The 9/11 Forum

Major_Tom wrote:

On top of that neither the NIST or Bazant are correct on their respective ends of the collapse explanation for which the entire middle is missing.

Sunder claims to take it to the point of collapse initiation, and Bazant after a one story freefall. How can they not know they skipped over the part where the entire core fails in less than one second?

Tap-dancing over the most important part.

Written by Dr Bazant from B&V:

"In broad terms, this scenario was proposed by Bažant (2001),
and Bažant and Zhou (2002a,b) on the basis of simplified analysis
relying solely on energy considerations. Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at
NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column
buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s
(2002a) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability."

How the f*ck can they not know they skipped over the initial south to north failure progression for WTC1, the most important and suspicious part of the collapse?

What you are seeing for yourself, if you did not know for sure before, is that at the point the NIST stops their analysis a full collapse of the upper section of WTC 1 is not a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination. On top of that they had to remove the transverse trusses between the core and perimeter and add artificial 5 kip lateral loads just to induce bowing in the south wall, as they couldn't get their model to do it with naturally occurring inputs from fire.

In addition, Bazant also has to know that the upper section does not decelerate and thus no dynamic load is observed, as Dr. G has admitted discussing the Missing Jolt paper with him.

Major_Tom wrote:


In this 2-D stick model the initial lateral collapse can propagate damage south to north in only three ways:

1) Successive overload: A column fails transferring it's weight to nearby columns., which are overloaded and fail, and so on.

2) Push and pull: failing columns tug or push other columns down through lateral braces or flooring

3) Some type of shock propagation through material by which damage can propagate.

Using combinations of these 3 types of movement we will look for a natural way to destroy the whole core in less than one second to match the observed duration of the hinge.

This southward flip is out of the nature of events. The aircraft impact weakened the north wall and the north part of the core, but the upper part fallen into opposite side. That means aircraft impact damage is not involved in the collapse initiation.

Such propagation is possible by explosives planted on the core columns and exploded by a very small delay (south placed ones are fired before the north placed ones) to make the debris fall into the desired direction (into the south tower which is collapsed first).

mehmeti wrote:
Such propagation is possible by explosives planted on the core columns and exploded by a very small delay (south placed ones are fired before the north placed ones) to make the debris fall into the desired direction (into the south tower which is collapsed first).

In WTC 1 the collapse also initiated on the 98th floor which was just above the aircraft impact damage. The 98th floor had little to no aircraft damage as it was only hit by the end of the right wing.

The core columns on the 98th floor would have been completely intact as well as any devices that may have been placed on them.

Amazingly, after the initiation at the 98th floor it is the floors above it which seem to first collapse, instead of the damaged floors below. These floors above the 98th floor had no aircraft damage whatsoever and little evidence of large fires.

That behavior of Bazant is very suspect. But what for he lied?

Czech people do lie, it's in our genes. In fact we both lie, he designed the demolition and I did falsificate the molten metal/bowing photos.

It's clear that he lied : his new tropical island, and 5,26E52 $ witness that.

Bažant's quote:

I did it because of the money ..uhm..hmm (clears his throat)..I did it for the collapse science

Such propagation is possible by explosives planted on the core columns and exploded by a very small delay (south placed ones are fired before the north placed ones) to make the debris fall into the desired direction (into the south tower which is collapsed first).

Oh, and I thought that such a propagation is only possible via forks!

The core columns on the 98th floor would have been completely intact as well as any devices that may have been placed on them.

That's right Tony but please note that the I core columns had cavities orientated in the south/north direction

that is: even if the charges were at 95th floor positioning in the south cavities would save them from any aircraft debris, especialy if they were planted in the 900/1000 rows.

The 800 and 700 rows could have been easily cut/weakend at the basement level (the basement explosions point to that as well as the WTC2 street fireball incident).

Peterene1,

The fact that the 98th floor was the initiation floor in WTC 1, and that it was the first floor above the major impact damage and had little damage itself, is an important point and it does lend credence to the notion that it would be used for reliability of the demolition devices, which could be protected from fire much more easily than from aircraft impact.

Now that you bring this up, I want to introduce another thought I have had concerning the tilt scenario in WTC 1 and why the tilt occurred on the south side. I believe there was essentially no tilt prior to a couple of story vertical drop and that the tilt then occurred towards the south due to a little more resistance on the north side caused by device destruction in the central core area on the north side on the damaged floors. I also think there is a good chance that the floors above the 98th floor were demolished first to generate some momentum to ensure the collapse proceeded through the damaged areas below the 98th floor using gravity if the devices were damaged there.

I tend to think that the basement explosions were used on several strategically positioned core columns to apply a positive tensile force to the core as a whole pulling it downward, but this doesn't really affect initiation all that much and I seriously doubt the entire 700 and 800 rows would have been taken out in the basement since they are part of the remnant.

All right, but the perpetrators weren't stupid and they wanted to make sure that everything goes by their plan. So I would assume that they placed the charges in the cavities opposite to the plane impact - the 3cm thick steel was surely going to rotect the charges from any impact.

It could have looked like this:



If the airplane part had enough energy to destroy the charge then it would have to destroy the column first: in other words the column was doomed anyway.

Of course, they precisely knew where the plane is going to strike.



The theory is this Tony: The 1000 and maybe some 900 row columns were attacked at the impact floors and the 104th floor (funny thing is that we came up with this theory simulatenously, MT, achimspok and me). This created a floating core block causing the inward bowing. This severly destroyed the capacity of the tower. Then it was just a matter of overloading, i.e. the rest of the core was cut at the basement level.

