The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

mighty pker · Mar 26, 2007

fouisgras said: ↑

How would it be a demonlition? Where would they put the charges? Where? Who? How?
Click to expand...

in the days leading up to 9/11, construction crews were working 12 hour shifts on an unnamed project.

Xjaa · Mar 26, 2007

The Lobster said: ↑

Do you perhaps want to add some reasoning to your argument? Because you didn't say where the error was, you just said there was one. Fail.
Click to expand...

exactly, and Annex is right science needs ot be reevalutated

Abu. · Mar 26, 2007

there are many factors; the building is not balanced exactly the same

Fouisgras · Mar 26, 2007

mighty pker said: ↑

in the days leading up to 9/11, construction crews were working 12 hour shifts on an unnamed project.
Click to expand...

So you really need an entire crew to work for multidays- 12 hour shifts to set a charge? Me thinky no.

Other person who's name I forgot! Good point, we dont know the error or anything other than that there was one.

mighty pker · Mar 26, 2007

I found this...

The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the loss of fireproofing and subsequent fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse may not have occurred. Ironically, the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as they did. These pages explain the construction and provide evidence for collapse by fire.

"Tube in a Tube"

The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings’ construction. The design was an innovation of its day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This housed the elevators, stairwell, electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which ran up and down the length of the buildings.

For you to understand the collapse, you will have to remember four main elements.

Core columns
Perimeter columns
Floor Trusses
Fire proofing
The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found on PBS.

Instead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire.

Each WTC tower was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates.

Below is a diagram of the truss system with connections.

Trusses connected Perimeter columns to the core. Without this connection neither one could stand alone. Note how the columns are constructed in threes known as column trees. Each column is bolted onto the column beneath and to the tree beside it.

There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. There were reinforced concrete floors in the core as well. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. This was an error made by a news organization which grew a life of its own.

The fire proofing was sprayed on after the steel went up. This is called "Passive" fire proofing.

Here is a photo of the core sub levels during construction. You can see just how deep below ground level the buildings went.

This type of construction makes a very open floor plan.

There is a big difference between this type of construction and others like the Landmark Towers in Fort Worth, Texas, which is often used as a comparison by conspiracy theorists.

There are large I-Beam columns encased in concrete. Large I-Beams also hold up the floors. The photo below was taken during preparations to demolish the building.

Note the vertical column above still has some concrete around it.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid is similarly built but with a concrete reinforced core added.

Now you have the general idea of the differences in construction between the towers and other high rise buildings. So why did it collapse the way it did?

A major factor was the fire proofing on the impact floors. The impact blew off the fire proofing as in the above PBS special.
Click to expand...

and this...

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43, 264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2, 163, 200lbs = 981, 211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450, 000, 000 kg / 110 floors = 4, 090, 909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4, 090, 909 kg + 981, 211 kg = 5, 072, 120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5, 072, 120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20, 725, 088, 521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10, 362, 544, 260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5, 072, 120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10, 363, 863, 011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10, 362, 544, 260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1, 139, 879, 868, 600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4, 184, 000, 000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1, 139, 879, 868, 600J?
1, 139, 879, 868, 600J / 4, 184, 000, 000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the <myspace>size</myspace> of the flow.

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

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.

Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar, " thinking seems to be optional.

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

More on the pulverization of concrete

Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reader contribution:

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1/2 was 1, 368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.
Click to expand...

magi · Mar 27, 2007

Now to do the hard work.
Click to expand...

no can do -.-

i do agree though since i saw all the videos about it..

Mayhem711 · Mar 27, 2007

What he is saying is there is no possible way to say the towers pancaked because it couldnt have even free fell that fast..

Mayhem711 · Mar 27, 2007

a good movie about 911 and how our government is behind it is "Loose Change". You can find it at www.loosechange911.com

Deacon Frost · Mar 29, 2007

Ugh, this is all in HTML, so to view it I suggest going to http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&indicate=1

