, but compression of air space due to a collapsing floor is a rather obvious answer for smoke thrusting out windows.

Then he mentions a horizontal plume of smoke floors below the then current collapse level and proclaims they are the result of squibs used in demolition. Squibs do not produce a plume of smoke. As the survivors in the stairwell mentioned, air was forced down the stairwell as One World Trade collapsed. Smokey/fine debris air was simply forced down through the Tower and exited the window(s) that Chandler pointed to below the collapse zone.

Chandler asks, do you see a pile driver, in his first clip? No, but the clip does not start at the beginning of the collapse, when the upper 15 floors were still visible, before disappearing into the cloud of smoke/debris. If he did, we could see the pile driver that fell onto the remaining 95 floors, starting an unstoppable collapse of the whole building.

Chandler then asks what do you see? Certainly not what Chandler is trying to lead me to see, non existent explosions he is trying to infer from smoke and dust jetting out of windows as air space collapses on each floor in turn.

 

[Jason]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.

nitpick
IIRC they bowed inward

 

[lemonlover]

But there is no 'official pancake theory'. So Chandler's is a strawman argument and invalid.

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.

My apologies, there has been a bit of a miss understanding. Mr Chandler IS talking about NISTS theory but it is not a "pancake theory" so his point is about NISTS theory but it isn't a pancake theory as he explains at the beginning of this video ....

 

[lemonlover]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

This does nothing to disprove Mr Chandlers observations that he mentions in the video at the beginning of this thread.


[fixed quote tags]

 

[lemonlover]

You're simply guessing, based on what you think "looks funny". That is NOT science. The pressures in that collapse were enormous- certainly capable of spitting stuff out laterally at high speeds.

"You're simply guessing based on what you think looks funny" Oh come on are you being serious? Bits of whole steel are being forced out of the building BEFORE it begins to collapse, so it has nothing what so ever to do with air pressure or anything like that. Something is forcing it outwards.

 

[Pete Tar]

Bits of whole steel are being forced out of the building BEFORE it begins to collapse, so it has nothing what so ever to do with air pressure or anything like that. Something is forcing it outwards.

Let's look at that properly. Can you show this? Try creating a gif or video edit of the exact moment you're talking about. (there are online gif editors you can use)

 

[Mick West]

And identify one specific piece of steel. And explain where it came from, and why it could not have either pivoted or bounced into that motion.

 

[Keith Beachy]

"You're simply guessing based on what you think looks funny" Oh come on are you being serious? Bits of whole steel are being forced out of the building BEFORE it begins to collapse, so it has nothing what so ever to do with air pressure or anything like that. Something is forcing it outwards.

The energy for the collapse was from E=mgh. Run the math, there is more than enough energy from the gravity collapse to eject stuff as seen on 911. There were no explosives. It was the collapse. There were no supersonic ejections from explosives, no high speed ejections from blasts - it was a gravity collapse, and all CDs are gravity collapses with small amounts of explosives used to start the collapse. Fire was used on 911 to start the collapse.

 

[Hama Neggs]

The energy for the collapse was from E=mgh. Run the math, there is more than enough energy from the gravity collapse to eject stuff as seen on 911. There were no explosives. It was the collapse. There were no supersonic ejections from explosives, no high speed ejections from blasts - it was a gravity collapse, and all CDs are gravity collapses with small amounts of explosives used to start the collapse. Fire was used on 911 to start the collapse.

He is claiming that stuff was ejected BEFORE any collapse began. Of course, he has offered no evidence of that other that to claim he can see it happening.

 

[jaydeehess]

He is claiming that stuff was ejected BEFORE any collapse began. Of course, he has offered no evidence of that other that to claim he can see it happening.

That certainly describes what he wrote. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that he refers to the so called 'squibs' that are dust/smoke blowing out windows below the visible collapse zone of the perimeter.
He would be ignoring, of course, the idea that internal collapse was ahead of the visible perimeter collapse.

 

[Hama Neggs]

That certainly describes what he wrote. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that he refers to the so called 'squibs' that are dust/smoke blowing out windows below the visible collapse zone of the perimeter.
He would be ignoring, of course, the idea that internal collapse was ahead of the visible perimeter collapse.

Yes- which were caused by silent explosions. ( I can see I'm going to wear out that particular smilie)

 

[lemonman]

The energy for the collapse was from E=mgh. Run the math, there is more than enough energy from the gravity collapse to eject stuff as seen on 911. There were no explosives. It was the collapse. There were no supersonic ejections from explosives, no high speed ejections from blasts - it was a gravity collapse, and all CDs are gravity collapses with small amounts of explosives used to start the collapse. Fire was used on 911 to start the collapse.

