Ableton Forum

mikemc wrote:

LoopStationZebra wrote:

Green Lemon wrote:I guess with so much force acting in one direction, there was nothing to shift it to a lateral trajectory.

That's exactly right.

Even then, under what circumstances would there be any lateral trajectory? The answer is probably very few. Unless Godzilla or that cool creature from Cloverfield actually leaned against the entire structure at once.

The video simulation was sensible to me, but I agree that more of the building would slide down above the area of the initial collapse before the whole thing came over. It would fall not like a tree, but like a pile of bricks, to the side in an arc, still covering a very wide area.

In the towers, the pancaking of the floors is very understandable.

The utter disappearance of the steel core is less very understandable. What caused that to fall apart completely?

[edit] the pancaking is understandable given the failure of the outer shell. The outer shell was pretty robust, though also. Why did it fail throughout the structure? I wonder if that was caused by the fact that the floors were attached to the outer shell by a viscoelastic joint, that enabled the individual floors to more independently of the shell in order to counteract swaying caused by the wind. In the case of the impact, the sway was coming from the *inside*.

Viscoelastic! lol. Now you're talkin' the language! Actually the floor truss top chords were attached to the seats in the standard way - welded. Only the bottom chords of the trusses had the viscoelastic dampers - which is really nothing more than a big rubber washer. The bottom chord has a big plate welded onto it. That plate sits between 2 layers of the rubber, which in turn sits in a big welded C-channel piece. I think it was a C-channel, anyway. But you are correct. The bottom chords had no hard weld connection.

Whoa. I need to go and play some music now.

@Green Lemon, no prob. It would be cool if there was a structural engineer in the house, though. We're exposed to this stuff and have some knowledge, but those guys have the real chops.

The utter disappearance of the steel core is less very understandable. What caused that to fall apart completely?

None of it remained standing. Doesn't seem reasonable to think 5-10 stories worth, 5-10%, of a 100 story steel framework would remain standing? Were the connections from the floor trusses to the steel core that strong that the weight of the falling floors would pull down the steel core as opposed to tearing away at the connection?

noiserot wrote:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... idues.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7052 ... .html?pg=1

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... eline.html

Wow... Thanks for posting this. This is not surprising though because of things like the mysterious collapse of WTC building 7 never being accounted for.

Everything has been accounted for.

ThrowAway wrote:Everything has been accounted for.

That's funny because there is absolutely no account of the collapse of WTC7 in the official 9/11 Commission report.

Building 7 "collapsed faster than gravity would permit---and perfectly within its own footprint. Inside that building were choice bits of history and evidence. Its tenants included the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mayor's office of Emergency Management and the CIA's New York Station. Nothing makes sense to explain the collapse of this building except controlled demolition."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... nnedy.html

http://www.venusproject.com/911/WTC_7_A ... owers.html

from the Fire Engineering magazine special report

Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel—a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors—inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation.

Give it up.

Green Lemon wrote:from the Fire Engineering magazine special report

Of all the adjacent buildings, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street, presented the greatest threat of collapse. It hovered over the debris field on which hundreds of firefighters searched. It was heavily damaged and involved in fire. It is believed these fires occurred in part because the Port Authority, against the recommendations of the fire department, had placed aboveground tanks of diesel fuel—a 42,000-gallon tank at ground level and three 275-gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh, and eight floors—inside the building, underneath transfer beams that allowed the high-rise to be constructed above an electrical substation.

Give it up.

That's cute but it still doesn't explain why the roof of WTC 7 falls to earth in 6.6 seconds. And never mind that it is one of the first three steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire, all three occurring on the same day.

"The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."
http://www.venusproject.com/911/WTC_7_A ... owers.html

Continue being in denial.

noborders wrote:

ThrowAway wrote:Everything has been accounted for.

That's funny because there is absolutely no account of the collapse of WTC7 in the official 9/11 Commission report.

Building 7 "collapsed faster than gravity would permit---and perfectly within its own footprint. Inside that building were choice bits of history and evidence. Its tenants included the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mayor's office of Emergency Management and the CIA's New York Station. Nothing makes sense to explain the collapse of this building except controlled demolition."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... nnedy.html

http://www.venusproject.com/911/WTC_7_A ... owers.html

Heres a little snipet on jones: Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners,"

What that means in lay terms is he was laughed out of the building by his peers.....Twice I might add, once for his previous and unrelated work. The only people who support these ideas are fringe fuck up scientists.

noborders wrote: Continue being in denial.

Lulz. Do you think 99% of the scientific community that spans all related fields laughed at this because of some conspiracy or they liked the bush administration?

Exactly. And still no XRD analysis 2 weeks later.

Fail.

Not to mention on sundays he speaks in tongues(baby babble) and believes there are people who communicate with god, living right now.

Fitting though most of these truthers are psycho. It takes a leader thats just like the herd.

mikemc wrote:The utter disappearance of the steel core is less very understandable. What caused that to fall apart completely?

None of it remained standing. Doesn't seem reasonable to think 5-10 stories worth, 5-10%, of a 100 story steel framework would remain standing? Were the connections from the floor trusses to the steel core that strong that the weight of the falling floors would pull down the steel core as opposed to tearing away at the connection?

Good questions, to be sure. The steel columns at the core were box type. The boxes were thicker at the base (as was the thickness of each piece) of the building, then thinned out as you went higher (thickness of the plates also got thinner). This is very standard construction - still used today. Each steel box column has a weld connection - so you have boxes on top of boxes. Welded together every other floor - I think. I'm not familiar enough with those on the WTC, but could probably look it up. The weld joints are the weakest part, of course. There was enough lateral movement from the floors collapsing to rip those welds apart (they didn't just suddenly free fall. There was a lot of ripping and tearing. There were sections that failed first, causing the entire floor slab to buckle and bend - no doubt putting a lot of damn force on the exterior and interior steel columns. Contrary to what you sometimes read, metal pan floor construction can bend and flex quite a bit. Hell, built in construction tolerances allow for - if I remember correctly - an 1/8" of deflection per every 10 linear feet. Anyway. Some truss connections probably held together for awhile. The columns get ripped apart.

I want to believe there's some nefarious substance at work here. It stimulates the imagination. But at the end of the day I keep coming back to:

1. Budget Building.
Building was built using the bare MINIMUM of construction tolerances, details, and materials. This is not a debate. It's well documented fact. It was quite literally 'built on the cheap'. They wanted to save as much money as possible and literally invented new construction and engineering techniques to accommodate this goal. Sure, it was supposedly built to withstand a 707 crashing into it, but what the fuck did they know? lol. Hell, the viscoelastic dampers were brand new and totally unproven. SOM sent a team from Chicago to see if they could be used in the new Sears Tower building under design, and they basically decided against them. Too risky and unproven.

2. Big plane hits building.
3. Lots of stress and weight.
4. Things get really, really hot.
5. Those minimum of connection tolerances all start to give way.
6. Building falls down.
7. Oops.