Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I'm not sure how much more clear I need to be.

Unlike most normal buildings, the WTC was basically a skeleton frame from which floors were suspended.

By its very nature, the WTC is an 'edge' building - i.e. built much closer to the basic tolerances of materials than most buildings.

The impact of an 767 plus the burning of its fuel load absolutely could weaken the skeleton frame on one or more floors; the 20 or more floors above the impact zone represent a huge load which absolutely was stressing the overall building frame.

If merely one or even a dozen of the beams were involved, then it would be unlikely that a full structural collapse could ensue. But it is quite clear that the damage spread across the entire width of one or more floors of the WTC as seen by the damage on the far side of the building (from the impact point).

The quibble which your 9/11 co-conspirators put out is that a steel framed building has never collapsed; this is only true if you mean completely.

The reality is that there are very few 110 story buildings, and even fewer which have had major fires. The sample size thus is completely meaningless.

As for buildings collapsing due to fire, there are plenty of examples beyond the Madrid one.

Here is another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY

This building is on fire - there isn't much smoke. But suddenly it collapses.

Sure, it didn't completely collapse, but then again this building is also not a steel frame from which floors are hung. It is a more conventional post and beam design.

But a collapse occurs at 00:45 and is very quick. Now multiply this effect on a much taller, heavier building - one in which a structural failure affects the entire floor.

I still don't see why the conventional explanation is so outlandish.

It doesn't sound outlandish. It seems like a good explanation. Unusual design elements contributed to collapse. Also WTC7 had an unusual cantilevered support structure in order to transfer the load to a smaller foundation.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

There we will disagree. 110 story buildings are not common - because they are difficult and dangerous to build.

I must not be understanding what you wrote. With exactly what do you disagree? The evidence on the structure of the WTC towers is ample and (except for a few main stream media simplifications shortly after 9/11 that showed little or no core) undisputed. Please, read something of what I linked and understand the construction and structure of these buildings. The Gordon Ross video might be a good starting point.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I'm not saying the WTC was a disaster waiting to happen, but I am saying that the types of margins you see in a 2 story building, as well as the interdependence of the overall structure on its integrity, are fundamentally different for suspension skyscrapers.

What do you mean by "suspension skyscaper". The central cores of the two towers were not "suspension". The floors were suspended between their support points, but that's true of most floors, isn't it?

Once again, you seem to have some view of the structure of the towers that is contrary to the clear facts, but which you only vaguely describe with such terms as "suspension" or "an edge building" or "difficult to build" or "close to the basic tolerances of materials", all suggesting weakness. The structure and weakness suggested by your phrases is substantially, clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Certainly true. But Delft didn't have a plane fly into it.

Please -- we're repeating ourselves. The planes did no damage to the towers outside the floors of impact, nor did they do anywhere near enough damage on the impacted levels to threaten the building outright. Whacking steel with an impulse insufficient to permanently bend, break or buckle it does not reduce the strength of the steel.

And as you note, the weight on the lower floors of Delft was significantly less than the weight on the 90th floor of the WTC.

Again, my point isn't that Delft or other examples disprove nano-thermite. It is that sudden collapses of buildings due to structural damage is absolutely possible - which in turn brings into focus the lack of objectivity in many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

I think you have innocently and sincerely presented the central position of many people.

If the engineering specifics of a situation are sufficiently outside the normal experience or training of a person, and
if the opposition stories are diverse and sometimes outrageous (some of them "lack objectivity"), and
if enough of any clear physical evidence to the contrary is suppressed and
if the testimony of insiders, dissenting experts, whistle blowers and those with direct experience to the contrary is sufficiently suppressed or discredited,
then the official story is the final word. End of story.

It's sad, but I don't see much more I can do to open your mind.

I am half way through the Herbst survey to which I linked above. Please consider it as well. It provides a properly documented and referenced survey of the evidence regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

In short, c1ue, good grief! Look at that Gordon Ross video I linked! Open your eyes and mind and see what is to be seen! The evidence is there in plain view and as best as I can tell from your replies, your mind is but making excuses for your refusal to examine the evidence.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I'm watching the Gordon Ross video, and here are the comments in order:

1) Gordon Ross asserts that the primary load bearing is in the interior 47 columns. This seems reasonable.

2) Gordon Ross at 03:10 or so then asserts that because the first visible outward movement is the antenna at the top of the WTC, that it means al 47 columns were severed. But this is not true; if the columns were collapsing due to structural weakness due to fire, the result would be the same. Severing is not the same as collapsing due to weakness.

3) At 03:55, he shows a photograph showing that the WTC 2 collapse which ended at roughly the 60th floor. Again, no proof of his assertion but close enough.

But he then says that this shows there was no severing of the central columns except at the 60th floor. This is not true - how can you possibly tell what happened above that point?

4) Then at 05:30 or so, he starts talking about how part of the central core actually did collapse (as far as can be told by the photograph) but not all. Then segues into talk about only the 'weaker' columns were standing and the columns not near an elevator.

First of all, even assuming all he asserts is true - which I do not concede given the columns in the central core were identical to my admittedly layman's view - the reasons why any particular column collapses extend beyond mere relative strength. This is at best circumstantial, and 'proximity to elevators' is pure speculation. He puts up a number of floor plan slides but never once shows the columns in question in relation to the elevator shafts. Odd if his point is so strong.

5) at 06:30, he starts talking about how dust and debris is only coming out every 3rd floor. Frankly I can't see it, but he then mentions that the central core was welded only every 3 floors. Interesting, but I fail to see how this proves anything. He also mentions the corners aren't involved in the dust expulsion. This equally is inconclusive. If the collapse were occuring in the central core, the distance between the core and the sides of the buildings is shorter (and less obstructed) than to the corners. So what?

He of course asserts that the dust comes from explosions. But breaking welds itself is a high energy event. Once again, so what?

6) at 10:00, he starts showing pics of the steel beams which bent. Yet somehow none of these pictures show an actual thermite cut. Strange...unless perhaps they weren't there? He then talks about failures associated with heat. But again, a broken weld itself heats up. Chicken or Egg? Or Tin Foil?

7) at 14:40, he starts talking about white smoke and how you can't melt steel. But you can melt aluminum, and there was plenty of it from the plane. So what? He goes on to talk about white flashes.

But so what? Burning building. Molten aluminum. Snapping 1/4 foot steel columns. This is a high energy situation and calling some white puffs of smoke concrete evidence of explosives is tunnel vision. For that matter, the 'white smoke' could be pulverized concrete dust flying out.

If explosives were being used to pop the outside columns, then there should be all sorts of detonator and what not residue scattered all over Manhattan; flying through the air; etc etc.

8) at 19:20 or so, he starts talking about how to top floors didn't fall as one piece. His evidence is that the dust cloud isn't uniform across the top floors.

But this isn't the only explanation. The top floors collapsing but with individual floors pancaking against one still intact floor until a structural collapse ensues would explain the view as well, and is not at variance with the top floor falling theory. The video shown is significantly slowed down; given that the entire building went down in about 10 seconds, this point is not very strong at all.

He concludes that the explosive demolition was in 4 phases and included both metal cutting and incendiary.

This is a fine theory - how someone smuggled these thousands of pounds of explosives, hundreds or thousands of detonators, wires, etc etc. Nor that the hundreds of firefighters/policeman/workers in the building - no one ever saw anything.

Then some more talk about how 1000 bodies were never found. But we've never had a 110 story building collapse before with people in it. If 100,000 tons of building gets converted to a basically flat pile, exactly what is so strange about some very fragile human bodies getting pulverized?

