The 9/11 Forum

At the jref someone posted a couple, this one is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04X4fGOh7WA

Here an animated gif of some of the frames.


http://i32.tinypic.com/1z6s3u9.gif

Well, it looks like a stripped building will crush completely if you cut it in half.
What is the difference ? Why did the other building stop completely ? A wrong estimation of the strength of the building, there was speed enough in that other video?

Difference with wtc1,2 ? It's hard to see how far material peels outward, this is a mini-lumpia compared with wtc of course. No statistically isolated pressure 'squibs'.

One needs the specifications of the arrested building and this one to compare it. More analysis needed... but I'm glad there is finally a video that is more convincing than everything we have seen before.

Thanks, that's really interesting.

I would say the difference with WTC1 & 2 is that in all these cases the A block is very close in size to the B bottom crushed block. So if A & B get pulverized at the same rate, the process ends when the building has fully been consumed. If the buildings were taller and you tried this trick with the top 15 or 20%, it probably wouldn't work.

There was another interesting one I found from the jref links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

Seems like the m.o. there was to knock out two walls on a floor, then pull out the 3rd wall with cables from a distance. It's hard to tell, but it seems that only part of the building came down here, like Ronan Point but on a larger scale. I'd also like to see how many floors were left standing in the collapsed area too (if any).

And of course there's the whole issue of how the entire WTC perimeter and core column support structure could fail at the same time at the same floor to lead to the same kind of initiation seen in these carefully planned demolitions. I still think it's very hard to get away from the intentional cutting/weakening of core columns. Anyway, I'm glad there's finally some more data coming in!

Yes, that's a nice one. In all these vids the ratio crush-up/crush-down is hard to see. But it is clear that we are dealing here with completely stripped buildings, almost like card houses. The building that I posted in the old thread was probably too strong or not sufficiently stripped. The wtc buildings were also completely intact at both sides of the impact zones.

In all these demo methods including the Balzac demo the treatment of the perimeter of the building is very important.

Each demo requires a "back breaking" collision. Each building, like WTC1 and 2, have both perimeter and core elements. They cannot possibly focus only on core elements and assume the perimeter will follow. They cannot "sag" the buildings down. They need the "whack" to start a successful process.


In all cases perimeter removal or "kickout" is required.


In the OP gif, we see the perimeter kickout over 3 floors (one obviously visible floor and 2 "hinge" floors) In the Balzac demo they needed at least 2 floors missing with the entire perimeter removed.

The video in the OP is an excellent example of perimeter kickout. As I have been trying to show the gentle reader for months, WTC1 and 2 experienced a similar kickout on at least 6 of the 8 faces, but you cannot see it directly because of a smoke screen. You can see the kicked out perimeter sections go into freefall and emerge from the dust totally unbuckled. (see WTC1 perimeter and WTC2 perimeter action threads for this info).

Perimeter action in the collapse initiation region is a big clue. The 6 to 10 floor perimeter sections in freefall showing no buckling whatsoever from the WTC1 E, N, W faces and WTC2 S, W, N faces demonstrate that you cannot bring down the towers from the core only. You need perimeter kickout.


What more do I have to do, juggle? Jump through hoops?

How many devices would you have to use to kick the perimeter out as observed?

the core needed some 10-20 devices to fail and to initiate the collapse.

Funkiest compilation of crush-up, crush-down techniques (verinage method?) used in demos I have ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o&NR=1

peterene1 wrote:How many devices would you have to use to kick the perimeter out as observed?

the core needed some 10-20 devices to fail and to initiate the collapse.

In the case of the Twin Towers I think all that would need to be done to get the perimeter moving outward and peeling is to take out the corners at the spandrel connections. This along with taking out the outer core columns of at least the top half of the building would have been enough to do the job in my opinion.

In viewing some video at the start of the collapses it seems there are a lot of focused expulsions from the corners before the debris envelops the corner. It seems that the debris did not envelop the corners as fast as it did the sides and this allowed more visibility in the corners at the beginning of the collapses.

Major_Tom wrote:In all these demo methods including the Balzac demo the treatment of the perimeter of the building is very important.

Each demo requires a "back breaking" collision. Each building, like WTC1 and 2, have both perimeter and core elements. They cannot possibly focus only on core elements and assume the perimeter will follow. They cannot "sag" the buildings down. They need the "whack" to start a successful process.

MT, just so you know the velocity of the roofs have been measured in the cases of Balzac-Vitry and Tour de Broca demolitions. Not surprisingly there is a very definitive deceleration indicative of the necessary "whack" you speak of here. The "whack" is required to amplify the load and allow it to overcome the reserve strength of the building structure below. I am almost tempted to start a saying that goes something like "without a whack you can't generate a natural collapse of the stack".


Amazingly, those who don't believe there is any reason to think controlled demolitions were actually responsible for the collapses have now walked away from any need for impact and amplification by trying to say the tilt caused a total misalignment of the columns and that they actually fell on the floors which could not handle the static oad.

There is still a problem with that theory since even there the energy losses would be too great to allow the 65 to 70% of gravity acceleration observed. The floors outside of the core alone could support 29 million lbs. and I am sure the beams in the core could support an additional 15 million lbs. for a total of 44 million lbs. per floor. If the upper block of WTC 1 weighed 68 million lbs., as shown by G. Urich's mass analysis, then at the first collision at least there should have been a resistance on the order of 65% instead of the 30 to 35% observed. This is also presuming the ludicrous notion that none of these connected columns impacted each other after buckling and does not account for velocity loss due to conservation of momentum.

Another failed demo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIOlEHrOZQ