FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

micpsi wrote:
So Hocus Locus will develop his minimal hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 - no exotic weapons, not even thermite/thermate (he approves of Prof Jones but ignore his experimental detection of thermite. Hmm. Where's the consistency in that?).


I will support the minimal hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 until those hypothesis have been eliminated as possible cause, starting with the simplest and only working toward the more complicated, once the simpler have been eliminated. Hocus is correct to analyse the simple first and I'll defend him because his is consistent with engineering logic and historical experience. Complicated solutions to simple mechanical problems like collapsing 100+ floors buildings will typically result in unpredictable failures.

The engineered collapse of buildings is a science that envelopes repeatability properties to the Nth degree possible. Every part of the plan must be repeatable, like a well designed machine, to be predictable. The best tool is always the simplest tool because unpredictable complications can be factored out.

That logic is why we have engineered a simple tool called a hammer to perform the simple task of manually driving nails. Any more complicated machine or device would cause the human to fail at a higher rate while driving nails. The high speed nail gun is an example of unnecessary complexity; sure, the nail gun can drive more nails per minute than a human can, but even the best engineered nail gun will fail often and unpredictably. A hammer never fails.

Simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:58 am    Post subject: 22ND FLOOR, NORTH TOWER: SPECIFICALLY TARGETED? Reply with quote

22ND FLOOR, NORTH TOWER: SPECIFICALLY TARGETED?
NOTE: This is undergoing some revision, please reserve comment. See
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17519#17519


It was vital to the operation that no one could access the roof, to prevent public expectation of a roof-rescue. An aerial rescue operation would place helicopters, news cameras and public attention too close to the buildings.

Blow the elevator doors on 22FLNT specifically at the moment of plane impact -- and elevator shaft blast wave and fireball has a least-resistence path into the 22nd floor, where the SCC was (CCTV, roof door electrics, personnel). If these systems were disabled by other means anyway, (greatest assurance) the fireball path into 22FLNT would provide an extra layer of cover so there could be some semblance of an official 'planes-only explanation'.

For this to succeed the official investigation must fail to note (or note, but fail to consider) the evidence that unusual occurences on 22FLNT, structural damage and elevator damage specific to that floor, challenge the assertion that only plane-related events occured on that day.

The SCC on 22FLNT was enclosed by an inner wall and secure door, which was blocked, security cameras in the hall. 22FLNT hallway was used as a staging area for FDNY because early on its door was open. Adjacent floors were 'no reentry' and needed to be forced for inspection. So there are several reports of meetings and conditions around 22FLNT.

Quote:
(from PA radio transcripts)
FEMALE A: (Inaudible), this is the SCC, S2! The SCC, S2, there's an emergency upstairs! There is an emergency up ...
(DIAL TONE IN BACKGROUND)
MALE: Help! I need ambulance service!
MALE: Emergency! Another plane ... (Inaudible)
FEMALE A: There's a fire outside of 22! There's a fire on 22!
MALE: Send an engine to Liberty Street! (Inaudible) the building! A plane just the building!
MALE: On the upper floors.
MALE : (VERY FAINT) Fire on 22, where? A or B Tower? A or B Tower? MALE: (Inaudible) Tower (Inaudible) too,
I can see it! (STATIC)
MALE: It's all the way on top of the World Trade Center!
FEMALE A: The SCC, 77.
MALE: What's (Inaudible)? What's going on?
FEMALE A: We see a lot of debris. We are stuck in the ... we are stuck on 22, at the SCC. The door is locked. There is a fire.

GENE RAGGIO: S4 to SCC.
GENE RAGGIO: How are you doing up there?
FEMALE: Urn, we're okay. I've blocked the doors with some wet tissue. And that sucks up some of the smoke. But we still can't get out.
(ALARMS HEARD IN BACKGROUND)
GENE RAGGIO: Okay, and (Inaudible)? (AUDIO IN AND OUT)
FEMALE: We have, uh, the cameras running on all the perimeter outside. (PAUSE) GENE RAGGIO: Repeat?
FEMALE TRAPPED ON 22ND FLOOR: We have all the cameras up on the outside perimeter. When ... when the, uh, smoke detectors set off, that means the smoke subsided a little bit. We have the doors blocked with wet tissue.
GENE RAGGIO: Okay, we are working our way up to 22.
FEMALE TRAPPED ON 22ND FLOOR: That's a copy, thank you.

[22FLNT TENANT] http://web.archive.org/web/20011202160232/http://huemer.com/
First plane hit our building at 8:45. We decided to evacuate from the 22nd floor after 15 minutes. The delay was because we did not know the extent of the damage; part of the 22nd floor was sheared away and the corridor was blocked by fallen debris. Four of us decided it was better to try to get out than stay and wait to be rescued (in hindsight a good decision).

[NYFD JAMES CURRAN] -STc 22FLNT smoke cond (before the collapse of the South Tower)
"What's weird is that the smoke condition on the floors actually got worse on about the 22 floor"

[YAREMBINSKY] up/down StairB w/DESPERITO[d,evac]
When we got to 22, we heard there was a Port Authority command post on 22. So we were stopped there. My officer wanted to find out some information, my officer Lieutenant Andy Desperito. He went over to the command post. We noticed in the hallway that the elevator shaft had been blown out. There was nothing there, no doors, no framing, nothing. When you looked down, all you saw was the cables for the elevator and the brick work that was surrounding.
Q. Was it burning?
A. No burning, no smoke coming out of it.

These elevator doors were blown in and down the shaft, not outwards like the lobby. Which means there was either a blast on 22FLNT itself, OR massive positive pressure had entered 22FLNT from another path. But why would a floor-spanning shaft explosion enter 22FL specifically? Hence my hypothesis that small charges were used to open a path into 22FLNT by blowing elevator door(s) in and down the shaft.

Quote:
[civillian, likely North Tower... MC=male caller STS=says
From the EMS log http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/EMSLog.pdf
09:04:24,""SUPPLEMENT-PD (T69) ----ANOTHER CALL---ANON MC STS TRAPPED ON FLR 22--- HOLE IN HALLWAY----SMOKE COMING IN-----UNABLE TO BREATHE-----MC STS WILL BREAK WINDOW ---- OPR 2235 CP 69+

[Firefighter LONG] on 22FLNT
We made it up to the 22nd floor. We stood there for a couple minutes. I believe Andy Desperito talked to the battalion through the fire warden phones. We did locate somebody at the end of the hall, but everything was blown out. The ceiling had fallen. The drop ceiling had blown to the floor. Some of the walls were blown out. So Andy and I had crawled down the hallway to get to the Port Authority command post. After that we went back to the members, and when the building started to shake [=ST COLLAPSE] I don't remember anybody telling us to get out, but there was a Port Authority person with us and I believe he had orders to leave. Again, I think that's maybe why we were going. Let me see what else.
Q. Do you know what stairway it was?
A. I believe it was B. Again, I was watching every person coming down, looked at their face, just to make them happy that they were getting out and we were going in and everything was okay. We were also with 16 Engine on the 22nd floor. When the building shook [=ST COLLAPSE], I was right next to an elevator shaft with Andy, crawling down the hallway. I was waiting for a flame to come up from the basement because I believed something in the basement blew up. Nothing like that happened, so I was waiting for a flame to come down from a plane. Nothing like that happened. Still at that time I never knew that the south tower had gone down. I guess at that time we talked to the Port Authority. I believe he had to leave, so I think we were going as well.

[Wall Street Journal 23-Oct 2001] -- WHY NO ROOF?
On Sept. 11, falling debris knocked out the 22nd-floor security center's equipment just after the plane hit, says Mr. Reiss, who is still with the Port Authority and was helping with the transition to new management that took over the complex in July. The guards, who had to be rescued themselves, couldn't have buzzed anyone through to the roof. Even after the building's electricity was cut off, internal batteries in the electromagnetic locks would have kept the doors closed for several hours, Mr. Reiss says.

Reiss' explanation seems like a whitewash. Drop ceilings fell all through the building and the inner door was definately blocked, but using 'falling derbis' to describe the disabling of control systems? Clearly something happened there, 21 floors above the lobby, something that demands investigation. People operated in the SCC for at least ~30 minutes under increasing smoke conditions before they were rescued. What was that blast pressure doing on 22FLNT?

Firefighters were systematically checking floors... let's visit the floor below, 21FLNT. I realize it is looking for omission, but note lack of damage reports:

Quote:
[firefighter W.MERA]
So we got up to the 22nd, threw our gear down, dropped back down to the 21st and forced the door.
Q. It was clear?
A. Clear as day. We started to search. We searched every room in there. I remember forcing one door, beautiful mahogany doors, beautiful trim, taking off the little trim between the doors and I'm thinking to myself, wow, this is a beautiful door, because you can do some damage to this, you know. The search was negative. There was nobody anywhere. As soon as we got done, it must have been -we started by the C. We worked our way around. We passed a couple of other stairwells. At the time I didn't know what letter they were. I was in the back room, it must be the northeast corner, and some guys must have been on the southeast corner, when all of a sudden the building shook. [=ST COLLAPSE] I've never been in an earthquake, but it couldn't have been any worse than that, any major earthquake. It just shook the building like I just couldn't believe. I mean, it was really bad. We stopped a second, looked at each other, what's going on here? We come out. Another guy comes from another room, let's go, let's go in the stairwell. We start going to the stairwell. The other guys closest to the south tower started coming out. The guys who were with me that day, my chauffeur was Artie Riccio from 119, I had Mike Brodbeck, who was the can that day, he was from 210, he was doing a mutual. Artie was on overtime. I had Dave Sandvik. I forget what position he had. I had Mike Beehler, who was a proby at the time, he had the irons, and I had Paul Hyland. So Dave was with me at the time. I forget who else came out of the other room closest to us. But I had Paul Hyland and Artie and Mike might have been down on the south side. So when we were going to the stairwell, we were yelling get to the stairwell. They came out. It turned out to be very fortunate. We were all headed towards the stairwell. We never actually made it in. We just hit the ground and got close and it shook for a long time. [=ST COLLAPSE] I know Artie went back into the room, I think, with Mike, and when they went back into their room by the south side, all the windows were broken out and there was a lot of glass everywhere and debris and so on. So luckily they got to the hallway before the glass went and they could be injured by that.

It was a partitioned floor, while they were in the hallway on 21FLNT (elevation above street level ~250feet) ST collapsed, breaking in exterior windows, so when they reentered the spaces they'd been moments before, they saw pressure damage from the cloud outside. Note 'somewhat-pristine' condition of this floor before that.

There is an indication that one elevator worked in North Tower, one of cars 30CAR-35CAR that served floors 17-24 with a 'flying shaft' (no elevator doors) from 02-23. These are 'zone locals', whose shafts did not extend to impact level. Its operation and an intact and working door is implied by the following,

Quote:
There was kind of a little chaos. We didn't know really where we were going to go, guys were deciding to take elevators, not to take elevators. There was a security guy there who said, actually, I can get you up on an elevator if you want to follow me. So we went with 22 Engine, 13 Truck and us, walked I'd say about maybe 100 feet. We went through like a turnstile. But what he was actually doing is he actually led us through the lobby of the hotel into the north tower. We were actually, you could say, in the wrong tower at that point. They went up. I actually had the control that day and 22 Engine went up. The elevator came back down, 13 got on and said, listen, if you guys want the elevator, we're not coming back with it. You've got to send somebody up. The officer actually said for me to give my radio to a senior guy there, Louie Cacchioli, and he took the radio off of me and he went up. We were waiting in I guess like a little almost like a cutout area of the lobby, an elevator bank. One elevator was only working out of like four elevators in that bank. The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us. There were rocks falling and all that. The lights were still on at that point and all of a sudden the lights went out and you couldn't see anything. At this point, there's a guy from my firehouse on his way up in the elevator. They got up to the 22nd floor and 13 Truck got off the elevator. He said to the guy -- this is before the actual collapse happened. He said to him stay here with us, stay here with me, because if this elevator closes, I don't have any tools. As soon as he said that, the elevator closed and that's when the actual collapse of the building happened. He made his way out into a stairwell and he made his way down.

When he says "that's when the actual collapse of the building happened" he's referring to ST. At ST collapse there was total power loss in the complex.

What about 23FLNT, the floor above? This person is not sure (23,21) at first, but seems to clarify as 23. But there is confusion in here, he mentions taking an elevator to 8. From my understanding there was no 8FLNT stop, a two story mechanical room spanned 7-8. Lobby top mezzanine 6FLNT, first tenant floor 9FLNT.