Why to attack the 800 and 700 row at the basement level? No matter how hard you try there's still a chance that the charges will get exposed to fire and ignite in the minutes after the impact = very, very bad for the perpetrators. So they wanted the charges to be as far as possible. The basement level was ideal for this job, I also believe that the logistical problems were far less common in the basement level.

The basement explosions along with the well documented street fireball confirm that. And while it would be very hard to explain the high ground zero temperatures with molten iron from the impact zone (it wouldn't reach the ground in pockets but rather in dropplets which would cool down quickly) it would be very easy to explain the high temperatures as a relict from the basement cutting charges (my estimate: 10 tons of thermite per 10 columns)

The design of the demolition was rather ingenious, the charges were easy to install under the rectangular wallboard, the columns shielded the charges, thermite offerd enough secrecy and even if all of the impact level charges would ignite the tower would not collapse. They controlled the floating block via 104th floor and the whole tower ultimately via the basement attack on the 700 and 800 rows.

Easy, effective, logical, no need for ninjas and the theory matechs all observables.

I would have to do an analysis but off the top of my head using some simple methods I can say that taking out several 1000 and 900 row columns at the initiation floor and 104th floor and then stressing the core by cutting the 700 and 800 rows in the basement would not cause the overload necessary to completely fail the core. To me it also does not explain the collapse of the perimeter columns on all walls of the building and the actual fall of the upper section of the building.

As I said I do believe the basement explosions had a purpose in applying a downward force on the core to direct it, but it wouldn't have been a primary cause of the failure at initiation and the destruction of the first several stories, which were the lower stories of the upper section.

Tony, the 500 and 600 rows are missing half of the columns.

The core would be left standing with maybe 12 core columns, with south wall totaly bowed at 98th floor. Enough to fail the core and the 98th story periemter, no?

peterene1 wrote:Tony, the 500 and 600 rows are missing half of the columns.

The core would be left standing with maybe 12 core columns, with south wall totaly bowed at 98th floor. Enough to fail the core and the 98th story periemter, no?

I don't think those who planned the demolition would have depended on the aircraft destroying the right number of columns in the 500 and 600 rows. The columns closest to the corners were the strongest core columns and they weren't touched by the aircraft in WTC 1.

I think there were devices on the core columns in the upper floors besides the 1000 and 900 rows to ensure a complete core failure there.

Your theory is interesting and I am not trying to be dismissive of it, so don't get me wrong. But how do you explain the collapse of the lower stories of the upper section before the area below which was affected by the aircraft impact?

If no column would be affected than my theory would predict some 20 standing columns...but the south side of the core awould be gone along with the perimeter....hmm.

I think that it was predictable that the core would suffer some damage after the 220m/s impact.

The behaviour of WTC2 cap fits my theory wonderfuly, but what about the WTC1? Your right about the first stage of collapse, maybe it's just an optical illusion or whatever. I don't necesarily believe that the early crush up proves or debunkes my/your theory. Of course I'm glad that you have nice attitude......

Maybe you can do some more sophisticated analysis of what would happen to the core if 702-706, 802-806 would be missing along with 902-907 and 1002-1007.

btw. it appears that the 500/600 rows were attacked too, but at 77th floor.....(maybe achimspok can write a little bit more about that)

T_Szamboti wrote:The NIST also artificially increased the yield strength of the outriggers.

Prove that assertion.

You need to get specific if you think the hat truss outriggers could transfer the entire load from a south wall failure to the core columns.

I was on the earlier thread.

T_Szamboti wrote:Another reason to doubt that the hat truss transferred the south wall's loads and it's floor loads to the core columns and caused a core failure, is that if it were true then any core failure is more likely to happen at it's weakest point below the hat truss. That would have been at the 106th floor, not the 98th floor which had stronger core columns.

Core failure high up seems highly plausible.

David B. Benson wrote:

T_Szamboti wrote:The NIST also artificially increased the yield strength of the outriggers.

Prove that assertion.

You need to get specific if you think the hat truss outriggers could transfer the entire load from a south wall failure to the core columns.

I was on the earlier thread.

They admit it in NCSTAR 1-6D page 176.

By the way, they also admit the elements they used could not capture buckling of the outriggers. That is precisely how they would fail long before they could transfer the south wall load to the core, as you seem to believe they could do. I also seem to remember discussion somewhere in the NIST report of a hand calculation of one of the outriggers and it showed it buckled.

David B. Benson wrote:

T_Szamboti wrote:Another reason to doubt that the hat truss transferred the south wall's loads and it's floor loads to the core columns and caused a core failure, is that if it were true then any core failure is more likely to happen at it's weakest point below the hat truss. That would have been at the 106th floor, not the 98th floor which had stronger core columns.

Core failure high up seems highly plausible.

It is highly likely that a core failure in a place like the 106th floor would have had external and visible effects, so it doesn't seem probable that this happened since we see no external evidence of it.

T_Szamboti wrote:They admit it in NCSTAR 1-6D page 176.

That is a construction sequence correction; if but 12% it hardly matters.

By the way, they also admit the elements they used could not capture buckling of the outriggers.

Huh? Where?

I also seem to remember discussion somewhere in the NIST report of a hand calculation of one of the outriggers and it showed it buckled.

I don't think that is right. The one ourrigger connection (not outrigger) failure was in WTC 2 where their FEA ran into convergence problems. Nothing about a hand calculation.

Those outrigger connections were most unlikely to be substanially stronger (for designed loads) than any of the rest of the hat truss or perimeter wall or core columns. Right?