9/11 Events - New thread

Admin: this is a new thread to discuss 9/11 events.

Previous two threads have been closed:
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?

This thread will be excessively moderated: all off-topic, offensive posts and spam will be removed and violators will be banned!
This thread is ONLY for discussion of physics behind the fall of the WTC. No politics! No useless links! No irrelevant images!

Excellent...cheers guys.

Well, here is the first post...and it is something good.

I've come across some video footage that seems to show detonators, or at least the flashes associated with detonators, during the collapse of WTC 7.

The video was included in a movie about the science behind the 9/11 collapses and I am having the origonal clip inspected by the person who supplied it. I'm making sure the flashes didn't enter the video during conversion when the movie was produced.

If it turns out to be authentic, then we have clear video evidence of detonations going off and progressing down one side of WTC 7.

Stay tuned...more on this soon...

MEET THE NEW THREAD, JUST LIKE THE OLD THREAD...........

Well, since no one had a chance to comment on this on the old thread:

Amongst the large collection of WTC 1 collapse videos there are a few that show a large block being ejected well beyond the main debris cloud, in an approximately westerly direction, 3 to 6 seconds into the collapse. A readily accessible example of such a video is the well-known 94 second CNN footage, taken looking south from a location several miles to the north of the Twin Towers. (Available from the 911research or, in a slightly different version, the Plague-puppy video archives.)

I wish to focus on the evolution of the debris cloud especially as it appears on the right (westerly) side of southward looking WTC 1 collapse videos. Figure 5-29 in Hufschmid’s book, (taken about 6 seconds after collapse initiation), already shows the debris cloud taking on a strange angular appearance on the western side of WTC 1.

Two or three seconds later a large box-shaped object emerges from the westernmost side of the debris cloud indicating an object moving faster than the expanding cloud.

It may be estimated, (using the WTC dimensions as a comparison), that the box-shaped object noted above is at least 60 m x 40 m – I say “at least” because the block never fully emerges from the debris cloud. However, given the shear size of the object in question, I believe it is an entire tower section comprising up to ten floors; that this block should be moving very rapidly away from the vertical axis of WTC 1, in what is generally claimed to be a gravity-driven collapse, is very strange indeed!

Using a series of measurements of frames showing the box-like object falling away from WTC 1 as it collapsed, it is possible to estimate values of the height and distance traveled by this object as a function of time after collapse initiation.

I have found that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity of about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is determined to be about 14 seconds and it certainly appears be the object that struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the central vertical axis of WTC 1.

It is very significant that the trajectory of the block suggests it received an initial sideways “kick”. As unphysical as this sounds, it is the only trajectory possible for an object that appears, so to speak, “out of nowhere”, moving downward at the expected free-fall speed (after about 5 sec of descent) of about 50 m/s, but situated more than 100 meters to the west of the vertical axis of WTC 1. To reach such a position only 5 - 6 seconds after collapse initiation, requires a minimum horizontal acceleration of about 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity...........

NF

But the strange collapse of WTC 1 does not end here………..

One of the well known photographs by Aman Zafar taken several kilometers to the west of the WTC site from a location across the Hudson River, shows WTC 1 approximately half way through its collapse. The exterior shell of the structure has largely been shed but about half of the original core remains standing behind, and a little to the right of, the 194 meter tall WFC 3 building with the familiar black dome. (The known distance between WTC 1 and WFC 3 allows one to estimate that the portion of the WTC 1 core still standing is in fact about 200 meters tall or about half the original, 416 m, height of WTC 1.) Another AZ photograph of WTC 1 taken a few seconds later shows the core tilting very slightly to the south before disappearing from view presumably by toppling over into the ever-expanding cloud of dust and debris emanating from ground zero.