Quote:
[firefighter M.BRODBECK]
We went up to the mezzanine, and we took an elevator. The chief said that these elevators were all right. We took the elevator which I believe goes up to eight. We got off at eight and proceeded to walk up to 23. We stopped on 23, and then we went up to 25. Then we made our way back down. So we were either on 23 or 21. I don't know. I don't remember that. I think it was 23. The lieutenant gave us instructions to make a thorough search, pop all the doors, make sure everybody is out of the building. Me and the irons man went. I left my can and I took the Halligan. He had the router tool. We probably popped at least 10 or 15 doors making a search.
Q. On what floor?
A. On 23 or 21. I'm still confused about that. I believe it was 23.
At this point after we made a thorough search, we located together via the stairwell.

[...]

Q. When you were on the 23rd floor doing a search, what were the conditions?
A. Fine. Nothing up there.
Q. No smoke? No sign of water flowing anywhere?
Q. The stairwell dry?
A. The stairwell was dry. No water.
Q. Do you remember what stairwell you were in?
A. I believe B.
Q. B?
A. We came down B. From what I understand, it was the only one that was not obstructed. It was a good thing we were going down B. When we were going up, there didn't seem to be that many firemen. I believe we were probably one of the first 15 units on the scene. We got there pretty quick. I happened to see that thing on CNN from 7 Engine. They were on 21. I didn't see them. I'm pretty sure it was 23 that we were on. There's a lot of doors. We popped a ton of doors, looking for people. To be honest with you, I remember looking out the window and seeing that command post on West Street, thinking it wasn't a good idea to be there. I've been on six years. When I looked down, it didn't seem like a real bright place to have one. Little things like that stuck out in my mind. When I looked out on that, I felt uncomfortable about that.

So according to these accounts we seem to have plenty of fireball and pressure action on 22FLNT but no such anomaly for 21FLNT (pretty definite) and 23FLNT (possible).

This implies 22FLNT was targeted with specific intent to disable control systems. This exceeds the official 'planes-only' account and introduces a powerful 'false-flag' aspect. What are the motives?

1. Prevent roof access. (No rescues; Impetus for keeping helicopters and video cameras distant to prevent demolition evidence from being seen)
2. Prevent CCTV from being recorded (Why? To hide the ground/building activities of whom?)
3. Interfere with firefighting operations

Given the desire to prevent roof access, we have left the realm of 'terrorist' motive. Speculation is leading towards deliberate demolition. The small time window from impact to demolition requires that civilians above impact floors must be 'written off'.

Preventing roof access could only achieved successfully if:

1. Control systems are disabled
2. Helicopters and personnel capable (and eager) to land and blow roof doors (easy!) are told to stand down.

I suggest that this is the most critical stand-down of 9/11 to pursue.

___
We're standing there and we're looking up and we're trying not to look at people jumping. We really felt like we were intruding on them. And the building had red fire, a ring of fire. They started pumping and bouncing and I'm standing there staring. Finally somebody yelled "run." It took everybody out of that trance we were in. We ran back into the garage. Anybody that went to the right was killed. People that went to the left were okay.
~FF Maureen McArdle-Schulman, interview #9110110
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this is a very important point, and is worth looking into

My first thought was WHICH ELEVATOR? There are 198 elevators between the two towers. Was the wall/door blown on one of the EXPRESS elevators, or a non-express? Something to look into.
(See GREEN or RED shafts on left)


Quote:

Passengers took non-stop express elevators from the ground floor to elevator lobbies on the 44th and 78th floors. There, they walked across a hall to smaller local elevators that went to higher floors. It could take five minutes to get from the ground floor lobby to the 105th floor.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm


Quote:
2 WTC was hit at 9:02 am by Flight 175 between the 85th and 77th floor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center


A coincidence that the plane hit exactly in the region where the green express elevator could travel directly (or RED passing through).
(WTC2 only.... WTC1, hit between 94th through 98th floors), again only about 10 floors up from the top of the highest point of "green" elevator, but RED goes right through this zone.

This point was brough up years ago, and glad it is being revisited.
As "fireballs" were reported to go down from the top to the sub-basement, and the question was "How did the fireball change elevators along the way". The only possible explanation was that it was an express elevator shaft.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=485459

So I guess the next questions I would ask next are:

Where were the express elevator shafts in relation to the planes impact?
Which side of the building were they closest to? (the sketch below shows express elevators closest to the bottom of the drawing. Which side (North/South/East/West) does this correlate to?.

Then compare the outward "puffs" in videos like below, to the side the building that the express elevators were on. This might lead nowhere, but it is worth a look.

