22-09-2013, 02:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-09-2013, 03:21 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Tracy, on the day of the event I wasn't suspicious about an inside job or anything like that, but I did wonder where all of the energy came from in the tower collapses, as they just seemed to flow to the ground. I was very perplexed by the collapse of WTC 7, after hearing about it on the radio coming home that night. So it is interesting to hear what you are saying about the reaction by the mechanical engineers in your office. I do structural design in my mechanical work and the science is the same as that used by civil engineers.
It was very quickly that a paper by a college professor saying the towers had a dynamic load of 20 to 30 g's was put out and mentioned by the media. That paper is here http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people...rs/405.pdf and was put out on Sept. 13, 2001. I bought this line for several years as it would be possible.
However, after hearing about the molten metal in the rubble and finally seeing the collapse of WTC 7 in early 2006 I did get suspicious.
It was in 2008 that I was curious to see if there was any deceleration in the fall of the North Tower as a dynamic load requires it. The equation for an amplified load due to the impacting object hitting the impacted object is
F = mg + m(deceleration)
where mg = static load and m(deceleration) = load amplification
My research has shown that the perimeter columns were only using 20% of their capacity and the core columns only about 30% for gravity loads. NIST admits to the 20% for the perimeter. This reserve strength can only be defeated by an amplified load or demolition devices, and if there is no deceleration there couldn't have been any amplification.
The measurements showed no deceleration and that it constantly accelerated. The French then started doing gravity driven demolitions without explosives by using hydraulic rams to break the columns in a few stories. When we measured those collapses with the same methods the deceleration was there in the measurements validating the reality that the North Tower never decelerated as it would have to if the collapse was natural.
Here is a 5 minute video showing what I am saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8 and a couple very short videos showing the hydraulic rams in the building in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qKIikDcDII and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RgTz_vJA7w
My research has shown me that Dr. Bazant embellished the available kinetic energy and underestimated the strength of the columns below. He did this by
- using free fall through the first story which cannot happen in a natural collapse
- doubling the mass of the upper section (he used 58 x 10e6 kg for the upper section and it was actually 33 x 10e6 kg)
- and halving the strength of the columns below
The aircraft impacts could not have damaged more than 15% of the columns and this is provable by volume alone. The jet fuel that didn't go up in the fireballs would have burned up within minutes leaving normal office fires. The actual collapse initiations happened two stories above the impact floors, so it seems the impacts were causal ruses. The horizontal propagation occurred in less than one second over the 98th floor of the North Tower. The aircraft impacted between the 95th and 96th floors with a 10.6 degree downward pitch.
WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, and it was 350 feet from the closest tower. However, it had some interesting things in it like high level SEC investigations that some people might have wanted to go away.
The antenna falls first in the North Tower collapse showing the core was the first to collapse. The buildings were taken down by pulling the core columns over several stories which then pulled the perimeter inward as they fell and causing the perimeter to buckle due to extreme eccentricity. The rapid propagation and evenness of the collapse at first could not have been due to fire weakening and the lack of deceleration reinforces the fact that it had to be a demolition.
Whoever had access to the interiors of those buildings with the ability to plant demolition devices needs to be investigated. I am speaking of people involved in maintenance, contractors, security etc,, not office people. That has never been done.
It was very quickly that a paper by a college professor saying the towers had a dynamic load of 20 to 30 g's was put out and mentioned by the media. That paper is here http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people...rs/405.pdf and was put out on Sept. 13, 2001. I bought this line for several years as it would be possible.
However, after hearing about the molten metal in the rubble and finally seeing the collapse of WTC 7 in early 2006 I did get suspicious.
It was in 2008 that I was curious to see if there was any deceleration in the fall of the North Tower as a dynamic load requires it. The equation for an amplified load due to the impacting object hitting the impacted object is
F = mg + m(deceleration)
where mg = static load and m(deceleration) = load amplification
My research has shown that the perimeter columns were only using 20% of their capacity and the core columns only about 30% for gravity loads. NIST admits to the 20% for the perimeter. This reserve strength can only be defeated by an amplified load or demolition devices, and if there is no deceleration there couldn't have been any amplification.
The measurements showed no deceleration and that it constantly accelerated. The French then started doing gravity driven demolitions without explosives by using hydraulic rams to break the columns in a few stories. When we measured those collapses with the same methods the deceleration was there in the measurements validating the reality that the North Tower never decelerated as it would have to if the collapse was natural.
Here is a 5 minute video showing what I am saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8 and a couple very short videos showing the hydraulic rams in the building in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qKIikDcDII and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RgTz_vJA7w
My research has shown me that Dr. Bazant embellished the available kinetic energy and underestimated the strength of the columns below. He did this by
- using free fall through the first story which cannot happen in a natural collapse
- doubling the mass of the upper section (he used 58 x 10e6 kg for the upper section and it was actually 33 x 10e6 kg)
- and halving the strength of the columns below
The aircraft impacts could not have damaged more than 15% of the columns and this is provable by volume alone. The jet fuel that didn't go up in the fireballs would have burned up within minutes leaving normal office fires. The actual collapse initiations happened two stories above the impact floors, so it seems the impacts were causal ruses. The horizontal propagation occurred in less than one second over the 98th floor of the North Tower. The aircraft impacted between the 95th and 96th floors with a 10.6 degree downward pitch.
WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, and it was 350 feet from the closest tower. However, it had some interesting things in it like high level SEC investigations that some people might have wanted to go away.
The antenna falls first in the North Tower collapse showing the core was the first to collapse. The buildings were taken down by pulling the core columns over several stories which then pulled the perimeter inward as they fell and causing the perimeter to buckle due to extreme eccentricity. The rapid propagation and evenness of the collapse at first could not have been due to fire weakening and the lack of deceleration reinforces the fact that it had to be a demolition.
Whoever had access to the interiors of those buildings with the ability to plant demolition devices needs to be investigated. I am speaking of people involved in maintenance, contractors, security etc,, not office people. That has never been done.