Why cant truthers just remember Newton's first law of motion?

[debunker9145]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.

[Galileo]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.

ha, good one!

I'm glad you are a 9/11 truth agent trying to make the archie debunkers look, bad, but try not to be so obvious.

[AJM8125]

Well debunker9145? You've been baiting truthers since you signed up. Here's your chance to debate one. What are you waiting for?

[jaydeehess]

db9145 is not that far off, just shy of details.

The gravity load of a single floorspace is distrubuted along the long span trusses to the truss seats on core and perimeter columns.
The gravity load of the floors above any level is directed through the vertical columns.

When the columns suffered damage and fire weakening at the fire floor levels the total gravity load of all the floors above them then had to be taken up by the remaining columns. Compounding this was the fact that the upper portion was tilting meaning that an even distribution over all remaining columns was not possible. At one point the transfer of load itself would overload column(s) resulting in another transfer which would in turn overload more columns and the cascade effect would occur very rapidly. In effect the upper section fell quickly the distance of one level.

When columns fail they buckle or snap, either way the upper section no longer is aligned with the lower section.
Thus when the upper portion of the building falls to the next floor level the gravity load of the upper stories is impinged NOT directly on the columns of the lower section but on the floorspace of one level as the columns of the upper portion contact it. The truss seats were never designed to take the gravity load of 10+ stories, they were designed to take the gravity load of ONE floorspace(plus some safety margin) The truss seats fail immediatly under the combination of a static load much greater than they were ever designed for plus the impact , dynamic load they were never designed for either.

The upper end of the lower portion's columns also spear upwards failing the first upper floor.

The reamining intact upper section columns now hit the next floor down in less time than it took to fall the first floor distance as the velocity has now increased. The dynamic loading has thus increased. the static loading has remaing close to the same minus only the mass that has fallen off to the sides(basically less dense material such as pulverised drywall, paper debris etc., due to pressurization of the air in the floor's volume, and the perimeter column trees due to their location at the extremity of the building)

Within a few seconds the bulk of the falling part of the building consists primarily of concrete and steel debris that still vastly outweighs the gravity load that any floorspace could ever be expected to handle let alone arrest the downward movement of.

The core, suffering the impact of dense debris also loses most of the horizontal bracing between its columns. The core system itself could not have stood on its own for long even if the rest of the structure had magically disappeared let alone with the rest of the building being violently stripped away. Thus the core system breaks apart and also collapses. In the case of one tower a portion of the core system does survive the collapse but simply cannot survive on its own and it too buckles and falls.

What's the beef?

The OP stands. Unless there was sufficient force to stop the downward travel of the upper mass the building was doomed.
TM's often say that the upper section should have slid off to one side or topppled off. However that may be the case in a building with closely spaced columns where any assymettry might allow for such an arrest. The towers however were not constructed that way. The core columns contained enough strength to handle the collapse impacts BUT only if that force were directed along their long axis. It was not, could not have been.
Any assymettry would see either the loss of the truss seat at the core first, or at the perimeter. In either case then the mass would be in cantilever at the remaining truss seat and the only mass directly along the long axis of a column would be basically the mass of the column itself.

[jaydeehess]

I forgot to add that the bulk of the 100 ton aircraft also remained in the building, adding to the mass available to collapse floor spans.

[AJM8125]

I forgot to add that the bulk of the 100 ton aircraft also remained in the building, adding to the mass available to collapse floor spans.

See debunker9145? That's how it's done.

Well said jaydeehess.

[twinstead]

db9145 is not that far off, just shy of details.

The gravity load of a single floorspace is distrubuted along the long span trusses to the truss seats on core and perimeter columns.
The gravity load of the floors above any level is directed through the vertical columns.

When the columns suffered damage and fire weakening at the fire floor levels the total gravity load of all the floors above them then had to be taken up by the remaining columns. Compounding this was the fact that the upper portion was tilting meaning that an even distribution over all remaining columns was not possible. At one point the transfer of load itself would overload column(s) resulting in another transfer which would in turn overload more columns and the cascade effect would occur very rapidly. In effect the upper section fell quickly the distance of one level.

When columns fail they buckle or snap, either way the upper section no longer is aligned with the lower section.
Thus when the upper portion of the building falls to the next floor level the gravity load of the upper stories is impinged NOT directly on the columns of the lower section but on the floorspace of one level as the columns of the upper portion contact it. The truss seats were never designed to take the gravity load of 10+ stories, they were designed to take the gravity load of ONE floorspace(plus some safety margin) The truss seats fail immediatly under the combination of a static load much greater than they were ever designed for plus the impact , dynamic load they were never designed for either.

The upper end of the lower portion's columns also spear upwards failing the first upper floor.

The reamining intact upper section columns now hit the next floor down in less time than it took to fall the first floor distance as the velocity has now increased. The dynamic loading has thus increased. the static loading has remaing close to the same minus only the mass that has fallen off to the sides(basically less dense material such as pulverised drywall, paper debris etc., due to pressurization of the air in the floor's volume, and the perimeter column trees due to their location at the extremity of the building)

Within a few seconds the bulk of the falling part of the building consists primarily of concrete and steel debris that still vastly outweighs the gravity load that any floorspace could ever be expected to handle let alone arrest the downward movement of.

The core, suffering the impact of dense debris also loses most of the horizontal bracing between its columns. The core system itself could not have stood on its own for long even if the rest of the structure had magically disappeared let alone with the rest of the building being violently stripped away. Thus the core system breaks apart and also collapses. In the case of one tower a portion of the core system does survive the collapse but simply cannot survive on its own and it too buckles and falls.

What's the beef?

The OP stands. Unless there was sufficient force to stop the downward travel of the upper mass the building was doomed.
TM's often say that the upper section should have slid off to one side or topppled off. However that may be the case in a building with closely spaced columns where any assymettry might allow for such an arrest. The towers however were not constructed that way. The core columns contained enough strength to handle the collapse impacts BUT only if that force were directed along their long axis. It was not, could not have been.
Any assymettry would see either the loss of the truss seat at the core first, or at the perimeter. In either case then the mass would be in cantilever at the remaining truss seat and the only mass directly along the long axis of a column would be basically the mass of the column itself.

Show off ;)

[AJM8125]

Show off ;)

Yeah, that too .

[fuelair]

Because the CTers are incompetant and irrelevant and, gosh, real people just don't like them.*



*it doesn't help that they are stupid.

[Heiwa]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.

Well, there is nothing wrong with Newton. Let's say upper part/mass/structure is called C and that lower part/mass/structure is called A and that A carried C before (according to Newton's third law).

C drops on A. C and A have same structure (columns/floors). Neither is solid! The columns are stronger than the floors, as the columns carry the floors!

C then collides with A! BANG! What happens?

According Newton's third law C applies a force on A and A applies a force on C. The forces are equal but in opposite direction. They are a little bigger than when A just carried C earlier.

What does the big forces do? They evidently deform the structure in C and A. If the deformation is elastic, C will bounce on A (like a basket ball on a floor).

If the deformation is plastic, elements in both A and C are damaged.

According NIST (and Bazant & Co) this does NOT happen! C is NOT damaged.

No, a new phenomenon takes place! One-way crushing!! C crushes A!

One way crushing first took place twice on 9/11 and has luckily not happened again since. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm as many JREF members know!

I don't believe in one-way crushing or one small object crushing a bigger one of same structure. It is simply not possible according to Newton.

[chillzero]

Off topic posts removed. Please remember - attack the argument, not the arguer ... keep it civil .. do not personalise threads, and post on topic.

[Metullus]

*** usual nonsense***Care to address jaydeehess' excellent post?

[Heiwa]

Care to address jaydeehess' excellent post?

I did in post #10.

But I like: The upper end of the lower portion's columns also spear upwards failing the first upper floor.

Actually the lower portion's (? - part A) columns spear upwards (evidently) and fails all the upper floors. Bye, bye - part C.

[jaydeehess]

I did in post #10.
Uh, no you did not. Instead you again substituted your own characterization of what should have occured. Once again you are taking the words used in the approximations others have employed when quantitativly analyzing the collapse and have used those statements well out of the context in which they were given. You also attempt to take analogies to the ridiculous extreme and then state that since the analogy breaks down so to does the official story.

But I like: The upper end of the lower portion's columns also spear upwards failing the first upper floor.

Actually the lower portion's (? - part A) columns spear upwards (evidently) and fails all the upper floors. Bye, bye - part C.

Perhaps you'd like to describe what occurs when the columns fail and the upper portion (A, B,C whatever you want to call it) moves downward. Are the upper portion of the columns lined up with the lower portions?

[Metullus]

I did in post #10. No, actually, you did not. What you did do is merely repeat the nonsense that you have spewn in nearly every other thread in which you have posted and which has been debunked more times than Carter has pills.

[psikeyhackr]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.
.
What distorted BS!!!

The top falling 16 stories of the north tower was a complex structure composed of thousands of pieces connected together.

So was the bottom 93 stories that were still standing. But the mass of each level going down had to increase in order to be stronger to have supported more weight for 28 years.

So it the 95th level was the bottom of the top falling portion and the 93rd level was the top of the lower stationary portion then those two levels would begin crushing each other on contact and the energy to do that crushing would come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Thus beginning the DECELERATION.

16 STORIES getting lighter and weaker going up VERSUS 93 STORIES getting stronger and heavier going down!!

Which is going to run out first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik

[Heiwa]

Perhaps you'd like to describe what occurs when the columns fail and the upper portion (A, B,C whatever you want to call it) moves downward. Are the upper portion of the columns lined up with the lower portions?

The intact, strong columns in parts C and A never fail! They slice up the thin, weak floors in parts C and A. Happens every time composite structures impact each other without bounce. The weak elements are damaged, the strong ones remain intact.
Pls, don't repeat the OCT that a thin floor crushes columns!

BUT, you can do that, too! Then the thin floors of lower part A will destroy the strong columns of upper part C. Unlikely - but possible. Strong floors? They will stop any crush down AT ONCE!

Anyway you look. Part A will destroy part C. Part C cannot one-way crush down part A. Part C is too small. Too weak. Too little strain energy.

Read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

[Heiwa]

No, actually, you did not. What you did do is merely repeat the nonsense that you have spewn in nearly every other thread in which you have posted and which has been debunked more times than Carter has pills.

Well, what you call nonsense happens to be in accordance with Newton's laws. Don't your remember those?

[A W Smith]

You are so wrong I don't know where to begin.

."An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.
What distorted BS!!!

The top falling 16 stories of the north tower was a complex structure composed of thousands of pieces connected together.

As was the lower 93 stories, The objective of a real estate venture is build and to rent an encapsulated conditioned space, Not solid objects, The towers were 95% air, And Debunker9145 wasn't describing mass, he was describing floor capacity "each floor's individual load capacity" he said, nice try obfuscating to construct your straw man there, busted, better luck next time.

So was the bottom 93 stories that were still standing. But the mass of each level going down had to increase in order to be stronger to have supported more weight for 28 years.
incorrect, the mass for three typical consecutive stories can actually be exactly equal. given the fabricated column lengths. And Theres that word mass again. The only mass that increased was the mass of the columns themselves, NOT the floor load capacity. The floor trusses and slab thicknesses with the exception of the mechanical floors observation/lobby levels were identical. And only designed to carry the loads imposed on that floor alone. Thus, They could not resist the ever increasing and accelerating falling mass above. This can be shown in images of the perimeter column trees in the debris pile which shows just about every single truss seat is bent down, Not exploded. Not burnt off with thermite, Not sheared with shape charges. but BENT DOWNWARD.
So it the 95th level was the bottom of the top falling portion and the 93rd level was the top of the lower stationary portion then those two levels would begin crushing each other on contact and the energy to do that crushing would come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Thus beginning the DECELERATION.Incorrect, And math proves it. You are ignoring the increase of debris and energy with each successive floor destroyed. The increase in collapse speed continues to accelerate. You need to scale this and apply it to your washers and toothpicks to understand it. Your model is fatally flawed, Think of the ant lifting tens of its weight and a human trying the same.

16 STORIES getting lighter and weaker going up VERSUS 93 STORIES getting stronger and heavier going down!!

Which is going to run out first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik16 stories gaining another story with each floor failure. And accelerating at the same time. Two things making collapse arrest less likely with each floor failure, More mass, And continued acceleration. It simply ain't gonna stop. And these firemen know that already because they are fleeing for their lives.

_cBBsg5OAqY

[beachnut]

.
What distorted BS!!!

The top falling 16 stories of the north tower was a complex structure composed of thousands of pieces connected together.

So was the bottom 93 stories that were still standing. But the mass of each level going down had to increase in order to be stronger to have supported more weight for 28 years.

So it the 95th level was the bottom of the top falling portion and the 93rd level was the top of the lower stationary portion then those two levels would begin crushing each other on contact and the energy to do that crushing would come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Thus beginning the DECELERATION.

