Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
Bull! The heat from the fires was hot enough to weaken the steel, and with the weight of the forces involved I don't doubt for a second the steel beams were bent. That said, there is no way any demolitionist would have used thermite or thermate in the demolition process. The Truthers are committed to the thermite- thermite agenda and will jump off cliffs to perpetuate a lie.
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
Notice to 9-ll truthers. Don't align your selves with stupidity in attempts to attribute blame to the federal government. If you do, when the time comes that you actually have something intelligent to say, you will be dismissed.
That's correct. The novel construction of the building was not equipped to handle it.
The Truthers claim the steel melted, but in reality what happened was it was just weakened. There simply wasn't enough heat there to melt steel beams or columns.
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance.
Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward. One primary difference between these two co llapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter. As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.
[PROTEC comment] One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground.
Argument against the officially abandoned "pancake theory" of collapse.
That is exactly what they do in controlled demolitions of buildings. They cut the columns with shaped charges and the floor above crashes on the floor below and then another floor in pancake fashion. The weight keeps increasing as each floor pancakes down.
Wrong. They use synchronized explosive charges to take out the floors below. It cannot be done by gravity and the weight does not cause the fall. The falling floors are not meeting resistance because of the explosions. It is impossible in nature for the floors to give way all around the building simultaneously on all floors. Always, in nature, the fall will stop with the upper portion shunting off to the side.
The pancake theory, which was one offered as an official explanation, was officially admitted as impossible.
- - -
From my archives:
What became known as the "pancake theory" was hypothesized early on by Dr. Thomas Eagar. It has since been rejected. The symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed cannot be explained by the pancake theory.
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.
As we now learn from NIST, and as was pointed out by critics of the FEMA report which relied upon the above analysis, the progressive collapse pancake theory required all of the clips to fail simultaneously on each floor to account for the symmetrical collapse.
As that was deemed impossible, NIST rendered a different theory radically different from the Eagar theory. In the NIST theory, the clips are required to NOT fail. As the current official theory by NIST prohibits the failure of the angle clips hypothesized by Dr. Eagar, his collapse theory has collapsed.
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 below). ... 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.
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse."
Dr. Wood addresses the issue of conservation of momentum:
So, if motion must be restarted at every floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds. Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, if any. Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor between each "pancake." After being pulverized, the surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes significant. I don't believe this pulverized material can contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.
Consider reality:
QUESTIONS: (1) How likely is it that all supporting structures on a given floor will fail at exactly the same time? (2) If all supporting structures on a given floor did not fail at the same time, would that portion of the building tip over or fall straight down into its own footprint? (3) What is the likelihood that supporting structures on every floor would fail at exactly the same time, and that these failures would progress through every floor with perfect symmetry?
I have fought this nonsense almost from the beginning, and it makes my blood boil that the people supporting the conspiracy theory don't realize that they are enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups. What they are doing is evil. You can believe what you want I'm finished trying to reason with brick walls.
I have fought this nonsense almost from the beginning, and it makes my blood boil that the people supporting the conspiracy theory don't realize that they are enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups.
"I do not know of a plausible theory that explains all the observed phenomena." nolu chan posted on 2009-12-11 20:04:44 ET
I did not know a plausible theory in 2009 and I do not know one today. I fail to see how that could make me either a "truther" (however that is defined) or an Al Qaeda enabler.
Your complaint assumes that men with box cutters and were responsible for the destruction of 1 through 7 WTC. You assume that anyone who does not accept your favorite physically impossible conspiracy theory must accept some other theory you believe, or know, to be wrong. And you accuse anyone not accepting your favorite conspiracy theory of "enabling Al Qaeda and similar groups."
Ruling out accident or natural causes, unless you believe that 9/11 was the result of a lone person, you must believe that it was the result of a conspiracy. Whether it be the official NIST conspiracy theory, your favorite pancake theory, or any "truther" conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy theory. As for what you refer to as "the conspiracy," I have no idea of which one of the many you refer to.
The official government conspiracy theories have not fared well with those who require that a theory consider all observed physical phenonema and comply with all known laws of physics.
I have declined to support any theory that violates the laws of physics and is impossible. The pancake theory has been proven impossible. That does not infer that any other theory has been shown to be correct.
As stated, and quoted, the government was forced to abandon the pancake theory.
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.
The replacement government conspiracy theory, the NIST theory, if one can call it that, is incomplete and does not address mid-air pulverization.
Before the conclusion of who did it, and how they did it, comes the investigation of the observed events and the physical evidence to determine, as best possible, what happened.
The Congressional mandate to NIST was:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.
Determining how the buildings "collapsed" is not what NIST did.
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the“probable collapse sequence,”although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
The NIST WTC 1&2 report analysis goes to the point of initiation of collapse and assumes a gravity driven collapse in less than 10 seconds. The actual collapse sequence is a hypothetical. Through this artifice, it neatly sidesteps the need to explain the miracle step that suspended the laws of physics, or what was plainly observed as the buildings, and contents (minus one filing cabinet), were pulverized from the top to the bottom.
When challenged, NIST admitted that they did not analyze the collapses themselves.
To facilitate communication, the term "collapse" as used in this letter and in NCSTAR 1 means a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure. As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.
"Collapse," as used by NIST means in any manner to be flattened or reduced to rubble. Under this descriptive term, blowing the building up one floor at a time, from top to bottom would be a collapse. Smashing it with Thor's hammer would be a collapse.
Similarly, NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 (and the associated technical topic reports) document the analysis of the fire growth and spread, the thennal analysis, and the response of the damaged structures to fire loads up to the point of collapse initiation.
Id. at 1-2. (underline added)
How the buildings could come down in the time observed, less than 10 seconds, is not addressed by an investigation which only extends up to the point of collapse initiation.
Never explained by the government or the "truther" movement is the observed phenomena of the pulverization of the building and contents in mid-air, nor how the lower building provided little more resistance than air.
In a collapse where the falling floor is pulverized upon striking the lower floor, the lower floor must present a great deal of resistance. If the lower floor moves out of the way while offering little or no resistance, there can be no mid-air pulverization of the upper floor due to the collision. Energy cannot be transferred in excess of the amount of resistance. Any energy expended in pulverization of the falling upper floor is not available for downforce. Such expended energy must slow the rate of descent.
If the downforce was enough to pulverize all that came down, it is hard to explain how the Warner Brothers store in the first subbasement survived intact, along with Foghorn Leghorn, Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner. What was magic about the ground floor?
Explosives cutting columns does not explain pulverization.
You are correct in rejecting thermite. As noted before, thermitic material was reportedly found. That was components of thermite, aluminum and iron oxide (rust). It would be surprising if aluminum and rust were not found as the building contained aluminum and steel. As for the samples from Manhattan, they were of undisclosed origin, thus lacking provenance, and were not made available for independent or government study.
In any case, as you noted, thermite is not an explosive. It may be used in some industrial welding processes. A significant military application is for emergency destruction, e.g., for weapons or crypto equipment. It is an incendiary.
Mini-nukes or thermobaric weapons in the basement have been thrown out there for consideration. They do not deserve much consideration. There is more than one reason, but the emergence of 14 survivors from Stairway B of 1WTC should be sufficient.
The observed, but unexplained, phenomena are plentiful.
The dust clouds at ground level caught up with fleeing people and did not burn anyone. Cars appear to be burning but are surrounded by paper which did not burn. Cars and heavy trucks are flipped over next to trees whose leaves are intact. Vehicles exhibit burned exteriors with rubber window gaskets, seatbelts, and upholstery intact. As each tower is still going down, a large plume of powder or dust from pulverized material goes upward. What caused that? One guy hung out of a window on the 105th story and took off his pants. Lots of people took off their clothes before jumping. Why?
I have declined to support any theory that violates the laws of physics and is impossible. The pancake theory has been proven impossible. That does not infer that any other theory has been shown to be correct.
As stated, and quoted, the government was forced to abandon the pancake theory.
I have never paid one bit of attention to the NIST or government report. I fully agree with PROTEC's report. PROTEC is the Professional Demolitionist's Association.
ASSERTION #1 “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero. Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.” This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later). Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from above. Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe this fact to be visually indisputable. Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points. The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation.
There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow “cutter charges” to initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as “pre- burning”, to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially removing the outer- perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture, plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc. All of this would have been performed within the 55 minutes between plane impact and collapse – working in an environment of unspeakable heat and destruction – or have been performed completely undetected, in advance, on multiple floors in both buildings, while suffering no adverse effects from the planes’ impact with these same areas.This is impossible.
ASSERTION #2 “But they fell straight down into their own footprint.” PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning. With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upp er- floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward. One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended- duration “pancake-like” effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant “mushroom” effect around its perimeter. As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower’s collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure. These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers’ footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event.