The maths has been done by Dr chandler. You're simply denying the evidence. "There were no supersonic ejections from explosives, no high speed ejections from blasts
I mentioned in another post ejecting bits of steel, I was asked to prove this well, its mentioned in the video above, granted it is very hard to see and I can't see it (maybe I need to look a bit harder) but on another note what is very very clear are the systematic "squibs" of what looks like pulverised concrete. These are systematic, not random, which is a big indication of explosives. The common explanation for these is "pancaking" well, if it were pancaking it would be seen on every floor, wouldn't it? But it's not seen on every floor there are clear gaps between them. The only reasonable explanation for these is explosives. Now there is "debunking" and just blatantly denying evidence.

 

[WeedWhacker]

but on another note what is very very clear are the systematic "squibs" of what looks like pulverised concrete. These are systematic, not random

No....there are not.

I have observed MANY videos of the collapses of the buildings that were caught on camera on 11 September, 2001, and NEVER do I see a "systematic" example that resemble 'squibs'.

Also, I must note....ANY such explosion would entail an accompanying sound. NOT seen in ANY video from "9/11".

Unless you can provide an example to refute me?

 

[lemonman]

Yes- which were caused by silent explosions. ( I can see I'm going to wear out that particular smilie)

Just because you cannot hear explosives, it doesn't mean that there weren't any because as I've mentioned above what you can see when the building collapses points to a controlled demolition.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Just because you cannot hear explosives, it doesn't mean that there weren't any because as I've mentioned above what you can see when the building collapses points to a controlled demolition.

"Just because you cannot hear explosives..."

Can you please explain HOW a video that is recording SOUND at the same time does NOT record the sound of explosions?

These same videos that record the sounds OF the building collapsing. How is this possible, please?

 

[lemonman]

No....there are not.

I have observed MANY videos of the collapses of the buildings that were caught on camera on 11 September, 2001, and NEVER do I see a "systematic" example that resemble 'squibs'.

Also, I must note....ANY such explosion would entail an accompanying sound. NOT seen in ANY video from "9/11".

Unless you can provide an example to refute me?

Look at the video above. The squibs are systematic.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Look at the video above. The squibs are systematic.

I do not see a "video above" to refer to.

YOUR claim....so, YOU provide the evidence. Please.

ALSO...in RE: to "squibs"....I've never seen a "silent squib". Do you have anything to show? A "silent squib" example? Meaning, on the order of a BUILDING DEMOLITION capacity? (Not a Hollywood blood squib used in FX scenes).

 

[lemonman]

I do not see a "video above" to refer to.

YOUR claim....so, YOU provide the evidence. Please.

ALSO...in RE: to "squibs"....I've never seen a "silent squib". Do you have anything to show? A "silent squib" example? Meaning, on the order of a BUILDING DEMOLITION capacity? (Not a Hollywood blood squib used in FX scenes).

I'll get back to you on the evidence of systematic squibs.
Can you explain to me what these squibs are? They are not normal to see in a building collapsing naturally. It isn't pancaking because you would see them from every floor, but there is a clear gap between them. So why are they happening? The only explanation which makes sense is explosives.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Can you explain to me what these squibs are?

IF (after many years of discussing these claims online) you mean some of the windows that seem to burst outwards, in videos of the Twin Tower (1 &2) collapses?

It is merely air....the force of air escaping, and bursting through the windows, as the structure above collapsed.

IF I may provide a very well-used video, of an ACTUAL controlled demolition, of a tall building ('equivalent') for comparison:


Please, compare.

 

[Redwood]

I'll get back to you on the evidence of systematic squibs.
Can you explain to me what these squibs are? They are not normal to see in a building collapsing naturally. It isn't pancaking because you would see them from every floor, but there is a clear gap between them. So why are they happening? The only explanation which makes sense is explosives.

Could it possibly be that the overpressure from the collapses found the weakest windows and blew them out?

How would explosives supposedly blowing out windows possibly fit into a demolition? They're on only a few floors and on a few windows. Backblast from explosives in the core would shatter every window on that floor. If explosives were placed around a few windows at the exterior, what purpose could it possibly serve? Still waiting for an answer after all these years...

 

[MikeC]

Squibs are actually very SMALL explosives - they used be what was used to generate the visual for the impact of a bullet in a movie - little more than a firecracker.

In demolitions the term is also sometimes used for detonators and other small explosive effect.

they are also used in eth aviation industry to "blow out" the restraining diaphragms of fire-extinguisher bottles to allow for a very rapid release of pressure.

The so called "squibs" from 9/11 are not squibs.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Squibs are actually very SMALL explosives - they used be what was used to generate the visual for the impact of a bullet in a movie - little more than a firecracker.

THAT ( ^^^ ) is extremely informative and useful. Thank you.

EDIT...although it is in "poor taste" to editorialize. I am appalled that now, in late 2014, these old and already de-bunked claims continue to crop up.

More of my 'conversational' concern with old memes....one that still nags me....the Apollo missions. THIS is still going on, yo these 45 years!!! Boggles the mind, it does.....(and veered OT, so apologies. But perhaps, this "trend" might deserve a thread...? Will ponder it.)

 

[Mick West]

New topics in new threads please.