16 STORIES getting lighter and weaker going up VERSUS 93 STORIES getting stronger and heavier going down!!

Which is going to run out first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik
You left out gravity and the additional mass of each failing floor in your post. You ran out of knowledge of physics. Robertson the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers is still around and proves your opinion wrong. How did your massive research efforts on 911 fail to turn up the expert with absolute knowledge on the WTC towers. He says your ideas are essentially delusional.
Your post, unknown to you, sums up your deficiencies and why you have made erroneous conclusions.

[Metullus]

Well, what you call nonsense happens to be in accordance with Newton's laws. Don't your remember those?Better, I am certain, then do you.

The problem is that your nonsense has no bearing whatever with what happened on 9/11.

[chillzero]

I can't believe I held out some hope that this wouldn't turn into another Heiwa thread. Is there nothing else to discuss on this topic, that won't involve another endless discussion of crush-up, and spamming of Heiwa's site (you may want to stop that before the mod team step in again, Heiwa).

[jaydeehess]

The intact, strong columns in parts C and A never fail! They slice up the thin, weak floors in parts C and A. Happens every time composite structures impact each other without bounce. The weak elements are damaged, the strong ones remain intact.
Pls, don't repeat the OCT that a thin floor crushes columns!

No the floor does not crush the columns. Do you see any crushed column sections in any photos of the devris? No, of course not. What you do see are columns that failed as they bent or snapped which is consistent with what would occur to a column with less and less bracing. They simply cannot stand on their own and if you recall your first year studies in univesity you will know the concept. Why you continue to ignore the knowledge imparted to you I cannot say.

BUT, you can do that, too! Then the thin floors of lower part A will destroy the strong columns of upper part C. Unlikely - but possible.
Please re-read my qualitative description in my earlier post and tell me how I described the failure of the columns.

Strong floors? They will stop any crush down AT ONCE!

Also addressed in my post. The floors fail. Individual floors were never designed to take even the static load of 10+ stories. [ (floorspace load)X 10 + column mass ]

[jaydeehess]

.
What distorted BS!!!

The top falling 16 stories of the north tower was a complex structure composed of thousands of pieces connected together.

So was the bottom 93 stories that were still standing. But the mass of each level going down had to increase in order to be stronger to have supported more weight for 28 years.

So it the 95th level was the bottom of the top falling portion and the 93rd level was the top of the lower stationary portion then those two levels would begin crushing each other on contact and the energy to do that crushing would come from the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Thus beginning the DECELERATION.

16 STORIES getting lighter and weaker going up VERSUS 93 STORIES getting stronger and heavier going down!!

Which is going to run out first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik

On the chance that you did not read all of A W Smith's post the most relevent snippet in reference to your characterization of the struture is
The only mass that increased was the mass of the columns themselves, NOT the floor load capacity. The floor trusses and slab thicknesses with the exception of the mechanical floors observation/lobby levels were identical. And only designed to carry the loads imposed on that floor alone.

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot decellerate the falling mass unless the load carrying ability of the floor truss/truss seats exceeds, at the very least, the static load of the free mass on it. Add in the, at least somewhat assymettric, dynamic load and the truss's/seats have absolutly no chance whatsoever of decellerating the free mass. (free in this case refers to the fact that it is unconstrained, unfastened from the lower portion)

the columns are left with no bracing. The evidence that the columns could not stand on their own is supported by the fact that the so-called 'spire' of , IIRC, the south tower remained upright for mere seconds before succumbing to its own instability. (if you come back with the word 'dustification' you will be the first to own a place in my ignore list)

[jaydeehess]

psikeyhackr??

[psikeyhackr]

You are so wrong I don't know where to begin.

The towers were 95% air,
.
Oh my God!

Doctor Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST is WRONG!

A W Smith said so and he can't possibly be wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Sunder said in that podcast that the buildings were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons per level. The steel averaged 862 tons per level.

So you just make drek up and dish it out and expect people to eat it. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try beginning by knowing what the hell you are talking about?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

psikeyhackr??
.
What?

You don't expect me to get BORED with you guys that can't figure out the obvious?

You can't even DEMAND a simple table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? Is that too much to expect from the NIST that took 3 years to produce 10,000 pages? NO! They can't even tell us the number and weights of the 12 different perimeter wall panels.

How do you do physics on colliding objects when you don't have TRUSTWORTHY data?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik

[jaydeehess]

.
What?

You don't expect me to get BORED with you guys that can't figure out the obvious?

You can't even DEMAND a simple table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level? Is that too much to expect from the NIST that took 3 years to produce 10,000 pages? NO! They can't even tell us the number and weights of the 12 different perimeter wall panels.

How do you do physics on colliding objects when you don't have TRUSTWORTHY data?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik

Given that the variation in the mass of the upper storeys has little effect on the senario I posted above, nor does the mass of the lower portion, explain why the mass of the concrete and steel is significant.
I want to see your take on it.

[A W Smith]

.
Oh my God!

Doctor Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST is WRONG!

A W Smith said so and he can't possibly be wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Sunder said in that podcast that the buildings were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons per level. The steel averaged 862 tons per level.

So you just make drek up and dish it out and expect people to eat it. :rolleyes:

Why don't you try beginning by knowing what the hell you are talking about?

psik

Are you an idiot? 70% air by volume? 12 foot f/f to f/f - 70% = a 3 1/2 foot thick floor section, thats even if you took all the column sections less their interior enclosed volume and laid them in plate form on the floor. Are you going with that psikeyhackr? Sunder was shooting from the hip by not including the plenum volume above the false ceiling obviously. Sunder also says the molten flow out the north east corner of the south tower was aluminum along with plastic from computer terminals, furniture debris, etc. is he correct about that psikeyhackr? Dont cherry pick now psikeyhacker. Either you believe him in entirety or you cant. See how cherry picking works? Or will you continue to post ROFLMAO like the jackass you are?

[Heiwa]

Are you an idiot? 70% air by volume? 12 foot f/f to f/f - 70% = a 3 1/2 foot thick floor section, thats even if you took all the column sections less their interior enclosed volume and laid them in plate form on the floor. Are you going with that psikeyhackr? Sunder was shooting from the hip by not including the plenum volume above the false ceiling obviously. Sunder also says the molten flow out the north east corner of the south tower was aluminum along with plastic from computer terminals, furniture debris, etc. is he correct about that psikeyhackr? Dont cherry pick now psikeyhacker. Either you believe him in entirety or you cant. See how cherry picking works? Or will you continue to post ROFLMAO like the jackass you are?

Don't forget the columns! Regardless - plenty of air for people to breath between them and floors. And there was AC and maybe you could open a window?
Molten flow!!!! Aluminium???? Who/what was melting aluminum ... in an office? OK, it melts at 660°C but .... !
You still consider Sunder a reliable scientist?

[twinstead]

Don't forget the columns! Regardless - plenty of air for people to breath between them and floors. And there was AC and maybe you could open a window?
Molten flow!!!! Aluminium???? Who/what was melting aluminum ... in an office? OK, it melts at 660°C but .... !
You still consider Sunder a reliable scientist?

Sadly, none consider YOU a reliable scientist either.

[psikeyhackr]

Are you an idiot? 70% air by volume? 12 foot f/f to f/f - 70% = a 3 1/2 foot thick floor section, thats even if you took all the column sections less their interior enclosed volume and laid them in plate form on the floor. Are you going with that psikeyhackr? Sunder was shooting from the hip by not including the plenum volume above the false ceiling obviously. Sunder also says the molten flow out the north east corner of the south tower was aluminum along with plastic from computer terminals, furniture debris, etc. is he correct about that psikeyhackr? Dont cherry pick now psikeyhacker. Either you believe him in entirety or you cant. See how cherry picking works? Or will you continue to post ROFLMAO like the jackass you are?
.
Don't tell me. Tell Dr. Sunder.

I call him Dr Sunder Dunderhead.

And I don't give a drek about the percentage of air anyway. LOL

It just means 20 tons of air per level instead of 15. As I said the average was 862 tons for the steel. But I haven't seen trustworthy information on the distribution of the steel so why care about the air?

psik

[debunker9145]

Heiwa, Neither STeven Jones or Richard Gage are reliable "scientists" if you can call them that. Richard Gage based his "research" off of Steven Jones. Jones claims to have found "thermite", and yet he did not check for any natural (non thermite/thermate) means for them to be there. Sulphur in the sheetrock, Iron is in paint and electronics, Magneesium is also in paint, and Fluorine is in Freon. Many of the elements he found happen to also be ingredients of thermite but he did not check for the possibility that they could have occured naturally. Then take the "WTC Meteorite" if you look closely you will find pieces of furniture, twisted pipes, and even paper with legible writing on it all fused to it. Therefore we can conclude that the meteorite supports at least some pancaking, and that steven jones is wrong or the floors were covered in Asbestos. Richard Gage based his research on Steven Jones therefore we can conclude both are wrong. Whatever happened to the Scientific Method?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, Neither STeven Jones or Richard Gage are reliable "scientists" if you can call them that. Richard Gage based his "research" off of Steven Jones. Jones claims to have found "thermite", and yet he did not check for any natural (non thermite/thermate) means for them to be there. Sulphur in the sheetrock, Iron is in paint and electronics, Magneesium is also in paint, and Fluorine is in Freon. Many of the elements he found happen to also be ingredients of thermite but he did not check for the possibility that they could have occured naturally. Then take the "WTC Meteorite" if you look closely you will find pieces of furniture, twisted pipes, and even paper with legible writing on it all fused to it. Therefore we can conclude that the meteorite supports at least some pancaking, and that steven jones is wrong or the floors were covered in Asbestos. Richard Gage based his research on Steven Jones therefore we can conclude both are wrong. Whatever happened to the Scientific Method?

Thanks for information!

In my view the "WTC Meteorite" - I assume you mean upper part C! - would simply have bounced on the lower structure part A, if it dropped, with local failures in between as result, i.e. bottom floor of C and uppermost floor of A damaged a little by dynamic forces developing as per Newton (topic).

You see, the "WTC Meteorite" was 95% air and not very strong. It could not one-way crush down anything. It's like a ship collision - a small, weak ship C cannot really crush a big, strong ship A. It is not a conspiracy. It is according to Newton.

[Architect]

Complete, unmitigated rubbish Anders.

[Heiwa]

Complete, unmitigated rubbish Anders.

Well, bounce a ball full of air on a floor and ... it bounces. :)

[Minadin]

What happens if you try to bounce one made of unmitigated rubbish and woo-glue? (assuming it's still full of hot air)

[Aidoneus]

Thanks for information!

In my view the "WTC Meteorite" - I assume you mean upper part C! - would simply have bounced on the lower structure part A, if it dropped, with local failures in between as result, i.e. bottom floor of C and uppermost floor of A damaged a little by dynamic forces developing as per Newton (topic).

You see, the "WTC Meteorite" was 95% air and not very strong. It could not one-way crush down anything. It's like a ship collision - a small, weak ship C cannot really crush a big, strong ship A. It is not a conspiracy. It is according to Newton.

Now, I'm no physicist, but you seem to be assuming that what you label A is one solid block. It isn't, it's made up of floors, the same as what you deem part C.

When the lowest floor of C collides with the highest of A, due to the higher gravitational energy, the highest floor of A is destroyed, making C have another floor's worth of energy. When this mass, now 17 floors, impacts the second highest floor of A, A once again comes of worse, and now C is 18 floors strong. See where this is going?

To bring things back to your ship analogy, it's like one small, weak ship, C, destroying one hundred smaller, weaker ships.

[Heiwa]

Now, I'm no physicist, but you seem to be assuming that what you label A is one solid block. It isn't, it's made up of floors, the same as what you deem part C.

When the lowest floor of C collides with the highest of A, due to the higher gravitational energy, the highest floor of A is destroyed, making C have another floor's worth of energy. When this mass, now 17 floors, impacts the second highest floor of A, A once again comes of worse, and now C is 18 floors strong. See where this is going?

To bring things back to your ship analogy, it's like one small, weak ship, C, destroying one hundred smaller, weaker ships.

No, when the lowest floor of C collides with the highest of A, due to equal pressure between floors, the lowest floor of C is destroyed, making C having one floor less worth of energy. When this mass, now 16 floors, impacts the rubble on top of A (one floor of C), C once again comes off worse, and now C is only 15 floors strong. See where this is going? After 15 further impacts there is only rubble of C.

Reason for this is that C is lighter and weaker than A. Remember that A carried C before with a large marging of safety.

You cannot one-way crush down a structure A with its upper part C by gravity. Remember Newton's three laws!

There are multiple threads about this - the Heiwa Axiom - at JREF with 1000's of posts. Nobody has shown that the Axiom is wrong. I can prove it for a given, defined structure but as there are unknown structures maybe the Axiom does not apply to them and thus impossible to prove. That's why it is an axiom.

NIST of course suggests the opposite. Top part of WTC 1 one-way crushed down WTC 1 by gravity. But they cannot prove it. And it has never happened before for similar structures. I prove the opposite on my web site. I wonder why media doesn't report it?

[Aidoneus]

So the combined weight of the top 16 floors of the WTC (it's applicable to take the combined weight here, because it isn't being supported by anything else, hence the collapse) is not strong enough to destroy the top floor of the lower portion?

I love the last paragraph of your post. NIST, a collection of the finest architects, engineers and physicists in America versus... Your website. And you wonder why the media doesn't report it?

[Heiwa]

So the combined weight of the top 16 floors of the WTC (it's applicable to take the combined weight here, because it isn't being supported by anything else, hence the collapse) is not strong enough to destroy the top floor of the lower portion?

I love the last paragraph of your post. NIST, a collection of the finest architects, engineers and physicists in America versus... Your website. And you wonder why the media doesn't report it?

Well, the combined weight of the top 16 floors (part C) was carried by the lower structure (part A) for 30+ years. Good intact structure! No way that part C can one-way crush part A. The Björkman (aka Heiwa) Axiom, you know!

NIST? Fine bunch of architects, engineers and physicists, probably, but they lack experience in structural damage analysis. Nobody is perfect, you know. I have informed Richard (Kaiser - boss of Sunder) about this weakness in its structure. No reply, of course. Poor Richard! When will NIST collapse?

[GlennB]

No, when the lowest floor of C collides with the highest of A, due to equal pressure between floors, the lowest floor of C is destroyed, making C having one floor less worth of energy. When this mass, now 16 floors, impacts the rubble on top of A (one floor of C), .........

You've forgotten the rubble from the top floor of A, which has been crushed by C. Something even you do not dispute.

We now have (according to your theory) 16 floors of C essentially intact, plus 2 floors of rubble, one each from A and C, all accelerating downwards.

You appear not to understand your own theory.

[Aidoneus]

Well, the combined weight of the top 16 floors (part C) was carried by the lower structure (part A) for 30+ years. Good intact structure! No way that part C can one-way crush part A. The Björkman (aka Heiwa) Axiom, you know!

NIST? Fine bunch of architects, engineers and physicists, probably, but they lack experience in structural damage analysis. Nobody is perfect, you know. I have informed Richard (Kaiser - boss of Sunder) about this weakness in its structure. No reply, of course. Poor Richard! When will NIST collapse?

But the combined weight of the top 16 floors wasn't carried by the highest floor of part A. It was carried by the foundations of part A. Once again, A isn't a solid block. Are you telling me that the top floor of part A could withstand the combined weight of 16 floors falling on top of it?

[dtugg]

NIST? Fine bunch of architects, engineers and physicists, probably, but they lack experience in structural damage analysis. Nobody is perfect, you know. I have informed Richard (Kaiser - boss of Sunder) about this weakness in its structure. No reply, of course. Poor Richard! When will NIST collapse?

As compared to you who uses lemons, pizza boxes, sponges, ect. in an apparent quest to make the most ridiculously stupid models possible. :rolleyes:

[Heiwa]

But the combined weight of the top 16 floors wasn't carried by the highest floor of part A. It was carried by the foundations of part A. Once again, A isn't a solid block. Are you telling me that the top floor of part A could withstand the combined weight of 16 floors falling on top of it?

What I am saying is that primary structure (columns, foundations (?)) of part A could easily carry the top 16 floor via its primary structure.

A floor anywhere is not primary strucure. It just carries what's on it + own weight to the primary structure.

When upper part C contacts part A, evidently part C does not put its combined weight on the top floor of part A. Assuming the columns are gone between C and A, it is only the bottom floor of C that is in contact with the top floor of A and that's not a problem at all.

So where is the combined weight of the upper part C?

Right! In the columns?

And where are the columns?

Well, half the wall columns of part C must be outside part A below, if the other half is inside, and these part C wall columns cannot destroy anything.

The other half of the part C wall columns are inside part A and what are they doing?

Right! They punch holes in part A uppermost floor.

Guess where part A wall columns are doing at the same time?

Right, the part A wall columns inside part C are punching holes in the part C bottom floors.

You see, part C is not a solid block of any kind.

If you read my paper you will learn what happens next and why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

It has nothing to do with weight or combined weight on a floor! You must check where the contact forces are applied and where they displace (=energy) in the structure and what happens during the displacement of forces, e.g. that part C is destroyed and that elements of C and A, e.g. floors get entangled, &c. I can assure you that these forces follow Newton's laws! And that's why C cannot crush down A!

Pls, read my paper again!

[jaydeehess]

What I am saying is that primary structure (columns, foundations (?)) of part A could easily carry the top 16 floor via its primary structure.

A floor anywhere is not primary strucure. It just carries what's on it + own weight to the primary structure.

When upper part C contacts part A, evidently part C does not put its combined weight on the top floor of part A. Assuming the columns are gone between C and A, it is only the bottom floor of C that is in contact with the top floor of A and that's not a problem at all.

Why is it evident that "part C does not put its combined weight on the top floor of part A "? When the columns at the failure foolrs failed they were no longer in alignment Anders. If they are not aligned then where will the lower parts of the columns in the upper section(your part "C" I believe)make contact? Obviously they make contact with the floor span of the highest floor of part A. Now the combined mass of part C certainly is available to fail that floor span. this leaves the upper parts of the columns of part A with no bracing between core and perimeter..

So where is the combined weight of the upper part C?

Right! In the columns?

And where are the columns?

Well, half the wall columns of part C must be outside part A below, if the other half is inside, and these part C wall columns cannot destroy anything.
How 2 dimensional of you. However lets consider that the perimeter columns are half within the perimeter of the structure and half outside.. This would result in half of the part C perimeter columns having no contact whatsoever with part A. the other half are in contact with the floor span of the upper most floor of part A and again now all of the combined mass that was taken by the perimeter columns system is on the floor pan/trusses/truss seats which you admit were never designed to take that mass let alone the dynamic loading that is the result of the upper mass's motion.

The other half of the part C wall columns are inside part A and what are they doing?

Right! They punch holes in part A uppermost floor.

Guess where part A wall columns are doing at the same time?

Right, the part A wall columns inside part C are punching holes in the part C bottom floors.

You see, part C is not a solid block of any kind.

Punching holes next to , or directly above the trusses themselves thus failing the truss seats. In the mean time the same is occuring to the core columns failing truss seats at that end.

Now you have the mass of debris as well as the mass of the still connected portion of part C impacting the next floor down. So now you have twice(or close to twice) the mass that any floorspace/turuss system was designed to accomodate as well as the continuing spearing down of the part C column and this floor then fails as well. In addition all of the falling mass is accellerating due to the continuous pull of gravity. You are increasing the rubble mass impacting lower floors, accellerting that mass as well as the intact portion of the upper, part C.

After a few floors part C is completely ruibblized and that rubble is falling and impacting lower floors. at this time not only does the rubble contain the mass of floor spand and trusses and interior contents, it also includes broken sections of core columns (let's ssume that all perimeter column trees fall outward. the core columns have broken as a result of their loss of bracing to each other and to the perimeter plus the dynamic , chaotics impacts with the falling rubble.

There was no 'bounce' and there is comparitively little force available to have rubble mass ejected to the outside. so the vast majority of accellerating rubble mass stays within the perimeter of the structure until it meets the obviously solid earth.

[Heiwa]

1. Why is it evident that "part C does not put its combined weight on the top floor of part A "? When the columns at the failure foolrs failed they were no longer in alignment Anders. If they are not aligned then where will the lower parts of the columns in the upper section(your part "C" I believe)make contact? Obviously they make contact with the floor span of the highest floor of part A. Now the combined mass of part C certainly is available to fail that floor span. this leaves the upper parts of the columns of part A with no bracing between core and perimeter..

.
2. How 2 dimensional of you. However lets consider that the perimeter columns are half within the perimeter of the structure and half outside.. This would result in half of the part C perimeter columns having no contact whatsoever with part A. the other half are in contact with the floor span of the upper most floor of part A and again now all of the combined mass that was taken by the perimeter columns system is on the floor pan/trusses/truss seats which you admit were never designed to take that mass let alone the dynamic loading that is the result of the upper mass's motion.

3. Punching holes next to , or directly above the trusses themselves thus failing the truss seats. In the mean time the same is occuring to the core columns failing truss seats at that end.

4. Now you have the mass of debris as well as the mass of the still connected portion of part C impacting the next floor down. So now you have twice(or close to twice) the mass that any floorspace/turuss system was designed to accomodate as well as the continuing spearing down of the part C column and this floor then fails as well. In addition all of the falling mass is accellerating due to the continuous pull of gravity. You are increasing the rubble mass impacting lower floors, accellerting that mass as well as the intact portion of the upper, part C.

5. After a few floors part C is completely ruibblized and that rubble is falling and impacting lower floors. at this time not only does the rubble contain the mass of floor spand and trusses and interior contents, it also includes broken sections of core columns (let's ssume that all perimeter column trees fall outward. the core columns have broken as a result of their loss of bracing to each other and to the perimeter plus the dynamic , chaotics impacts with the falling rubble.

6. There was no 'bounce' and there is comparitively little force available to have rubble mass ejected to the outside. so the vast majority of accellerating rubble mass stays within the perimeter of the structure until it meets the obviously solid earth.

You must really read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm !

1. The only weight part C puts on the complete upper floor of part A at first contact is the weight of the bottom floor of part C. It is quite evident.

But even before that happens I assume that C columns punch holes in that A floor and that A columns punch holes in the C bottom floor, so maybe the C bottom floor never contacts the A top floor. Stronger structural elements will always damage weaker structural elements in contact in a collision

But evidently half the A and C wall columns do not punch anything!

2. I work in 3-D. Yes, half the A and C wall columns are outside the structure when other A and C elements contact. Result? The collision becomes UNSYMMETRICAL and no uniform one-way crush down of A by C can even start. C is seriously damaged (and not negligibly damaged as per Bazant).

3. Correct! But floor truss connections to columns are only broken at one column. The floor truss hinges down around the other connection. The only structural failures so far are broken truss connections. No big deal.

4. There is no mass of debris anywhere! Where would it come from? All floor elements are still connected to columns at one end. And rubble - loose elements - cannot do much damage.

5. Not really - part C has suffered serious local failures but there is no rubble - broken elements. All elements are still connected to, e.g. columns. The columns are of course intact (only broken once at initiation). And the floors start to rub against each other. FRICTION develops. Local failures are quickly arrested. Happens everytime!

6. Pls watch any video of the demolition. First the C structure is blown to pieces and soon after the A structure, from top to bottom. No bounce. It does not happen, if you drop a structure C on a structure A where C=1/10 A according the Björkman Axiom about structures (based on Newton's laws). Then there is either a bounce or structure C is locally damaged but no one-way crush down of A. I have to say I am pretty proud to have formulated the Björkman Axiom about structures. Google has already picked it up. Wikipedia is next in line! :)

Watch the fountain of debris throwing 100-ton steel elements 100 m sideways. Sorry - energy provided by gravity is not sufficient for that. Compare a normal controlled demolition - all broken elements drop straight down. Here they use 100 times more energy to demolish the structure.

Where did the energy come from? Study the nano-thermite thread at JREF.

[A W Smith]

Pls, read my paper again!

This is what my dog Toby thinks of your silly "paper"
mZNsVrJWK6s

[jaydeehess]

You must really read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm !

1. The only weight part C puts on the complete upper floor of part A at first contact is the weight of the bottom floor of part C. It is quite evident.
Evident to whom? Just you it seems.

even if you were correct and the floor spans contacted each other the lowest floor of part A will rise off its seat trusses if your senario is correct and deform. the truss seats were desgned to take a downward force not an upward one. You have now doubled the mass on the upper floor of Part C. Nothing is stopping the downward movement of the rtest of part A so if this continues then you will quickly have more mass than the floor truss seats were designed to withstand.

But even before that happens I assume that C columns punch holes in that A floor and that A columns punch holes in the C bottom floor, so maybe the C bottom floor never contacts the A top floor. Stronger structural elements will always damage weaker structural elements in contact in a collision

Aagin making it easier to lift and deform part A floor which is now rubble on top of part C floor.

But evidently half the A and C wall columns do not punch anything!

I still do not know why they must move only inwards and outwards but assuming you are correct then they are also not available to stop their mass ,and the mass of part A , from continuing downward towards part C.

2. I work in 3-D. Yes, half the A and C wall columns are outside the structure when other A and C elements contact. Result? The collision becomes UNSYMMETRICAL and no uniform one-way crush down of A by C can even start. C is seriously damaged (and not negligibly damaged as per Bazant).
It will only be unsymmettrical in that perhaps more columns on one side are outside the structure rather than inside. The center of mass, and thus the great bulk of mass, of part A is still within the perimeter of the structure. Gravity acts on this to carry it towards part C and thus that mass, and its kinetic energy are available to fail the floors of part C

3. Correct! But floor truss connections to columns are only broken at one column. The floor truss hinges down around the other connection. The only structural failures so far are broken truss connections. No big deal.

Those hinges at the core columns will do little to slow the floors from collapsing. Do you really expect a 100 foor cantilever to be supported by floor truss seats that were never expected to have to do so?