It is of great importance that this momentary survival of the WTC 1 core should have been captured on film because it reveals the true nature of the WTC 1 collapse. Furthermore, this brief glimpse of the survival of the building’s core should lay to rest any claims that WTC 1 was destroyed by a simple, symmetrical, pancake collapse. But to confirm this description of the remarkable failure of WTC 1, we need to look for PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the core toppled over in the manner described above. We are able to do this by surveying the debris field and associated damage to structures to the south of WTC 1.

The WTC site-plan shows that WTC 3, a 22-story steel frame building housing the Marriott Hotel, was located due south of WTC 1 with its southernmost façade about 160 meters from the vertical axis of WTC 1. During 9-11, WTC 3 was first struck by debris from the collapse of WTC 2; however, the resulting damage was limited to one section near the middle of the building. In fact, in reference to the damage to WTC 3 caused by WTC 2, FEMA state on page 7 of Chapter 3 of their Report:

“The two northernmost bays of WTC 3 remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays.”

In reference to the damage to WTC 3 caused by the later collapse of WTC 1 FEMA state:

“Debris from WTC 1 fell along the entire length of WTC 3.”

Thus we may safely conclude that it was the collapse of WTC 1, rather than WTC 2, that brought about the near-total destruction of WTC 3. In fact, photographs in the FEMA report reveal that only two lower floors at the southernmost end of the building survived the onslaught of debris from the WTC 1 collapse. Other photographs available in the MCEER Report (MCEER-02-SP02) on damage to buildings near ground zero, show WTC 1 debris with a north to south alignment draped along the roof and extending well beyond the southern façade of WTC 3. This suggests that WTC 3 was destroyed by the impact of a very large section of WTC 1.

Based on such evidence we must conclude that the destruction of WTC 3 was caused by the toppling of the approximately 200 m tall core section of WTC 1.

This, of course, begs the question as to why the WTC 1 core toppled in this way. Perhaps the answer to this puzzle is to be found in the strange "LUNAR MODULE" structure, visible in photos of ground zero available at Parrhesia.com.

The lunar module I refer to is actually the damaged remains of A CORE SECTION of WTC 1 protruding 20 meters out of the WTC 1 rubble pile.

NF

Nu,
What is the MCEER Report?
Arthur

Thanks, arthur, for the redirect

I can't say, that I'm thrilled with the restrictions and constraints, imposed on the RANGE of material allowed to be discussed here. Your job will be a lot easier, without the "usual suspects" stretching the boundaries of "The Event" past the thermo/stress/strain qualities of steel and the capabilities of gravity.

My vision of the new thread was in the other direction. It would have included strict moderation of behavior and spam control, but LESS restrictions on posted material. Anything in the ball park, such as intent, opportunity, negligence, beneficiary, improbable coincidence, etc.... would be considered, if a reasonable case could be made to show relevancy. My thread would be more court room oriented, using science, when dictated by circumstance.

Although the die has been cast, and certain members have already been de-facto designated, to lurker status, I would still like to propose a twin thread approach. Let's set up a controlled experiment in the interest of science. Both are moderated, strictly for behavior and spam. One is the already established narrow topic thread and the other has expanded parameters with in the realm of 9/11. Give them both a period to get established, and impose an evaluation point, some where in the near future.

Lets see which thread commands the most posts, replies and viewers. Science depends, ultimately, on numerical data; let's generate some.

If the wider topic thread holds it's own, or blows away the other away, it stays. Especially, if there is a one way cross over of members, as I suspect there would be. Who would want to experience Newton in anything less than, his full "techno/druid vision of ancient futures" grandeur? Not me!

I rest my case, and yes, I do realize I'm talking to the ether. Enjoy your new thread.

Simply Amazing !!! The original thread has been CLOSED.

Odd, I've seen this before on a number of occasions when the Official Theory gets backed into a corner.

Admin ... please explain the reasoning for such an action. Thanks.

Hopefully we can AVOID such 'reasons' in the future.

To carry on then...

Response by the arthurs ...

I would ask you arthurs to give an approximation of numbers of government 'engineers' who have studied these photos with a 'critical eye' ?