See...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eag2WzAUJY
and/or higher rez
http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1134882

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a friend who is sort of 'secular' on 9-11, i.e. he 'gets it' but is not an 'activist', sent me this one statement, from another friend:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I guess people are picking up on this here and there, people who are not "truthers".

Quote:
Surviving Evidence of the World Trade Center Attack
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2

Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.


You guys know this, but apparently a portion of it is new information.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html
These photos are pretty amazing. I can understand how jet fuel could melt or soften this. Not.


By the way, I just forced myself to watch part 1-1 of 911 Mysteries, since a friend from World Can't Wait liked it so much. It seemed to be pretty good and straightforward for the most part ... except for being a commercial for Eric Hufschmid. Aye, there's the rub.
Back to top
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Good eye witness video Reply with quote

Describes 3 huge explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY&NR=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
malcolm kirkman



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first thing to go, was the core.
This pulled the floor in on the south tower and caused the tilt.
This is shown, if you watch the north tower go down - you can see the mast go first = the core is on the way down.

_________________
Fraoch Eilean - The Heathery Isle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have skimmed some of this thread and searched it for tons and potential energy since I regard those as highly relevant to the collapse.

I have had occasion to dispute this potential energy business before.

This is an exchange about the grammar school physics of the collapse.

Apparently the experts can get away with really dumb mistakes.
=========================================================

Lurid Larry wrote:
IMaybe with psikeyhacker and "many others" but not with engineers.

When you care enough to read the very best.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

By F. R. Greening

www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Lurid Larry


=========================================================

Greenings report is here:

www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

On page 3 it says this:

Quote:
For the general case of n floors collapsing we define a collapsing mass Me:

Me = n m(f) ............................(1)

where m(f) is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the entire mass of an entire WTC tower, namely m(f) = (510,000,000 / 110)kg = 4,636,000 kg.


Now the World Trade Center was 116 stories tall. The foundation was sunk into bedrock which was necessary for a building that tall and massive and there were 6 sub-basements. So when people quote figures for the mass of the building are those levels included or not? Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor? If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.

So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.

Why don't you check out the NIST reports yourself Lurid Larry.

Some people need experts ... to tell them what to think.

psik

=========================================================

Lurid Larry wrote:
If you have a problem with the data, I suggest you do some research.

Lurid Larry


I had already done it, but I think about the research I do not just believe it. Here are some thoughts about yours, maybe you can handle blocks. Very Happy Very Happy

Suppose we do some simplified collapse calculations with 3 sets of blocks to get some basic principles settled. The blocks are all 1 unit on the side. Two stacks of blocks are made with sequentially wieghted cubes that weigh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 pounds each. One stack is built with the heaviest toward the bottom and the other with the heaviest toward the top. These stacks weigh 66 pounds so the average is 6 pounds therefore the third stack is built with 11, 6 pound blocks.

Code:

            Weights
Fall distance     Btm Hvy       Top Hvy     Avg
   10            1        11         6
    9            2        10         6
    8            3         9         6
    7            4         8         6
    6            5         7         6
    5            6         6         6
    4            7         5         6
    3            8         4         6
    2            9         3         6
    1           10         2         6
    0           11         1         6
                220       440      330


Multiplying the distance fallen times the weight of the block and adding that for all of the blocks in the stack yields 220 for the bottom heavy stack. The top heavy stack is double that amount and the average is right in the middle as expected. But what tall building is going to be built top heavy? And the average stack is 50% higher than the bottom heavy arrangement. Would you want to go into a building designed by supposed engineer that tolerated a 50% error?

Now since I am using 11 blocks and the WTC was 110 stories then 1 of my blocks is representative of 10 floors of the WTC. Your engineer talks about the mass of the top 30 stories so that must mean the south tower and equivalent to my top 3 blocks. The top 3 in the bottom heavy case have a total mass of 6, but the top 3 in the averaged case have a total mass of 18. So if the WTC was in fact bottom heavy then the data your engineer is working with could be way off even if his equations for collapse energy are correct because he is assuming too much mass toward the top.

So what about the bottom heavy case with basements.
Code:

         Weight
Fall distance     Btm Hvy
   10            1   
    9            2   
    8            3   
    7            4   
    6            5   
    5            6   
    4            7   
    3            8   
    2            9   
    1           10   
    0           11   
    0           12   underground sub-basements
                220   


If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

I think we should have had a table specifying the tons of steel, tons of concrete, the estimated load, and the maximum design load for every level of the building including the sub-basements. How they expected to analyze this without that information is beyond me. I don't understand what is going on with the structural engineers and the engineering schools in this country. Of course you have to wonder about people with the power and willingness to kill of the people that pulled this off.

I emailed Greening months ago but got no response.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Flying Mass Reply with quote

Here is a little more related to mass distribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Ran across a couple of interesting tidbits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hblla0DYmZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

What kind of science are they doing at MIT?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above.


Not true, each floor was basically identical and designed to support only the load on that floor. It was the CORE COLUMNS and OUTER FRAME MEMBERS that were stronger as you went down the towers. Their connections to each floor were identical and were designed only to hold each floor, not all of the floors above them. All vertical loads were transfered from each floor, through it's connections to the core and outer frame.

Like shelves in a bookcase, the individual shelves only support the books that are on them, the frame of the bookshelf supports all the individual shelves.

Quote:
Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor?


I don't believe it, I know it to be true. It was the frame and core that were heavier, not the floors.

Quote:
Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor?


Nope.

Quote:
If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.


Precisely my point, it was the thicker steel of the bottom that was designed to take the increased load, not the floors themselves, nor their connections to the frame and core.

Quote:
So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.


All the floors above ground level(except three equipment floors) were identical, just as NIST said, only the thickness and type of steel in the frame and core changed, which NIST also said.

Quote:
If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

I think we should have had a table specifying the tons of steel, tons of concrete, the estimated load, and the maximum design load for every level of the building including the sub-basements. How they expected to analyze this without that information is beyond me. I don't understand what is going on with the structural engineers and the engineering schools in this country. Of course you have to wonder about people with the power and willingness to kill of the people that pulled this off.


But it is not Greening or the engineers who have a basic misunderstanding of the facts, it is you. The frames support the increased vertical loads, not the floors, which only support the load of that floor. The mass distribution is nearly equal for each floor, only the weight/thickness of the steel frames changed, and this is a small fraction of the total weight of a floor. Once you have the mass of steel and concrete for a single floor multiply by 107 and add in the concrete and steel of the three equipment floors and you have the mass of steel and concrete above ground for each tower.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above.
Not true, each floor was basically identical and designed to support only the load on that floor. It was the CORE COLUMNS and OUTER FRAME MEMBERS that were stronger as you went down the towers.


I am not interested in playing word games with the word "floor". I wasn't talking about the floor slab holding the weight above. I am sure you knew that. The core columns and perimeter columns were supporting the weight of the building. But what was the total mass of steel and concrete on each level, i.e. flor, of the building.

psik

PS - The only argument you have got is trivial and stupid bullshit.

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
But what was the total mass of steel and concrete on each level, i.e. flor, of the building.


Don't know(off the top of my head), don't care enough to look it up(relevance???).

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noplacebo



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 157

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah grumpy whats the weight of a stick once covered in shit, away you go, and go round and round like the rest of it, you f***ing stink anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: TONS? WHERE? Reply with quote

Quote:
Don't know(off the top of my head), don't care enough to look it up(relevance???).


Didn't the fire have to heat up the steel enough to weaken it to cause the collapse? Shouldn't it take more energy and time to heat 100 tons of steel than 50 tons of steel? Shouldn't it take more energy and time to heat 200 tons of steel than 100 tons of steel?

Don't skyscraper designers have to figure out the weight that each level of a building has to hold and how much that will weigh because it has to be supported by the levels beneath? So the WTC designers had to do all of that back in the 60's.

So why don't we have that info readily available on the WTC? Why aren't structural engineers at every engineering school in the country demanding that info? Why should we trust experts when they won't even address obvious questions that grammar school kids should be able to understand?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

The info you seek is in the NIST report, which does not allow cut and paste, why don't you do your own homework, if you care about those facts? The reports go into great detail as to the temps reached, where and at what time, it is much too complicated to summarize, you'll have to read them yourself, if truth is what you are interested in.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh please how transparent can you be? They've gone to great lengths to scrub every bit of info associated with the construction of the towers from the internet. Even edited the other sites like the Sears tower calling them constructed of 9 " HOLLOW TUBES "Hollow I say with no mention of the material used to build these hollow tubes. lol~

I can tell you my friend that they are indeed steel and concrete re-enforced tubes, just like the ones in the WTC towers.

A play on words: HOLLOW leaving the ill informed to continue to walk around in a fog. Laughing Funny!

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 12 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.