4. There is no mass of debris anywhere! Where would it come from? All floor elements are still connected to columns at one end. And rubble - loose elements - cannot do much damage.

Connected in cantiver magical support. Gotcha.

5. Not really - part C has suffered serious local failures but there is no rubble - broken elements. All elements are still connected to, e.g. columns. The columns are of course intact (only broken once at initiation). And the floors start to rub against each other. FRICTION develops. Local failures are quickly arrested. Happens everytime!

In order to arrest the downward travel you still need to have at least most of the mass of part C resting on the truss seats on ONE floor.

6. Pls watch any video of the demolition.
there was no "demolition"
First the C structure is bown to pieces and soon after the A structure, from top to bottom. No bounce.

No bounce required
It does not happen, if you drop a structure C on a structure A where C=1/10 A according the Björkman Axiom about structures (based on Newton's laws). Then there is either a bounce or structure C is locally damaged but no one-way crush down of A. I have to say I am pretty proud to have formulated the Björkman Axiom about structures. Google has already picked it up. Wikipedia is next in line! :)

Wikipedia does not "pick up" anything. It is submissions by contributors. You will need something other than "Björkman'" word on it.


Watch the fountain of debris throwing 100-ton steel elements 100 m sideways. Sorry - energy provided by gravity is not sufficient for that.

Pray tell what would do it then. If explosives are the answer then let's have a number on the size of the explosion required and a link to the sound from them.

You will note that no core columns were ejected out the structure. i wonder why.

Compare a normal controlled demolition - all broken elements drop straight down. Here they use 100 times more energy to demolish the structure.

They also weaken the structure well in advance and time it to do just what they want it to do. Are you claiming that the designers of this supposed demolition required the perimeter column trees to be ejected outward?

Where did the energy come from? Study the nano-thermite thread at JREF.

How does an incidiary eject anything?

[Galileo]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.

JREF is still operating under Aristotle's Laws of motion!

:cool:

[jaydeehess]

JREF is still operating under Aristotle's Laws of motion!

:cool:

So the OP is as far as you've gotten so far GC?

[Heiwa]

Evident to whom? Just you it seems.



All explained in my paper! Read it.

[jaydeehess]

All explained in my paper! Read it.

I read what you had to offer some time ago. Has it changed?

[thewholesoul]

So the combined weight of the top 16 floors of the WTC is not strong enough to destroy the top floor of the lower portion?

your right!

one day i saw a flea hop onto the top of a pinhead.

the flea weighed around 16 mcg which was heavy enough to destroy the first few atoms on the pin. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until there was no pin left, then the flea just hopped away.

I love the last paragraph of your post. NIST, a collection of the finest architects, engineers and physicists in America versus... Your website. And you wonder why the media doesn't report it?

all men are fallible, that includes all those fine scientists at NIST

peace

[T.A.M.]

so now we are comparing a skyscraper to a solid metal pin?

Where to next, neverneverland?

TAM:)

[thewholesoul]

So the combined weight of the top 16 floors of the WTC is not strong enough to destroy the top floor of the lower portion?

one day i placed 110 cardboard boxes on top of each other. i lfted the top 16 and let them fall on the rest of the structure. to combined weight of the 16 was heavy enough to crush the first cardboard box below. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until i had 16 boxes left. but then they were crushed upwards by the impact on the ground!!!!

sarcasm aside, can you porvide just one example in natural world when 1/10th of a rectangular structure crushes 9/10th of the same structure?

until you can do this, you have no empirical knowledge to support your belief that it can happen.

if your belief that 1/10th can crush 9/10th of the same structure cannot be tested, verified or falsified, your belief is more accurately refered to as a metaphysical belief.

peace

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Heiwa
You must really read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm !

1. The only weight part C puts on the complete upper floor of part A at first contact is the weight of the bottom floor of part C. It is quite evident. me
Evident to whom? Just you it seems.
All explained in my paper! Read it.
Your paper simply states that it will be so. It does not state why it must be so.

The following would happen, if the upper part C actually drops; two of its thin but strong walls slide and drop outside and do not damage anything. The other two thin but strong walls slide and fall inside the structure - part A - below and punch holes in or slices the thin, weak floors there locally. No rubble is really formed.

Why is it supposedly evident that two walls go outside and two inside? why cannot some perimeter columns deflect inwards and others outwards, randomly?


The thin, weak floors of the upper part C are in turn locally punched or sliced by the part A strong walls/columns below and will soon be jammed inside the part A walls/columns below.

There is simply not enough connection between trusses and perimeter columns to allow this to occur without forcing the perimeter columns away and outward.

No walls or columns are dropping on other walls or columns producing an impact! Do not believe that the upper part C is solid, rigid, strong or anything like that! It is quite weak. Local failures - weak floors punched and sliced - will be produced at contacts. No crush down will ever start!

Local gravity failures above cannot destroy the steel columns of the intact structure below! All the energy released by dropping upper part C is absorbed by the deformations, failures and fractures of thin floors in the initiation zone and locally in the upper part C and top of lower structure part A and by friction between locally failed floor parts rubbing against each other after initiation and by any loose parts dropping down outside. The crush down or local failures should be arrested inside the initiation zone!


re-read my posts above.


Your senario exists only in your imagination.

[jaydeehess]

I see you claim that energy is consumed. Tell that to a physicist who believes in the conservation of energy.

[stateofgrace]

one day i placed 110 cardboard boxes on top of each other. i lfted the top 16 and let them fall on the rest of the structure. to combined weight of the 16 was heavy enough to crush the first cardboard box below. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until i had 16 boxes left. but then they were crushed upwards by the impact on the ground!!!!

sarcasm aside, can you porvide just one example in natural world when 1/10th of a rectangular structure crushes 9/10th of the same structure?

until you can do this, you have no empirical knowledge to support your belief that it can happen.

if your belief that 1/10th can crush 9/10th of the same structure cannot be tested, verified or falsified, your belief is more accurately refered to as a metaphysical belief.

peace

Is that what you believe happened on Sept 11th?

That 1/10th of the building crushed the other 9/10ths?

[A W Smith]

one day i placed 110 cardboard boxes on top of each other. i lfted the top 16 and let them fall on the rest of the structure. to combined weight of the 16 was heavy enough to crush the first cardboard box below. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until i had 16 boxes left. but then they were crushed upwards by the impact on the ground!!!!
your right!

one day i saw a flea hop onto the top of a pinhead.

the flea weighed around 16 mcg which was heavy enough to destroy the first few atoms on the pin. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until there was no pin left, then the flea just hopped away.



all men are fallible, that includes all those fine scientists at NIST

peace

Scaling argument. Ignore it at your peril. Something all those fine scientists at NIST understand but you deliberately ignore to create your straw man.
Listen to MIT professor Walter Lewin at 11:13 in the video. Then tell us what professor Lewin gets wrong.
4189284798395760590

[T.A.M.]

one day i placed 110 cardboard boxes on top of each other. i lfted the top 16 and let them fall on the rest of the structure. to combined weight of the 16 was heavy enough to crush the first cardboard box below. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until i had 16 boxes left. but then they were crushed upwards by the impact on the ground!!!!

sarcasm aside, can you porvide just one example in natural world when 1/10th of a rectangular structure crushes 9/10th of the same structure?

until you can do this, you have no empirical knowledge to support your belief that it can happen.

if your belief that 1/10th can crush 9/10th of the same structure cannot be tested, verified or falsified, your belief is more accurately refered to as a metaphysical belief.

peace

so answer me this. Why did the scientific community at large not immediately, or even after pondering it, come to the same conclusion you have, that the top section of the WTC could not have crushed down into the remainder and caused the collapse we saw?

Are they all stupid and you the genius???

really, think about it? If what we saw was such an impossibility without CD, then why did we not hear from thousands upon thousands of engineers in scientists screaming, "THAT CAN"T HAPPEN!!!"

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

one day i placed 110 cardboard boxes on top of each other. i lfted the top 16 and let them fall on the rest of the structure. to combined weight of the 16 was heavy enough to crush the first cardboard box below. to my amazment this process continued all the way down until i had 16 boxes left. but then they were crushed upwards by the impact on the ground!!!!

sarcasm aside, can you porvide just one example in natural world when 1/10th of a rectangular structure crushes 9/10th of the same structure?

until you can do this, you have no empirical knowledge to support your belief that it can happen.

if your belief that 1/10th can crush 9/10th of the same structure cannot be tested, verified or falsified, your belief is more accurately refered to as a metaphysical belief.

peace

The columns were not crushed. why is that so very hard for your ilk to understand?

The floor spans brace the perimeter columns to the core columns and the core's flooring does the same between core columns. Crush several floors, take out the connection between core and perimeter and between core columns and those columns will buckle on their own even with out being battered by falling debris. It amtters not that the upper 1/10 is less massive than the lower 9/10

Build a platform of 4 -2X4's and a piece of plywood connecting them. It stands. Take out the plywood and the 4 columns fall away on their own

[stateofgrace]

The columns were not crushed. why is that so very hard for your ilk to understand?

The floor spans brace the perimeter columns to the core columns and the core's flooring does the same between core columns. Crush several floors, take out the connection between core and perimeter and between core columns and those columns will buckle on their own even with out being battered by falling debris. It amtters not that the upper 1/10 is less massive than the lower 9/10

Build a platform of 4 -2X4's and a piece of plywood connecting them. It stands. Take out the plywood and the 4 columns fall away on their own

They don't want to understand, they see the word crush and fixate on it. They dream up imaginary scenarios and lay down absurd challenges based upon. They honestly believe that everybody thinks that 1/10th of the building simply crushed the other 9/10ths. So they dream of pizza boxes, lemons and other absurdities screaming the same silliness over and over again "1/10th of something cannot crush the other 9/10ths"

The fact that this did not happen and has been pointed out countless times, is simply to be ignored, it is better they keep repeating the same thing over and over again and imagine they actually have a valid point.

It's called the grinding down process, kind of like a child repeating the same thing over and over again,despite the fact that they have been told they cannot have a sweetie.This process gets so boring and annoying that it is best to ignore it.

[psikeyhackr]

The columns were not crushed. why is that so very hard for your ilk to understand?

The floor spans brace the perimeter columns to the core columns and the core's flooring does the same between core columns. Crush several floors, take out the connection between core and perimeter and between core columns and those columns will buckle on their own even with out being battered by falling debris. It amtters not that the upper 1/10 is less massive than the lower 9/10

Build a platform of 4 -2X4's and a piece of plywood connecting them. It stands. Take out the plywood and the 4 columns fall away on their own
.
I notice the BEAMS disappeared from the core.

What flooring was there in the core beside that outside the elevators?

Regardless of what word is used, crushed or something else, the MASS still has to be accelerated from the top and the supports beneath that mass overcome. Kind of like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

So why don't we know the distribution of mass through the building? How can a scaled model like Mackey wants be made without that information?

psik

[thewholesoul]

[FONT=Verdana]Is that what you believe happened on Sept 11th?

No I believe the building was demolished by unconventional methods. the point of my post however is merely to highlight THE FACT that the notion of one way crush down has never been proven.

and nobody has given me [COLOR="Red"]just one example how this can occur in the natural world. and that includes you.

So it is You, not I, who believes that approximately 1/10th of a building when dropped can demolish the rest of the intact building below.

i know your little counter argument - but what about the spire - well what about it? according to NIST it was inevitable that it would eventually collapse following collapse intiation i.e. the upper block falling.

as for the other thread, i might as well respond in brief here. just because i find the AVIRIS data the most convincing does not refute the argument that molten steel was present in the rubble pile. the AVIRIS data arrived on the 16th which leaves the obvious window of 5 days. moreover, the AVIRIS recorded surface temperature so it is quite possible that temperatures sufficient to melt steel existed below the surface.

peace

[thewholesoul]

The columns were not crushed. why is that so very hard for your ilk to understand?

semantics eh.

the top portion of the building fell and destroyed the rest of the building.

It matters not that the upper 1/10 is less massive than the lower 9/10

i disagree

Build a platform of 4 -2X4's and a piece of plywood connecting them. It stands. Take out the plywood and the 4 columns fall away on their own

but you can pick them back up and reconstruct the platform. do you know why? because they weren't crushed/destroyed.

give me just one example when 1/10 of a rectangular structure through gravity alone crushes/destroys the rest of the structure below. i know you may be tired of this question, but look at it this way. Imagine i want to believe the official hypothesis that once collapse intiation occured global collapse was inevitable. now i want you to demonstrate this hypothesis - prove to me why it is true via example. can you do that?

peace

[A W Smith]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4596431&postcount=60

Well? what does professor Walter Lewin get wrong TWS?

[thewholesoul]

They dream up imaginary scenarios and lay down absurd challenges based upon.

why do you consider it absurd to prove your own beliefs through example? this is standard practice in science i.e. one must be able to reproduce the same outcome via experimentation.