So the video again is very inconclusive. If I put on the 'gubbamint did it' goggles, it seems sensible. But every single conclusion Mr. Ross draws has alternate explanations - simpler explanations.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

In the particular case of WTC2, I'm saying that (absent explosives) the 40 story top section, already rotated 20+ degrees and falling off to the side with an increasingly rapid rotation, would mostly have fallen off to the side, relatively intact, at least until it hit "ground zero" (or whatever shorter building stood down there.) The massive center core structure of the lower 80 stories of WTC2, having already largely deflected the mass of the upper 40 stories in the videos we see, would have stood relatively unscathed. There may well have been damage to the outer shell of WTC2, along the side where the upper 40 fell, scraping off some of the exterior wall on that side. The opposite side of the lower 80 stories might not have its paint scratched.

The problem is that you have absolutely no basis for making this assumption. These aren't pencils or tanks, and the lower section certainly isn't Mt. Everest. Seriously, design a building to withstand 100,000 tons dropping onto it, plus enormous static load. Try it. Then compare your design to the WTC. It is plain from the examples you give that you believe these were super-hard, almost perfectly rigid bodies. In reality, they are far from that, and your refusal to acknowledge this undermines your credibility when discussing matters such as structural integrity and load factor and static or dynamic forces.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Seriously, design a building to withstand 100,000 tons dropping onto it

It didn't first drop. The upper 40 or so stories (of WTC2) first started getting blown out near their base, then began rotating downward into its own failing base, then ... poof ...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

But this is not true; if the columns were collapsing due to structural weakness due to fire, the result would be the same.

The core columns of the WTC towers provided a truly immense steel heat sink. It would have taken many hours at a minimum to begin to heat them to the point of deformation. There is a recording of the firemen up to the 78th floor of WTC2 (in the stairwell within the center core) just before the collapse began thereabouts. That fire had only been burning 56 minutes at that time and much of the original jet fuel exploded in the air outside the building at the time of impact. The remaining jet fuel burnt out (if my memory serves) within 5 or 10 minutes after impact. There was simply not even close to enough heat generated to weaken the steel core at the time WTC2 collapsed.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

He puts up a number of floor plan slides but never once shows the columns in question in relation to the elevator shafts.

I saw the details of that in his other work to which I linked. The video could not contain all details due to time constraints, as he noted therein.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

at 06:30, he starts talking about how dust and debris is only coming out every 3rd floor. Frankly I can't see it, but he then mentions that the central core was welded only every 3 floors. Interesting, but I fail to see how this proves anything.

Keep reading his other work to which I've linked.

If you want more pictures, more proof, more explanations, it's there. If you want to justify your continued refusal to reconsider this, I can't help you.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

This is a fine theory - how someone smuggled these thousands of pounds of explosives, hundreds or thousands of detonators, wires, etc etc. Nor that the hundreds of firefighters/policeman/workers in the building - no one ever saw anything.

See the Herbst survey to which I linked above for a variety of evidence explaining how the explosives were placed, and of suppression of the reports from those on-site.

Once again ... keep reading.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

But every single conclusion Mr. Ross draws has alternate explanations - simpler explanations.

The simpler explanations don't explain the wealth of conflicting evidence. See further the other Ross links and the Herbst survey.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The problem is that you have absolutely no basis for making this assumption.

There is a difference between not my having a basis and your not yet considering the evidence provided for that basis.

[flintlock]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Sorry, I lost track of what building we were talking about on page 2006 of this ongoing debate.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Sorry, I lost track of what building we were talking about on page 2006 of this ongoing debate.

Was it Farmer John's outhouse in Shanksville, Pennsylvania :rolleyes:?

We've been mostly talking about the Twin Towers, WTC1 (north tower, hit first, fell second) and WTC2 (south tower, hit second, fell first), with an occasional mention of WTC7 (40 story bldg north of WTC1, hit only by debris, fell later in day).

We clearly lack the capacity to extend this discussion to the rest of the WTC complex, the Pentagon or Shanksville.