http://digg.com/world_news/WTC_Blueprints_Leaked_by_Whistleblower_2

<span class="headlinenew"><h3> WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower<p><br> </span><span class="subhead">Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details </span><span class="headlinenew"><a href="http://infowars.net/index.html"><em>Steve Watson </em><br> Infowars.net</a> <br> Wednesday, March 28, 2007 </span><p align="left"><br></p><br><div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p align="left"><span class="headllinenew"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><img src="http://infowars.net/pictures/mar07/280307blueprints.jpg" style="width: 450px; height: 311px;" align="left" border="1" height="311" hspace="6" vspace="0" width="450"></span></font></span></font></span></font></span></span> ..start--> A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction. </p><p align="left">The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down. </p><p align="left">Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower. </p><p>Most of the drawings can be viewed <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html">here</a>.</p> <p>The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.</p> <p>The website <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html">911research.wtc7.net</a>, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div><em>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. </em></div> </div> </div> </div> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p><em>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.</em> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p align="left">The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel. </p><p align="left">The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height. </p><p align="left">These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell. </p><p align="left">The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it. </p><p align="left"><span class="headllinenew"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="headllinenew"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><img src="http://infowars.net/pictures/mar07/280307construction.jpg" style="width: 400px; height: 400px;" align="left" border="1" height="400" hspace="6" vspace="0" width="400"></span></font></span></font></span></font></span></span><span class="mediumtext1"></span></font></span></font></span></span> ..start--> Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure. </p><p align="left">Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:</p></div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div><em>"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."</em></div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p align="left">Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail. </p><p align="left"><br><strong></strong></p><p align="left"><strong><br></strong></p><p align="left"><strong>The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7</strong> </p><p>The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by <a href="http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm">FEMA</a> said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building". </p> <p>And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:</p> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.</p> <p>FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical: </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <ul><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces). </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li></ul> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.</p> <p><strong>NIST's Investigation</strong></p> <p>It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/">NIST</a>'s 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. </p> <p>Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <ul><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse? </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are. </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." </div> </div> </div> </div> </li><li> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation". </div> </div> </div> </div> </li></ul> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence: </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued." </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building. ..end--> </p> <p><span class="headllinenew"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span class="mediumtext1"><font size="2"><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><img src="http://infowars.net/pictures/mar07/280307progressive.gif" style="width: 500px; height: 210px;" align="left" border="1" height="210" hspace="6" vspace="0" width="500"></span></font></span></font></span></font></span></span> ..start--> NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".</p> <p>The excellent research website <a href="http://www.911review.com/">www.911review.com</a>, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div><em>In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.</em></div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses. </p> <p>In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div>"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)</div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div> <div align="center"> <div align="left"> <div> <p>NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.</p> <p>If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!</p> </div> </div> </div> </div>

I got that on a bulletin in myspace this morning.

Kurt Cobain · Mar 31, 2007

Nice job finding the formula.
THe more conspiracy theories I hear about 9/11 , the more I start to believe all of this was just a reason gain oil and have a reason for killing people.
-.-

Bracketology · Mar 31, 2007

Wow, Annex your very smart in figuring all this out. At least someone cares about 911.

7Sniperz0wn7 · Mar 31, 2007

I think he learned formula from loose change

Annex · Mar 31, 2007

7Sniperz0wn7 said: ↑

I think he learned formula from loose change
Click to expand...

No i learned the formula from grade 10 science.

Darkspirith · Mar 31, 2007

i dn't care about this, so stop posting it...its been how long? who cares..

1337_Byte · Mar 31, 2007

What do you mean it's been so long? Have respect for the 1000's of people who have died please.

chr1s · Apr 2, 2007

If you haven't seen the consiracy video for 9/11, you should check it out..just google "9/11 consiracy" in google video..and it should pop up. It's about an hour long, but it will change your views. I promise

letzgokill · Apr 2, 2007

wow your theory behind this seems possible

1337_Byte · Apr 2, 2007

It seems possible that the building was blown up, but, there were real terrorists in actual planes...so...maybe the terrorists planted charges in the building? And not the government?

mighty pker · Apr 2, 2007

terrorists don't have access to wire the WTC in such a complex way.

Jama · Apr 2, 2007

It was clearly an multi-exploding in the building.

Log in or Sign up

The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

mighty pker Forum Addict

Xjaa Penguin

Abu. Active Member

Fouisgras Jansen's Lover

mighty pker Forum Addict

magi Grand Master

Mayhem711 Guest

Mayhem711 Guest

Deacon Frost Grand Master

Kurt Cobain Apprentice

Bracketology Active Member

7Sniperz0wn7 Active Member

Annex Ballin'
Veteran (Ex-Admin)

Darkspirith Guru

1337_Byte Grand Master

chr1s Apprentice

letzgokill Guru

1337_Byte Grand Master

mighty pker Forum Addict

Jama Forum Addict

Log in or Sign up

The Physics to Disprove Twin Towers Pancaking

Thread Tools

mighty pker Forum Addict

Xjaa Penguin

Abu. Active Member

Fouisgras Jansen's Lover

mighty pker Forum Addict

magi Grand Master

Mayhem711 Guest

Mayhem711 Guest

Deacon Frost Grand Master

Kurt Cobain Apprentice

Bracketology Active Member

7Sniperz0wn7 Active Member

Annex Ballin'Veteran (Ex-Admin)

Darkspirith Guru

1337_Byte Grand Master

chr1s Apprentice

letzgokill Guru

1337_Byte Grand Master

mighty pker Forum Addict

Jama Forum Addict

Annex Ballin'
Veteran (Ex-Admin)