They honestly believe that everybody thinks that 1/10th of the building simply crushed the other 9/10ths. So they dream of pizza boxes, lemons and other absurdities

i know you dont like answering questions but what do you believe then?

personally i dream of a 1/10th or 1/5th scale model and recontructing the event. i would wager 100 dollars it would not globally collapse.

screaming the same silliness over and over again "1/10th of something cannot crush the other 9/10ths"

we are screaming for you guys to PROVE your belief that once collapse initiation occurs (and the upper portion falls on the rest) then global collapse is inevitable.

The fact that this did not happen

YOU believe that the buildings were destroyed because the top part fell.

It's called the grinding down process, kind of like a child repeating the same thing over and over again,despite the fact that they have been told they cannot have a sweetie.This process gets so boring and annoying that it is best to ignore it.

so you cant provide just one example of 1/10 destroying the rest of the structure when dropped? fine, just admit it, admit that your belief remains unproven by empirical demonstration.

peace

[thewholesoul]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4596431&postcount=60 Well? what does professor Walter Lewin get wrong TWS?

that is why i would love to see a 1/3 scale model being tested.

but there has to be some way to test the official hypothesis? Grizzly suggested once to scale the towers down would be like having sheets of conrete as thin as paper and as wide as the room. i like his idea because there must be a way to construct a minature and still respect the scaling laws. perhaps have columns made of pasta or something?

peace

[3bodyproblem]

so answer me this. Why did the scientific community at large not immediately, or even after pondering it, come to the same conclusion you have, that the top section of the WTC could not have crushed down into the remainder and caused the collapse we saw?

Are they all stupid and you the genius???


TAM:)

2 years and I've never seen this answered. We all know why they never answer this. They know why too. It drives them mad in the end. Stark raving clickety clackety-oh nos-tehermite-gubmint!-joos!-open your eyes sheeple-steven jones lovin-pizza box tower building-iron spherule-MAD!

It's kinda funny.

[mark4mark]

personally i dream of a 1/10th or 1/5th scale model and recontructing the event. i would wager 100 dollars it would not globally collapse.

Comments like this exhibit just how ignorant you are of structures and engineering.
This helps explain why you are looking past the precedent-setting event seeking to find a precedent!
My goodness.

[thewholesoul]

so answer me this. Why did the scientific community at large not immediately, or even after pondering it, come to the same conclusion you have, that the top section of the WTC could not have crushed down into the remainder and caused the collapse we saw?

Are they all stupid and you the genius???

really, think about it? If what we saw was such an impossibility without CD, then why did we not hear from thousands upon thousands of engineers in scientists screaming, "THAT CAN"T HAPPEN!!!" TAM:)

i am no genius, i think we both know that. :)

but to answer i dont know why more people (because there were some) werent screaming "this cant happen".

the reason i say that is because the only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition. this is a fact.

so given that nobody has ever witnessed a small fraction of a building literally crushing/destroying the rest it is quite puzzling to me why so many people accepted it. (including myself)

given the fact that since then it has never been recreated or physically demonstrated to be true in any way shape or form only serves to further puzzle me as to why people continue to believe it to be true?

why do you believe its true when it has never been empirically tested or proven to be true? think about that and so should any scientist who shares your belief.

peace

[thewholesoul]

Comments like this exhibit just how ignorant you are of structures and engineering.
This helps explain why you are looking past the precedent-setting event seeking to find a precedent!
My goodness.

no need to be rude, i come here for polite conversation thanks.

the simple point i am making is that the global collapse hypothesis remains empirically unproven. i am not ignorant of this fact.

peace

[T.A.M.]

the word ignorant is not always meant in a rude fashion. I am ignorant to many things, and I do not find it insulting if someone reminds me of it...we are not all gods.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

why do you believe its true when it has never been empirically tested or proven to be true? think about that and so should any scientist who shares your belief.

peace

I believe it is true, because I am not an expert in the fields of physics, or civil/structural engineering. Therefore, I look to see what the majority of experts in those fields think on the subject.

If, after the collapses I had started to read about how the engineering community in the USA was up in arms about how the WTCs could not have collapsed the way they did from a top down collapse as NIST described, then I would be questioning it as loudly as anyone.

Of course, engineers can be wrong. One, two, perhaps dozens. But that is not what we see here. We see the overwhelming majority, 99.9999% of the engineers in the USA have not spoken up, have not declared what happened could not have happened.

As for the requirement of empirical testing to prove it is true, well one has to be able to reconstruct the event to test it empirically, and I think in this case that would be an impossibility. I believe that Dinosaurs existed, despite only having fossil records to prove it, not the dinos themselves....get my drift.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

that is why i would love to see a 1/3 scale model being tested.

but there has to be some way to test the official hypothesis? Grizzly suggested once to scale the towers down would be like having sheets of conrete as thin as paper and as wide as the room. i like his idea because there must be a way to construct a minature and still respect the scaling laws. perhaps have columns made of pasta or something?

peace

1/3rd scale modeling and testing would only be valid, if it could be guaranteed that an extrapolation of the results from such testing would be, with 100% certainly, accurate to the full scale event.

TAM:)

[3bodyproblem]

but to answer i dont know why more people (because there were some) werent screaming "this cant happen".


This is a lie. You know why, you just refuse to accept it. Who are trying to kid with this "It truly is a mystery to me" line of BS? This is denial at its finest.

No offence, I'm sure you are a nice person, but you need to get real. The reason people weren't screaming "this can't happen" is because they understand it could and did happen. If you don't believe me, start asking people. good luck.

[dtugg]

i am no genius, i think we both know that. :)

but to answer i dont know why more people (because there were some) werent screaming "this cant happen".

the reason i say that is because the only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition. this is a fact.

so given that nobody has ever witnessed a small fraction of a building literally crushing/destroying the rest it is quite puzzling to me why so many people accepted it. (including myself)

given the fact that since then it has never been recreated or physically demonstrated to be true in any way shape or form only serves to further puzzle me as to why people continue to believe it to be true?

why do you believe its true when it has never been empirically tested or proven to be true? think about that and so should any scientist who shares your belief.

peace

Never before has a large skyscraper been wired for demolition in total secrecy while still occupied. See how that works? Why does you incredulity only work one way? (I already know why).

[Dave Rogers]

No I believe the building was demolished by unconventional methods. the point of my post however is merely to highlight THE FACT that the notion of one way crush down has never been proven.

and nobody has given me just one example how this can occur in the natural world. and that includes you.

How about the Balzac tower as a starting point? Let's imagine that there'd been another thirty storeys below the structure. Would that have prevented the top six from destroying the six they actually destroyed? And when all that falling rubble got to the next floor down, would it have destroyed that one, or stopped dead, or what? How much further would the destruction have progressed, and what would have stopped it?

The Balzac tower is an excellent example of crush-down followed by crush-up. The sequence is quite clearly visible from the video.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news

Watch the upper block fall almost intact through the lower, then ask yourself why this wouldn't happen if you added more storeys below the initiation zone.

Dave

[Minadin]

that is why i would love to see a 1/3 scale model being tested.

but there has to be some way to test the official hypothesis? Grizzly suggested once to scale the towers down would be like having sheets of conrete as thin as paper and as wide as the room. i like his idea because there must be a way to construct a minature and still respect the scaling laws. perhaps have columns made of pasta or something?

peace

A 1/3 scale model is still 460ft (160m) tall with a 70'x70' building footprint. (21m x 21m). In most cities, that's still a full-sized skyscraper. You won't be building those columns out of pasta.

I think you might be missing the point with regard to the difficulties involved with scaling. You have to be certain that you're replicating all the various properties of the structural materials in miniature while accounting for the differences in myriad forces compared to the full-sized thing. For instance, you simply can't have paper-thin concrete and expect it to act anything like the real deal - you're not going to be able to mimic the correct reinforcement, aggregate, air entrainment, etc.

If your goal is to actually study the progression of a collapse like the WTC, you're going to need to do a whole lot of math to check all of the various load paths versus failure modes and material properties in both the original design and your scale model. I would suggest at least a post-graduate degree in civil engineering, physics, or maybe a team comprised of people with each.

In any event, you might want to start out with some computer models, as they are much easier to set up over and over again for repeatability, and much less expensive to build. A 1/3 scale model of just 1 of the WTC towers would cost hundreds of millions of dollars just to construct - never mind all of the design and engineering that would have to go into producing the first one. It would cost you hundreds of millions again each time you wanted to repeat the experiment. No one is going to sign on for that.

You can cut out a lot of the cost, and a lot of the math (even more cost) by going with a computer model, which you wouldn't have to scale down at all, and can repeat over and over as often as you like.

[stateofgrace]

i know you dont like answering questions but what do you believe then?

Why bother asking when you have already assumed what other people believe?

we are screaming for you guys to PROVE your belief that once collapse initiation occurs (and the upper portion falls on the rest) then global collapse is inevitable.

YOU believe that the buildings were destroyed because the top part fell.


It as been explained in this thread and many other threads what the vast majority of people believe, that being once a massive dynamic weight fell into the floor truss system that could not stop it falling, they failed. The massive upper weight could not be arrested by the FLOORS. The building did not get crushed; one of the support systems was seriously and violently dislodged.

This appears to be commonly accepted by the vast majority of the planet. If you believe that this did not happen then prove it, stop asking me or anybody else to disprove your theories, the burden of proof is yours. You believe this did not happen, you believe that secret death squads went into fully occupied buildings and planted lots and lots of explosives. Then prove it. Feel free to use pizza boxes or lemons to prove it all,I can hardly wait.

[Mr X]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.




Looks like you just couldn't wait till 1st April....

[nicepants]

What I am saying is that primary structure (columns, foundations (?)) of part A could easily carry the top 16 floor via its primary structure.

I can easily carry a 45lb plate in the gym, even with a large "FOS" (I can carry several), but if someone dropped that 45lb plate from about 10 feet overhead I don't think I'd be able to catch it and keep it from hitting the
ground.

How can this be? I can carry a 45lb weight, and the mass of the plate hasn't changed. I should, therefore, be able to stop the plate from falling if your theory is correct. BUT the falling plate has an increasing downward velocity which must also be arrested. This requires more energy/strength than simply holding it.


sarcasm aside, can you porvide just one example in natural world when 1/10th of a rectangular structure crushes 9/10th of the same structure?

What's the relevance? That's not what any of us are claiming happened on 9/11.

[Heiwa]

I can easily carry a 45lb plate in the gym, even with a large "FOS" (I can carry several), but if someone dropped that 45lb plate from about 10 feet overhead I don't think I'd be able to catch it and keep it from hitting the
ground.

How can this be? I can carry a 45lb weight, and the mass of the plate hasn't changed. I should, therefore, be able to stop the plate from falling if your theory is correct. BUT the falling plate has an increasing downward velocity which must also be arrested. This requires more energy/strength than simply holding it.



If you have same structure as the 45lb weight and are heavier, then the 45lb weight cannot crush you/your structure.

My Axiom refers to similar structures:

You cannot one-way crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure part A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on part A using gravity. Part C either bounces on part A or gets damaged in contact with part A and is stopped by part A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure part A doesn't matter the least. Part C of part A cannot destroy part A.

BTW I am also building up strength at a gym. 40 years ago I could lift 178 lb. Today I struggle with 70 lb. My objective is to lift 100 lb!

[Grizzly Bear]

so given that nobody has ever witnessed a small fraction of a building literally crushing/destroying the rest it is quite puzzling to me why so many people accepted it. (including myself)

peace

It's been mentioned several times in here subsequent to your post so sorry for adding to the deluge, but I'll add my feedback. I'll be honest in that trying to claim that 1/10 of a building can't crush 9/10 or whatever is essentially a moot point. The question boils down to whether the structure that's there can carry the weight. There are several things you're not even considering when you ask your questions here.

Firstly you seem unaware that an accelerating mass exerts a dynamic load on whatever it lands on. The mass of the entire top section of just the north tower alone when falling on the lower section in dynamic load was the rough equivalent of putting 8 g's worth of force on those floors. That's about the equivalent of adding an additional 80 stories or another building height to the weight which the individual floors had to carry. And that's calculating for a fall from one story, not 4 or 5 as was the case for the towers. I somehow doubt the welds and bolts on each of the floor connections is going to stop all of that additional loading. The upper section of the south tower would have hit the lower section with a force equivalent to more than double the height of the tower.

If you have same structure as the 45lb weight and are heavier, then the 45lb weight cannot crush you/your structure.

My Axiom refers to similar structures:

<snip>


THought about it... but what good does it do to correct you when you actively brush it off for over 2 years?

[Heiwa]

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The area of the WTC below the impacts was not a solid unit and therefore could not resist as a solid unit. Whereas the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit and quickly overwhelmed each floor's individual load capacity. and the collapse speed would have increased as was witnessed.

Sorry, the mass coming down essentially was 1 unit is not true. It, mass/structure above, was much weaker than the structure below and would be broken into pieces at once at contact as a result of Newton's third law. No collapse is possible by dropping a little structure on a big structure.

[Heiwa]

It's been mentioned several times in here subsequent to your post so sorry for adding to the deluge, but I'll add my feedback. I'll be honest in that trying to claim that 1/10 of a building can't crush 9/10 or whatever is essentially a moot point. The question boils down to whether the structure that's there can carry the weight. There are several things you're not even considering when you ask your questions here.

Firstly you seem unaware that an accelerating mass exerts a dynamic load on whatever it lands on. The mass of the entire top section of just the north tower alone when falling on the lower section in dynamic load was the rough equivalent of putting 8 g's worth of force on those floors. That's about the equivalent of adding an additional 80 stories or another building height to the weight which the individual floors had to carry. And that's calculating for a fall from one story, not 4 or 5 as was the case for the towers. I somehow doubt the welds and bolts on each of the floor connections is going to stop all of that additional loading. The upper section of the south tower would have hit the lower section with a force equivalent to more than double the height of the tower.

You are talking nonsense as usual. You see, a static mass/structure A exerts a dynamic load on whatever mass/structure C that lands on it after a gravity drop and destroys this C, when C has same structure as A (and C<1/10A).

This is Newton's third law at action. You cannot beat it. Drop any C on A in any size/scale and watch! Basic high school physics (until 9/11/01?).

I understand you watch Hollywood/Disney films, where C crushes A, but it is just fantasy.

[Grizzly Bear]

You are talking nonsense as usual. You see, a static mass/structure A exerts a dynamic load on whatever mass/structure C that lands on it after a gravity drop and destroys this C, when C has same structure as A (and C<1/10A).
When a dynamic load exceeds 8 times the structure's static load the 1/10 vs 9/10 deal is pointless for reasons I've already explained... if the load exceeds what individual members of the structural system can sustain, then it will fail.


This is Newton's third law at action. You cannot beat it.
The law always applies. It doesn't guarantee however that the said objects will survive in the process. Unless of course you can name an object on this planet that has infinitesimal strength so it can continue offering resistance to a force without ever failing.


I understand you watch Hollywood/Disney films, where C crushes A, but it is just fantasy.
Go back to college :)

[nicepants]

If you have same structure as the 45lb weight and are heavier, then the 45lb weight cannot crush you/your structure.

My Axiom refers to similar structures:

Let's replace the plate with a similar structure...another person.

I can lift/carry a 100lb person but if that person falls from a height of 10 feet I will not be able to catch them and would probably be severely injured (crushed) if they landed on me.

[Heiwa]

When a dynamic load exceeds 8 times the structure's static load the 1/10 vs 9/10 deal is pointless for reasons I've already explained... if the load exceeds what individual members of the structural system can sustain, then it will fail.


A dynamic load is always applied to two bodies at contact, C and A. As A is bigger than C, C fails before A.

What 'it' will fail?

[Heiwa]

Let's replace the plate with a similar structure...another person.

I can lift/carry a 100lb person but if that person falls from a height of 10 feet I will not be able to catch them and would probably be severely injured (crushed) if they landed on me.

Yes, let's do that. Say you are 200 lb person A that stand on ground and a 20 lb person/baby (?) C drops on you from a certain height - 10 feet?. Note C = 1/10 A. What happens? With luck C (he or she but not them) may bounce on you and both survive.

You don't suppose that baby C will crush you, big A?

[nicepants]

Yes, let's do that. Say you are 200 lb person A that stand on ground and a 20 lb person/baby (?) C drops on you from a certain height - 10 feet?. Note C = 1/10 A. What happens? With luck C (he or she but not them) may bounce on you and both survive.

You don't suppose that baby C will crush you, big A?

The difference between the example you just posted and reality is that I could probably catch a 20lb baby that fell from 10 feet without being crushed. This does not change the fact that:

I can lift/carry a 100lb person but if that person falls from a height of 10 feet I will not be able to catch them and would probably be severely injured (crushed) if theythat person landed on me.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

[Myriad]

Better yet -- start with this:

http://www.guzer.com/pictures/big_human_pyramid.jpg

They can all support the weight they're carrying -- probably with a considerable safety margin, since otherwise the risk of members of the group being crippled or killed while doing this stunt would be extremely high.

But if you were to take that person who's on all fours at the top, who is most likely the smallest and lightest individual in the group, and drop him or her from ten feet higher onto the two below, which of the guys in turquoise and white would remain standing, and why? Do you think they would "entangle" in one another near the top and that would arrest the collapse? I've seen cheerleader "pyramids" collapsing and I'm pretty certain all of them would end up in a pile on the ground, some of them seriously injured. (Possibly a few of them from part of the perimeter of the bottom layer would remain standing, something like this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/docs/wtc065c.jpg)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

A dynamic load is always applied to two bodies at contact, C and A. As A is bigger than C, C fails before A.

What 'it' will fail?

As explained ad nauseum...

the lower portion of C and upper portion of A fail creating a lot of unconnected material(debris). That debris has mass.
That debris will eventually be on another floorspan as well as the rest of C coming down and impacting that floorspan, again the lower part of C and upper part of A fail creating more debris and more mass to fall to the next floor, etc, etc, etc. Eventually C is completely rubblized but it still has mass that will still have to find its way to the next floorspan down by which time the debris is also moving faster and every single particle will impart its own dynamic load on the next floorspan.

Think of this. Just taking the mass of the floor spans(concrete, trusses, office contents) into account, how many floors worth of mass could you place on a single floor before that floor fails under the static load? 3? 5 ? Certainly not 10, 15?
So, all one needs is that mass to fall onto a floor in order to strip it away from the columns. If it strips away from only one side it will NOT be held up at all in a cantilever fashion by the truss seats. It is a 40 foot long span so if it just hinges down it will still fail the seat but its a moot point as even if only hinging down the bulk of the mass of that floor will still impact the next floor down and if it also hinges then the first hinge extends for two floors.

In a post/beam building the hinge would not affect as long a span or as wide an area.

Anyway you cut it the floors fail,

No floor connections = an inability for columns to resist buckling.

[Heiwa]

As explained ad nauseum...

the lower portion of C and upper portion of A fail creating a lot of unconnected material(debris). That debris has mass.
That debris will eventually be on another floorspan as well as the rest of C coming down and impacting that floorspan, again the lower part of C and upper part of A fail creating more debris and more mass to fall to the next floor, etc, etc, etc. Eventually C is completely rubblized but it still has mass that will still have to find its way to the next floorspan down by which time the debris is also moving faster and every single particle will impart its own dynamic load on the next floorspan.

Think of this. Just taking the mass of the floor spans(concrete, trusses, office contents) into account, how many floors worth of mass could you place on a single floor before that floor fails under the static load? 3? 5 ? Certainly not 10, 15?
So, all one needs is that mass to fall onto a floor in order to strip it away from the columns. If it strips away from only one side it will NOT be held up at all in a cantilever fashion by the truss seats. It is a 40 foot long span so if it just hinges down it will still fail the seat but its a moot point as even if only hinging down the bulk of the mass of that floor will still impact the next floor down and if it also hinges then the first hinge extends for two floors.

In a post/beam building the hinge would not affect as long a span or as wide an area.

Anyway you cut it the floors fail,

No floor connections = an inability for columns to resist buckling.

Debris producing a one-way crush down?? Pls visit The Heiwa Challenge thread and produce a suitable composite structure that can be one-way crushed down. Nobody has managed it so far.

So how much debris - scattered broken pieces, if any, is formed at the first contact C against A? Say that C has mass 33 000 tonnes and A has mass 300 000 tons and that A carries C before debris is formed. Is it 100 or 1000 tons? And what does this debris consist of? A broken concrete floor? And are all debris loose? How was all this debris formed.

Are you suggesting that pouring debris on an intact structure, the latter will collapse and also become debris - scattered broken pieces?

Any examples of this?

If you read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll learn that according to Bazant and Co 3 600 tonnes of debris - shredded steel/concrete structure - was formed at first contact (with density 1.025) - in less than a second - and that you only required 0.05 kWh/tonne energy for that.

It is only 700 times less energy required to shred a car.

Imagine upper portion C - very light weight structure, 95% air, uniform density 0.2, producing 3 600 tonnes of debris in less than a second and using only 0.05 kWh/tonne for it.

Your PC probably uses more energy so you can read this message and you believe it can produce one ton of debris?

Sorry, you are living in fantasy land.

[debunker9145]

Mr. X If you know anything at all about physics and how the towers were constructed you would know i am right.

Now come join everyone else who does not subscribe to your hypothesis's in a little place called reality land. :)

[debunker9145]

Heiwa- each floor has its own load capacity. When there is a weight on top of the floor that exceeds the load capacity that floor will fail.

[jaydeehess]

Debris producing a one-way crush down?? Pls visit The Heiwa Challenge thread and produce a suitable composite structure that can be one-way crushed down. Nobody has managed it so far.

So how much debris - scattered broken pieces, if any, is formed at the first contact C against A? Say that C has mass 33 000 tonnes and A has mass 300 000 tons and that A carries C before debris is formed. Is it 100 or 1000 tons? And what does this debris consist of? A broken concrete floor? And are all debris loose? How was all this debris formed.

Are you suggesting that pouring debris on an intact structure, the latter will collapse and also become debris - scattered broken pieces?

Any examples of this?

If you read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm you'll learn that according to Bazant and Co 3 600 tonnes of debris - shredded steel/concrete structure - was formed at first contact (with density 1.025) - in less than a second - and that you only required 0.05 kWh/tonne energy for that.

It is only 700 times less energy required to shred a car.

Imagine upper portion C - very light weight structure, 95% air, uniform density 0.2, producing 3 600 tonnes of debris in less than a second and using only 0.05 kWh/tonne for it.

Your PC probably uses more energy so you can read this message and you believe it can produce one ton of debris?



I asked you how much mass a floorspan could hold before it would succumb to just the static load of that mass. Given that a tonnne of paper has the same mass as a tonne of concrete the static load from either tonne is the same it matters not whether the mass is one solid piece or many small pieces. The load will have to be distributed to the truss seats and via them , to the columns. Fail the truss seats and the columns do not enter into it anymore for that mass or the now failed floor.

An example, ok , an avalanche, scattered unconnected snow, can easily turn a house into broken scattered debris. that is an extreme example but it puts the lie to your contention that the house could only succumb to something of equal solidity.

The orginal debris mass is now supplemented by the failed floor's mass AND it will ALL impact the next floor down. If one floor could not survive the lesser mass then the next one has less of a chance to do so either.

I have read your 'paper' and you do not support the contentions you propose are axioms. Instead you simply claim they are axioms and therefore it would not be neccessary to prove them.

Upper structure weight compared to lower structure weight has no bearing at all on the situation. Each floor was identical, only the columns varied. Each floor then would fail with about the same load. Given that the load of debris was increasing as was the dynamic impact (the debris was getting faster) , if the first lower floor could not arrest collapse then the lower ones certainly wouldn't.
No floors = no perimeter to core bracing = column instability and buckling

Tell me again that energy is "consumed".

[thewholesoul]

The only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition

Never before has a large skyscraper been wired for demolition in total secrecy while still occupied. See how that works? Why does you incredulity only work one way? (I already know why).

1. I noted that you did not disagree with my statement that “The only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition.”

2. Likewise I do not disagree with your statement above.

3. But which is more improbable? (a) the global collapse of a steel framed building without contolled demolition? or (b) covertly planting explosives in a building? If (a) is impossible then (b) must be true, and if (b) is impossible then (a) must be false.

4. In any case, the simple point I was making is that (a) has not been empirically proven yet

peace

[thewholesoul]

why do you believe its true when it has never been empirically tested or proven to be true?

I believe it is true, because I am not an expert in the fields of physics, or civil/structural engineering. Therefore, I look to see what the majority of experts in those fields think on the subject.

More people does not = more true
More experts does not = more true

But I accept your point, it is a perfectly valid position to adopt given the lack of empirical truth.

The reason I posed the question however was because the claim that “post collapse initiation, global collapse was inevitable”, is a physical claim. This claim has never been physically proven or demonstrated and by arguing that any physical test of this claim is impossible only serves to confirm the point I am making.

Science is based on empirical truth and knowledge. This is why experiments trump any and all authoratative statements.

indeed without empirical knowledge even crap magicians would make a hell of a lot of money.

We see the overwhelming majority, 99.9999% of the engineers in the USA have not spoken up, have not declared what happened could not have happened.

There is over 600 archetects and engineers claiming otherwise.

As for the requirement of empirical testing to prove it is true, well one has to be able to reconstruct the event to test it empirically, and I think in this case that would be an impossibility. I believe that Dinosaurs existed, despite only having fossil records to prove it, not the dinos themselves....get my drift.

What do you think a crocodile is?

peace

[thewholesoul]

How about the Balzac tower as a starting point? Let's imagine that there'd been another thirty storeys below the structure. Would that have prevented the top six from destroying the six they actually destroyed?

To be honest no. It was a great video and forces me to seriously question my belief that the lower structure was demolished by controlled demolition. It is the kind of empirical demonstration that I think we all need more of.

But lets take a closer look.

There was 14 floors in total. The falling upper block consisted of 6 floors. Two floors between the upper block and the lower block were taken out. The lower block consisted of 6 blocks.