Do you really believe that Hyman Brown, Thomas Eagar, or Z. Bhazant studies these anomalies from ALL perspectives ... (as we do) ?

If so... they should be able to readily provide an authoritative statement regarding the trajectories of these Amazing Flying Columns...

after all, 'they' should have theoretically, studied these questions to come to a scientific understanding of the parameters surrounding such anomalies.

The engineering teams from the Ohio Task Force who were employed in the safe removal of such 'spears' would have undoubtedly... (IF they were properly performing engineering studies)...

... FIRST determined the originating location of these 'spears' from the markings on the perimeter column sections...

(so as to determine the approximate weights they were dealing with).

IF 'YOU' are 'tasked' with the removal of such 'spears', you will FIRST need to determine the weights of debris you are dealing with... (so as NOT to attempt to use equipment that is insufficient to handle the weights).

The typical office-worker / banker / cable guy or salesman (such as MOST of the OCTs here) would have NO idea how to go about this safely.

You certainly don't just go in there, attach a car jack and a chain-hoist to the 'debris' to lower such a section to street level.

I can tell you from personal experience that the FIRST order of 'business' is to determine the actual weight.

You see, that is one of the differences between you and I.

I deal with moving weights of between 25 tons to 60 tons... (in moving yachts about on dry land)...

That gives me some empirical knowledge about HOW to go about these things, far more-so than you 'office workers' who employ people like me to perform these tasks for you.

And, as I said. the FIRST order of 'business' is to accurately determine (as close as possible) the ACTUAL WEIGHT you are dealing with.

As ALL wtc columns were marked (as to location), the SIMPLEST METHOD to determine the weight of the object would be to --- go to the spec sheets, find out WHERE the specific columnar section had originated from, and determine the weights from such information.

This is NOT 'rocket science' I am talking about... and I'm sure you can understand my reasoning in the above.

Now... ONCE you know the precise location (from which these columnar sections ORIGINATED from... it becomes quite a simple matter to determine the trajectory which these columnar sections followed, and the velocity & energy required to 'transport' (blow) the object from point A to point B.

Personally, I have no doubt that 'officials' could quickly determine such parameters. and I believe 'officials' should be pressured into answering the logistics of such 'Amazing Flying Columns'.

Of course 'YOU' ... (like 'They') will respond...

"it is 'unimportant' scientifically... we 'already KNOW HOW' these Amazing Flying Columns were transported to their final destinations..."

I'm sorry... that simplistic one-dimensional view doesn't QUITE 'Convince' ME.... although it MAY WELL work for you & your cohorts.


Soooo...

(to me), your rhetorical question of whether 'engineers' had seen this photo is just more rhetorical obfuscating boogie-woogie.

Many MAY have seen it (and simply 'passed it off' as unworthy of closer inspection and study from an engineering standpoint).

I seriously doubt the NIST 'engineers' study the details of these alleged 'collapses', like independant researchers DO.

They were 'on a mission' to support the 'official theory' from Day 1, and (like the OCT supporters simply dismiss what 'DOES NOT FIT').

Unlike you, (and other OCTs), MY life DOES NOT revolve around this thread ... attempting to 'PROVE' ANY theory...

and it wouldn't matter anyway....

IF I showed you a computer-generated trajectory, (which 'proves' my point)... you would simply slide back into obfuscations and claim that NIST or FEMA NEVER PUBLICLY documented the original location... sooooo... my calculations would be 'null & void' without KNOWING FOR A FACT the original location.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=103713

An excellent point raised by Neu-Fonze.

You've been on this same thread for almost a year, but haven't found time to deal with something that would PROVE that explosives were used????

RIGHT, thanks for starting off the new thread with a good belly laugh.



Arthur

[removed by admin]

I'd like to see the object. I have just about every video imaginable so if you could narrow it down by providing a name for the video I would appreciate it.

