14-08-2013, 08:36 AM
The North Tower, WTC 1, fell, but not due to the NIST explanation of "fire-weakened steel," or the NIST-Bazant pile driver, or solid block of the top twelve stories.
At 340 above, Tony says:
The core did pull down the building, but it wasn't because of weakness. There is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on core columns and the rapid acceleration through the first story of the fall is too high for heat weakening induced buckling.
Of course, Jeffrey does admit the core went down first. His problem comes in when he attempts to say its load was transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss, which could not possibly do it, and the perimeter columns would not buckle under the addition of the core load as a purely vertical load.
NIST doesn't admit the core went down first, but say it had some level of failure due to heating causing it to expand and then buckle under the compression due to the heat caused expansion being constrained and causing partial load redistribution through the hat truss to the perimeter, which are nowhere near enough to cause perimeter failure. However, it isn't their primary failure mode. Theirs is truss sagging causing perimeter inward bowing leading to perimeter failure of the south wall, in the case of WTC 1. However, in that case the load redistribution wasn't enough to fail either the core or the adjacent perimeter walls. NIST seems to be trying to use a shotgun approach where everything fails a little bit, but they never do make a case where they have high enough combined redistributed loads to cause additional failures.
We have seen the official explanation of fire weakening steel causing the top twelve stories to fall as a solid block. The heat was never attained to cause the required weakening of the steel, and in the studies of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen, and Tony Szamboti linked below, the top twelve stories did not present as the pile driver of the NIST-Bazant model.
In this David Chandler video Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, suspicious evidence of coordinated sequential charges strategically placed is presented, particularly in the case of the corner composed of two fourteen-inch box columns connected by steel plate, clad in aluminum, containing no window:
Also by David Chandler
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
(see attachment)
Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.
Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis
(see attachment)
NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:
Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:
1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]
There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to
Conclusions
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
In examining the claim of the NIST theory of collapse, that fire weakened the steel and the top twelve floors fell as a solid block it is shown by the analyses by David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti to fail at every level.
The steel was not weakened by jet fuel fires which had lives too short to attain the critical temperatures for the necessary time.
The observed collapse was not one floor resulting in the top twelve acting as a solid block with 31g or thirty-one times its static or dead weight or load.
The hat trusses said to have weakened and sagged forty inches, in tests sagged two to six, and could not have initiated collapse absent significant weakening of core columns--likely by charges, as no other cause presents.
Claims by "investigators" who did not investigate fail: explosions were heard, evidence of charges was reported. The smooth collapse of the structure shows none of the "jolt" necessitated by the official explanation.
The Pile Driver takes its place with the Magic Bullet, the Flat Earth, the Phlogiston theory of combustion in the gallery of hoaxes.
And at 411 Elm Street, every time the elevator door opens, P.T. Barnum gets his wings.
At 340 above, Tony says:
The core did pull down the building, but it wasn't because of weakness. There is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on core columns and the rapid acceleration through the first story of the fall is too high for heat weakening induced buckling.
Of course, Jeffrey does admit the core went down first. His problem comes in when he attempts to say its load was transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss, which could not possibly do it, and the perimeter columns would not buckle under the addition of the core load as a purely vertical load.
NIST doesn't admit the core went down first, but say it had some level of failure due to heating causing it to expand and then buckle under the compression due to the heat caused expansion being constrained and causing partial load redistribution through the hat truss to the perimeter, which are nowhere near enough to cause perimeter failure. However, it isn't their primary failure mode. Theirs is truss sagging causing perimeter inward bowing leading to perimeter failure of the south wall, in the case of WTC 1. However, in that case the load redistribution wasn't enough to fail either the core or the adjacent perimeter walls. NIST seems to be trying to use a shotgun approach where everything fails a little bit, but they never do make a case where they have high enough combined redistributed loads to cause additional failures.
We have seen the official explanation of fire weakening steel causing the top twelve stories to fall as a solid block. The heat was never attained to cause the required weakening of the steel, and in the studies of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen, and Tony Szamboti linked below, the top twelve stories did not present as the pile driver of the NIST-Bazant model.
In this David Chandler video Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, suspicious evidence of coordinated sequential charges strategically placed is presented, particularly in the case of the corner composed of two fourteen-inch box columns connected by steel plate, clad in aluminum, containing no window:
Also by David Chandler
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
(see attachment)
Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.
Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis
(see attachment)
NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:
Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:
1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]
There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to
Conclusions
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
~~~
In examining the claim of the NIST theory of collapse, that fire weakened the steel and the top twelve floors fell as a solid block it is shown by the analyses by David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti to fail at every level.
The steel was not weakened by jet fuel fires which had lives too short to attain the critical temperatures for the necessary time.
The observed collapse was not one floor resulting in the top twelve acting as a solid block with 31g or thirty-one times its static or dead weight or load.
The hat trusses said to have weakened and sagged forty inches, in tests sagged two to six, and could not have initiated collapse absent significant weakening of core columns--likely by charges, as no other cause presents.
Claims by "investigators" who did not investigate fail: explosions were heard, evidence of charges was reported. The smooth collapse of the structure shows none of the "jolt" necessitated by the official explanation.
The Pile Driver takes its place with the Magic Bullet, the Flat Earth, the Phlogiston theory of combustion in the gallery of hoaxes.
And at 411 Elm Street, every time the elevator door opens, P.T. Barnum gets his wings.