As much as it cringes me to concur with CS...

I also, would like to see a direct link to video in question.

Thanks

NF,

Actually, doesn't the core surviving a short time after the collapse PROVE pancaking? I know it didn't initiate the collapse but this is what I see. Tell me where I'm wrong.

The top disapears into the debris cloud

The walls lean out and fall. As an example, think of 10 men standing on each others shoulders. (Impossible, I know but indulge me for a moment) The top person loses his balance and the 9th man trys to hold on to his feet. He also loses his balance and and the 8th guy holds on. Now you have all three which are still on each others shoulders but tilting out. The progression continues until someone underthem can't hold on.

At the end the core stands for a short time.

This tells me the top fell into the bottom structure and the floors fell straight down. The standing perimeter is being jamed by the falling stories above and leans out away from the point of pressure. They fell in large sections because the floors were cleaned from them like a scaled fish.

The evidence for this is on ground zero. The perimeter columns are laid out like someone just cut the sides of a carton and folded them out.

One of the reasons conspiracy theorist think the building fell straight down are the photos they're using. Most are from we'll after cleanup started so you don't see the patterns on the ground. Here is an example of the column layout.



http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/columnd.jpg

It's obvious to me the 4 bolts on the bottom of the columns acted like the men holding on to each other in my anology. If the photo above were people and not columns they'd be in a row on their face.

All this evidence taken together tell me the building pancaked AFTER the building was on it's way down.

You can see large sections which stayed together here..

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc1east.avi

[Edited by Admin: offtopic]

As to your post,

NIST was not involved at this time.

Referring to plans wouldn't have been necessary, the stamp indicated floor.

A simple chart of floor = column weight would be all that was necessary, but I doubt they even did that. Depending on how the column was hanging the stamp may or may not have been visible. So, since there were only a few columns hanging it would be easier to just estimate with a large safety factor. Estimation of the weight is simple because the weight of steel per cubic meter being a known quantity, so given the dimensions of the column the conversion to a cubic meters is pretty simple. You see, a while ago, they invented these things called CALCULATORS that made this a PIECE OF CAKE.



Arthur

I am VERY HAPPY to see the new guidlines for this thread.

I see that admins have already begun their work. Thanks for your efforts.

Foxx, There is nothing surprising that a physics forum should decide to limit its discussion resources to physics discussions. The old topic was closed. Let's just hope it does not disappear (that would indeed be suspicious). Discussions of politics will hopefully continue on other non-physics discussion boards.

Neu Fonze,
I am happy to see that you have started the discussion off on the right foot.

It is a clear demonstration that the admin efforts are worthwhile.

I have already learned things I had missed (partially as a result of spamming).

Hopefully you have set the tone for what is to follow.

Why would you qualify such a "kick" as "unphysical"?

It is precisely what I would have expected from a gravity only collapse.

The building resists the fall but in an assymetric way. Thus downard energy is diverted horizontally.

What seems unusual to me is that the collapse was directed strictly downward for a large number of seconds. At the beginning of the collapse there is even MORE reason to expect horizontal impetus rather than only vertical.

So again, why would a "sideways kick" be considered unusual?

-Astaire

Arthur:

MCEER is the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering. It did a study of the WTC disaster and issued several reports.

Common Sense:

There are at least two videos that show "the block".

Right now I can only direct you to one. It's from plaguepuppy but is now available on Jeff King's website under the heading Day 1 WTC Collapse 02.avi. It's a CNN feed from CATV I think. You need to look at the right side of the collapsing tower. The block is seen as a silhouette moving down at a rate similar to the second hand of a clock = 90 deg in 15 seconds.

The other (better) video was shot from just north of Chambers Street which is much closer to the WTC site, but I can't locate it at the moment.

Astaire:

I still would argue that the trajectory of this block is VERY strange. It almost looks as if the original upper section ricochetted off the lower half (!!!!!) - you have to see the video to understand!


NF