In terms of ratio, i am sure you will agree, 1/2 crushing the other 1/2 seems more intuitively feasible than 1/10 crushing 9/10. And of course the video plainly demonstrates that the former is true.

However do you think that if the 11 and 12th floors were taken out that the upper block of 2 floors would crush the remainder of the building? Because that was what we are expected to believe happened to the North Tower.

Moreover assuming there was another 36 floors below the structure that would make a total of 60 floors. Do you think that the falling 6 floors would crush the rest of the building below? I agree that the first six would crush the next 6 but would this process continue all the way to the ground, I am uncertain but I would concede that it seems highly probable.

The Balzac tower is an excellent example of crush-down followed by crush-up.

Yes the Balzac tower was an excellent example of controlled demolition. This required taking out all the vertical columns. The core columns in wtc acted as the vertical support structures. The wtc 1 antenna was visibly the first thing to drop. This suggests that the core columns were the first to fail. This would contradict NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis. What mechanism do you think could take out the wtc core columns?

indeed assuming that the crush down - crush up theory is valid then someone with this knowledge would need do nothing more than take out a small section of the core columns. interestingly the exact floors were the columns failed was also where a fireproofing upgrade had occured.

And what about buidling 7? What took out its vertical support strutures? An office fire? I am sorry but I cannot buy this hypothesis until it has been demonstrated.

peace

[thewholesoul]

In any event, you might want to start out with some computer models, as they are much easier to set up over and over again for repeatability, and much less expensive to build.

If i were to make a computer simulation of the wtc towers being demolished by preplanted explosives would that prove that the towers were demolished by preplanted explosives?

That said, you still make a valid point and i would welcome computer modelling on the global collapse. Something NIST never even attempted.

A 1/3 scale model of just 1 of the WTC towers would cost hundreds of millions of dollars just to construct - never mind all of the design and engineering that would have to go into producing the first one. It would cost you hundreds of millions again each time you wanted to repeat the experiment. No one is going to sign on for that.

The U.S. tax payer spent a hell of lot of millions on the monika lewinsky scandal.

But I agree with what your saying. Unfortunately the global collapse hypothesis will remain empirically unproven as a consequence.

peace

[thewholesoul]

Why bother asking when you have already assumed what other people believe?

What makes you believe I assume anything?

It as been explained in this thread and many other threads what the vast majority of people believe, that being once a massive dynamic weight fell into the floor truss system that could not stop it falling, they failed. The massive upper weight could not be arrested by the FLOORS.

I hope you can appreciate that Explanation is not the same as Demonstration?

Dave Rogers sent an excellent video that forces me to question the belief that the lower section of the tower was demolished by preplanted explosives. Indeed assuming teh crsuh down-crsuh up hypothesis is true then the only section needed to be taken out were the same areas where the fireproofing just happened to be upgraded. (of course this also happens to be the same area where the airoplane struck, but the airoplane did not take out the core columns).

The building did not get crushed; one of the support systems was seriously and violently dislodged.

The building did get crushed/destroyed/demolished etc. That is why it is not there today my friend.

This appears to be commonly accepted by the vast majority of the planet.

A “majority” once thought the world was flat aswell. But after seeing the Balzac Vitry video I beleive i may be be joining the "majority" soon myself.

If you believe that this did not happen then prove it, stop asking me or anybody else to disprove your theories, the burden of proof is yours.

Listen, NIST made the claim, not me, that once collapse initiation occurs global collapse is inevitable. This is their claim – a physical claim – that they did not prove empirically. If what i am saying to you now is false or untrue you could simply point to the test, experiment, or demonstration when NIST proved their physical claim empirically.

Asking me to prove their claim only confirms the simple point I am making, namely, that NIST’s claim remains empirically unproven.

You believe this did not happen,

On the contrary i am in the process on changing my mind in relation to the issue in question because none of my current beliefs are beyond revision and hence they are all subject to change.

you believe that secret death squads went into fully occupied buildings and planted lots and lots of explosives. Then prove it.

It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility to assume the role of a professional worker claiming to be “upgrading the fireproofing” and plant some explosives.

peace

[Grizzly Bear]

The only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition

Pretty irrelevant. So if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it never happened before? What the hell happened when the first controlled demolition was done? Was that even possible under your premise?

There are multiple flaws with that jump of the gun... you're usually polite, but you clearly don't think much about the implications of your claims despite the best of your efforts to portray yourself as reasonably intelligent in these areas. Your inability to incorporate considerations for design and any other failure mechanism leaves me -- as it has many times in the past with you -- unimpressed. I would seriously suggest that you consider reading architectural publications and not just the crap coming from Jones, and Richard Gage. Content from either of them is clearly not helping you.


3. But which is more improbable? (a) the global collapse of a steel framed building without contolled demolition? or (b) covertly planting explosives in a building? If (a) is impossible then (b) must be true, and if (b) is impossible then (a) must be false.

Considering the towers experienced a degree of destruction as yet unseen by any other building of similar size, covert operations are by far the least "probable." Your inability to believe "A" is in fact the case stems from your gross lack of understanding in the relevant areas that would otherwise lead your conclusion elsewhere.

4. In any case, the simple point I was making is that (a) has not been empirically proven yet

peace
It has been empiracally proven for decades that structural steel will fail if it is exposed to any kind of substantial heat. Ramming a jet into the structural load bearing members does not help this. To what extent this failure projects itself will inevitably be dependent on how the building in question was constructed. The towers biggest strength in reducing column coverage inside office space was also one of it's biggest detriments. By your premise, if the dynamic load of the upper section in either tower could not be sufficient to propagate the collapse then you are as well off to claim that it was impossible for the planes to ram through the exterior columns...


G'night...

[Minadin]

If i were to make a computer simulation of the wtc towers being demolished by preplanted explosives would that prove that the towers were demolished by preplanted explosives?

That said, you still make a valid point and i would welcome computer modelling on the global collapse. Something NIST never even attempted.



The U.S. tax payer spent a hell of lot of millions on the monika lewinsky scandal.

But I agree with what your saying. Unfortunately the global collapse hypothesis will remain empirically unproven as a consequence.

peace

It's not empirically unproven - the phenomenon has been observed at least twice in nature, and was in fact one (or two?) of the most extensively documented building collapses in history.

I noticed that you ignored the top half of my post addressing the math and engineering challenges of designing a scaled-down physical model. You do understand, or you should understand, that things start to get a bit wacky mathematically when you reduce (or expand) dimensions, right? You can't just shrink the thing with a magic Roy-Rogers shrinking ray and expect all the material properties to scale exactly as they would in the larger version. It just doesn't work out like that.

And, I'm talking about very basic properties of building materials, not the super-technical engineering properties that would still have to be investigated, but very basic things like weight.



Take concrete, for instance, since it's the material which was suggested originally. The density of concrete is such that it's 150 lbs per cubic foot, normally, but they used lightweight concrete in the floor pans of the WTC, so it's probably closer to 120 lbs / ft3. Well, if the concrete is 3" thick on an average floor, that means that every square foot weighs 30lbs. 208'x208' per floor gives us roughly 43,000 ft2, weighing around 1.3 million pounds in total.

Now, if we scale it down to 1/3 size, in each dimension, we're looking at a 70'x70' floor plan (each length is one third of the original) giving us 4,900 square feet per floor (one ninth of the original) and since the concrete's only 1" thick now, instead of 3", we're down to 10 lbs per ft2 giving us only 49,000 pounds of concrete in an average floor (one twenty-seventh of the original weight).

So, various material properties and structural variables are changing at different rates when we start changing scale, and in order to make certain that our model is accurate, we're going to have to account for each and every one of these, mathematically, as part of the design of the model.



By the way - the NIST did not investigate the progression of the collapse because that was not their task. They studied the conditions up to the point where things started moving because that is what actually interests the professional building designers and code writers. We are not interested in arresting a collapse once it starts so much as preventing any collapse in the first place, if possible. (Though I understand that our colleagues in Europe have done a fair bit of code revision with regard to preventing progressive collapses)

Also, you will probably be relieved to learn that there are already some research groups which have modeled both the impacts and collapses in order to gain a better understanding of how they occurred. I'm certain that with only a moderate amount of investigoogling, you'll come across these.

[stateofgrace]

What makes you believe I assume anything?

Did you forget what you posted? Please allow me to remind you

YOU believe that the buildings were destroyed because the top part fell.
Do you see your assumption, or is it too blindingly obvious for you?


I hope you can appreciate that Explanation is not the same as Demonstration? I hope you appreciate there is no need for a demonstration once a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided.
The building did get crushed/destroyed/demolished etc. That is why it is not there today my friend.
Is this the day you start to point out the bleeding obvious and totally miss this point of what was actually said?
A “majority” once thought the world was flat aswell. But after seeing the Balzac Vitry video I beleive i may be be joining the "majority" soon myself.
And here it is, totally underestimating the rest of the planets intelligence and imagining that they as easily fooled, whereby not you, you are special,you can see that the towers were demolished. The fact that everybody else cannot makes them flat earth believes, do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

The earth as been proved not to be flat, the collapse of the towers by anything other than the planes and the fires has not, when you are ready please proceed to

Listen, NIST made the claim, not me, that once collapse initiation occurs global collapse is inevitable. This is their claim – a physical claim – that they did not prove empirically. If what i am saying to you now is false or untrue you could simply point to the test, experiment, or demonstration when NIST proved their physical claim empirically. It has been explained, the fact that you refuse to accept this explanation is your problem, not the rest of the planets nor NISTs, who owe you and you ilk nothing.
Asking me to prove their claim only confirms the simple point I am making, namely, that NIST’s claim remains empirically unproven.
See above.
On the contrary i am in the process on changing my mind in relation to the issue in question because none of my current beliefs are beyond revision and hence they are all subject to change.
Really?

It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility to assume the role of a professional worker claiming to be “upgrading the fireproofing” and plant some explosives. Yep you have show what a reasonable sort you are, demanding demonstrations, demanding explanation, even though it has been thoroughly explained and then drifting off into your own fantasies. Yep, sure it is possible that death squads plants lots of lots of explosives inside three full occupied building and went totally unnoticed, it is possible that NIST are covering up mass murder, heck it is even possible that Bush himself went into each tower and personally supervised the placement of the explosives. It is also possible that Santa and the tooth fairy really are real
peaceYeh, right.

[thewholesoul]

The only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition

Pretty irrelevant. So if something happens for the first time, it can't happen because it never happened before? What the hell happened when the first controlled demolition was done? Was that even possible under your premise?

No, you misunderstood the point I was making Griz.

The point I was making was in relation to the following question: Why do so many believe the official “explanation” for the global collapse to be true when it has never happened before and has never since been proven empirically?

For example: Prior to 911

A plane crash had never caused the global collapse of a steel framed building
• P never caused X

An office fire had never caused the global collapse of a steel framed building
• O never caused X

Yet controlled demolition had always caused the global collapse of a steel framed buildings
• C always casued X (almost always*)

So on 911 when X happened one would expect, based on experience, that the majority of people would claim that C was the cause, not that a “new phenomena” O or P were the cause?

Typically humans assign an explanation for an observed event based on past experience. No doubt the spectacular plane crashes derailed this normal pattern of reasoning – because it was “new”, never before seen, thus all our experience of C causing X was thrown out the window.

However in relation to building 7 we had plenty of experience of office fires yet never experienced X?

This is why building 7 was completely ignored and eclipsed by the media, 911 commission and why I still encounter people today unfamiliar with the global collapse of building 7.

I am still waiting for the collapse mechanism of 7 to be empirically proven.

There are multiple flaws with that jump of the gun... you're usually polite, but you clearly don't think much about the implications of your claims despite the best of your efforts to portray yourself as reasonably intelligent in these areas. Your inability to incorporate considerations for design and any other failure mechanism leaves me -- as it has many times in the past with you -- unimpressed.

We both know I am no expert in your field so I wouldnt expect to be impressed from any of my comments. :) That said, I have a point. I know that NIST’s claim (i.e. global collapse was inevitable following collapse initiation) has never been empirically proven for financial, technical reasons, et cetra. I do not need any particular expertise to know this fact.

Considering the towers experienced a degree of destruction as yet unseen by any other building of similar size, covert operations are by far the least "probable."

You see that argument only applies to the twin towers, not building 7. Office fires were not unseen prior to or after 911 and yet no global collapse was ever observed. If it is not possible to fell a 50 floor skyscraper with a small office fire then covert planting of explsoives must have occured. it is an either/or.

I await anybody to demonstrate or recreate how an office fire can cause global collapse. Because if it is possible it must be REPEATIBLE. Would you agree with that statement Griz?

Your inability to believe "A" is in fact the case stems from your gross lack of understanding in the relevant areas that would otherwise lead your conclusion elsewhere.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news
No doubt, that is precisely why laymen like myself with high standards of proof require empirical or physical demonstrations. All I wanted was an example of 1/10 crushing 9/10 and the Balzac Vitry demolition definitely went a long way to prove that this is highly probable. Indeed it caused me to revise my belief that the bottom part of the building was rigged with explosives!

The Balzac Vitry video also told me that you only need to take out the vertical columns on a relatively few number of floors and the weight of the upper block will do the rest. Would you agree?

It has been empiracally proven for decades that structural steel will fail if it is exposed to any kind of substantial heat.

No it hasnt, the claim that global collapse inevitably follows collapse initiation i.e. the crush down-crush up theory of Bazant, has never been physically demonstrated by NIST.
ALthough the Balzac Vitry demolition goes a long way to this end.

According to NIST the vertical core columns did not fail from heat.

Ramming a jet into the structural load bearing members does not help this.

Accirding to NIST and common sense the jet impact did not cause vertical column failure.

peace

[3bodyproblem]

lol, two buildings get hit by planes and fall down in front of millions of people, 8 years later- "Prove it!"

[thewholesoul]

It's not empirically unproven - the phenomenon has been observed at least twice in nature, and was in fact one (or two?) of the most extensively documented building collapses in history.

I disagree. In the scientific method you have three main elements
(a) the event - the observed phenomena
(b) the hypothesis – the explanation of the observed phenomena, how it happened
(c) experimentation – the physical testing of the hypothesis in relation to the observed phenomena

Now what your confusing is (a) with (c) in other words the observation of the global collapse is not to be understood as the experimentation used to prove or disprove the explanation as to why the towers globally collapsed.

There was nothing new about the global collapse of wtc 1, 2 and 7. The only thing that was new was (b) the hypothesis or explanation as to why the three towers fell the way they did. It is these “explanations” that I know have not been empirically proven. If they were you could simply cite me the test, experiment, or physical demonstration conducted by NIST which proves their “explanation”. But you cannot do that.

I noticed that you ignored the top half of my post addressing the math and engineering challenges of designing a scaled-down physical model. You do understand, or you should understand, that things start to get a bit wacky mathematically when you reduce (or expand) dimensions, right? You can't just shrink the thing with a magic Roy-Rogers shrinking ray and expect all the material properties to scale exactly as they would in the larger version. It just doesn't work out like that.

I agree that is why I skipped the top half.

So, various material properties and structural variables are changing at different rates when we start changing scale, and in order to make certain that our model is accurate, we're going to have to account for each and every one of these, mathematically, as part of the design of the model.

I agree.

By the way - the NIST did not investigate the progression of the collapse because that was not their task.

If I claimed that NIST’s explanation for X has not been empirically demonstrated and you said well thats because it was not their task to empirically demonstarte X, does that refute my claim that their explanation for X has not been demonstrated?

They studied the conditions up to the point where things started moving

Shame their study didnt involve representative experiments according to the scientific method. They essentially “proved” their collapse initiation hypothesis with a simulation. Not very empirical. If I devised a computer simulation and proved collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?

peace

[thewholesoul]

I hope you appreciate there is no need for a demonstration once a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided.

Nonsense. In science there is always a need to demonstrate one’s hypothesis is true because before one’s hypothesis has been proven to be true there will typically be many competing explanations for any given phenomena.

Just because one can offer a reasonable explanation does not prove one’s explanation is true for this purpose demonstration is absolutely necessary. Obviously not all reasonable explanations are true, for example, children were once told that the world is flat because it looks flat, and if it were round people would fall off the bottom. Before gravity was discovered this sounded perfectly reasonable, of course it would be impossiblle to demonstrate because it is false.

So like I said Explanation is not the same as Demonstartion...there even spelt differently!

Is this the day you start to point out the bleeding obvious and totally miss this point of what was actually said?

I apologise if I have to state the bleeding obvious but sometimes one has to when faced wth someone who disgrees that the wtc towers were crushed by the descending upper block when that is what ever video clearly shows!
.
And here it is, totally underestimating the rest of the planets intelligence and imagining that they as easily fooled, whereby not you, you are special,you can see that the towers were demolished.

No I am not underestimating the rest of the planets intelligence I am simply pointing out that the majority is not always right and to think otherwise is a fallacy.

No official explanation pertaining to why the towers collapsed has been empirically demonstrated to be true so what we have a bunch of competing hypothesis and some appear more convincing than others depending on ones personal viewpoint.

I am flattered you consider me special my friend but I assure you that I am not. the truth is we both saw the demolition of wtc 1, 2 and 7, what we have not seen is the explanations as to why they were demolished empirically demonstrated. Now I have a sneeky feeling this would not prove too difficult for supporters of the CD hypothesis, however, I dont think you could demolish any skyscraper with a typical office fire period.

And as for the towers I doubt they could ever reproduce their collapse initiation hypothesis hypothesis without using tweaked simulations.

The fact that everybody else cannot makes them flat earth believers, do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

Only when I read your distorted interpretations. Like I said, we all saw the towers demolished, what none of us has seen is the explanations as to why they were demolished – demonstarted to be true. until then all explanations whether officially accepted or otherwise could be false.

The earth has been proved not to be flat, the collapse of the towers by anything other than the planes and the fires has not, when you are ready please proceed to

I agree that the CD hypothesis has not been empirically proven but hang on a second, if you are suggesting that the “official collapse hypothesis” for wtc 1, 2, and 7 has been empirically proven then can you please cite me the tests, experiments, and physical demonstrations when this occured.

It has been explained, the fact that you refuse to accept this explanation is your problem, not the rest of the planets nor NISTs, who owe you and you ilk nothing.

So you cant cite me the test, experiment, or demonstration when NIST empirically proved their collapse hypothesis. Good that pleases me. And as has been explained to you above, Explanation is not the same as Demonstration! The explanation you happen to believe could be false.

Finally, the reason I refuse to accept just one explanation is because there are more than one and none of them has been proven true. In this context, based on experience of the causes behind global collapse, based on the fact that an office fire has never resulted in global collapse and I would contend never could, then I tend to favor the CD hypothesis which aside from natural disasters was the most commonly observed means to cause global collapse, prior to 911.

Yep you have show what a reasonable sort you are, demanding demonstrations, demanding explanation, even though it has been thoroughly explained and then drifting off into your own fantasies. Yep, sure it is possible that death squads plants lots of lots of explosives inside three full occupied building and went totally unnoticed, it is possible that NIST are covering up mass murder, heck it is even possible that Bush himself went into each tower and personally supervised the placement of the explosives. It is also possible that Santa and the tooth fairy really are real

Santa Claus and tooth fairies do not exist, false flag terrorism exists, lying governments exist, explosives exist, controlled demolition exists, access to the twin towers elevator shafts did exist, assassins and death squads do exist, conspiracies do exist, ruthless people do exist,...

Empirical demonstrations of the collapse mechanism of wtc 1, 2, and 7, do not exist.

Over 60,000 american troops, and millions of vietnamese died as a result of the vetnam war. and how was it started? Thats right, based on a LIE, as are all wars because common people all want peace and have no interest in war then, now, or ever.

peace

[ozeco41]

@thewholesoul I perceive that you are a reasonable person seeking answers to some questions where you are not expert in the field and not persuaded by the claimants from the "no demolition" side of this polarised debate.

I may be able to assist if we take one issue at a time. Let me try with the "Global Collapse" plus a few "scene setting and process" comments on the way.
...The point I was making was in relation to the following question: Why do so many believe the official “explanation” for the global collapse to be true when it has never happened before and has never since been proven empirically? Lets start here - I am new to this forum, a relatively "old hand" at WTC 9/11 matters, retired civil engineer with military engineering demolition experience and some civilian experience in forensic engineering analyses. So the topic is mainstream my general area of expertise.

Points so far: I neither accept not reject the government official explanation BUT most of the technical ones come to the same conclusions I form myself. I accept that "Global Collapse" was inevitable. Remember that NIST et al did not explain how the global collapse happened or any details of why it was "inevitable".

......[t]hat said, I have a point. I know that NIST’s claim (i.e. global collapse was inevitable following collapse initiation) has never been empirically proven for financial, technical reasons, et cetra. I do not need any particular expertise to know this fact. [...comments differentiating WTC 1 & 2 from WTC 7...]....I await anybody to demonstrate or recreate how an office fire can cause global collapse. Because if it is possible it must be REPEATIBLE. Would you agree with that statement Griz?

Lets clarify your context so we can focus what I will put to you.

I am unsure what you mean by your useage of "empirically proven" also "REPEATIBLE"[sic]. I trust you are not saying you will not "believe" until another tower has been built and collapsed without demolition explosives/incendiaries....:D

So let's get the points on the table first: I believe that with simple explanation a non engineer can come to understand how the global collapse was inevitable - that requires an understanding of how it started and why, once started, it would not stop; It may seem pedantic but the "office fire" did not cause the collapse; ...(more as they emerge).
So "A" is a goal and "B" requires explanation.

Let's clarify the "Office fire does not cause collapse". As I read that statement it appears typical to me of the misleading claims made on truth sites or by "truthers". You may not intend it but let's be clear.

The "Global Collapse" was caused by the Top Block falling. It fell as a result of what I call the initial collapse - the impact zone was weakened by a series of events over time (and different times for two towers BUT that is not a concern here in this discussion).

The distinction is not simply pedantry. Now the initial collapse was part due to aircraft damage; part due to the consequences of fire AND, for our purposes here may have been part due to demolition. I do not say it was - merely leave the option available.

However the "Initial Collapse" was caused there was a point where the Top Block" started to fall. For purposes of explaining the "Global Collapse" we can ignore the preceding events and causes (On another forum I once attributed it to "Santa's Custard" from his Christmas pud .... :) :D )

So CHECK POINT #1 can we agree that for some undefined reason the "Top Block started to fall" and we do not need to resolve how that happened merely that it did? If "yes" we have our starting point.

Now I will set out first what I say happened and in the form of bold assertions OR claims on authority (mine ;) ) - we can then see which ones you accept and which you want explained further.

STATEMENTS TO AGREE/DISCUSS
None of what follows presumes demolition or no demolition as a starting position in explaining the "Global Collapse"; Once underway the Global Collapse sheared off the outer tube columns which fell away in various sized sheets essentially undamaged other than breaks at the assembly joints, Whatever parts of the Top Block descended and however they did descend the descent took place inside the outer tube. The outer tube fell away after the wave of descent was passed. Somehow the core was also collapsed. In at least one case a stub of part of the core was left standing briefly after the otherwise "Global Collapse" was finished; The top block started the fall as an integral entity therefore the core of the top block would fall in (nearly) the same space as occupied by the core of the lower section AND the outer floor areas of the Top Block fell more or less into the corresponding office space of the lower section. (I assert that) the core was not strong enough to support the Top Block with the outer columns removed or weakened; (I assert that) even if the core was strong enough to hold the Top Block the top block itself could not be held up that way. ie the outer floors of the top block would have fallen off the core and fallen onto the top exposed floor of the lower section; (I assert that) the top Block started its fall by wedging itself inside the outer tube of the lower section. Therefore we can give three separate parts of explanation viz: outer floors, which fell onto outer floors, grossly overloaded those lower floors causing those floors to cumulatively fail and fall to the next level The core which fell "core on core" which is more complicated to explain but which I can do in subsequent posts. AND The various columns where the essential point is that most were simply bypassed by falling structure and accumulating debris AND few, if any, took part in any "crushing" so beloved of members on both sides of the "Great Divide".

So do you wish to pursue a discussion?

Do you agree as far as CHECK POINT #1?

Which of the items under "STATEMENTS TO AGREE/DISCUSS" can you accept and which ones do you wish to discuss in more detail?

eco.

[Minadin]

If I claimed that NIST’s explanation for X has not been empirically demonstrated and you said well thats because it was not their task to empirically demonstarte X, does that refute my claim that their explanation for X has not been demonstrated?


Yes, because your statement assumes that they either tried to, but couldn't, or should have, but didn't. They would have been operating outside the bounds of their directive if they had modeled the entire collapse to explain every nuance, and wasting taxpayer money as they didn't have authorized funding for that.


Shame their study didnt involve representative experiments according to the scientific method. They essentially “proved” their collapse initiation hypothesis with a simulation. Not very empirical. If I devised a computer simulation and proved collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?

I've already explained, twice, above, why a computer generated simulation (model) is both more feasible and more practical than any physical model, and also more repeatable. Their model fits well with all observed phenomena and I think it's a pretty good explanation, but probably not perfect. It's good enough as a representation to understand the major causes and code issues.

If you were able to produce an alternative model that conformed to all the observations of the collapse as well as the NIST model, using known engineering principles and the scientific method, then I would say we would have a viable competing explanation to what the NIST produced.

However, thus far (it's been 7.5 years) the conspiracy theorists have shown themselves to be wholly incapable of producing a coherent theory that both matches the evidence and doesn't self-contradict - let alone a realistic, scientific model. For what it's worth, I hope you are the first to do so, because it would produce far more interesting banter than most of the discussions on this sub-forum.

[thewholesoul]

I am unsure what you mean by your useage of "empirically proven" also "REPEATIBLE"[sic]. I trust you are not saying you will not "believe" until another tower has been built and collapsed without demolition explosives/incendiaries....

The collapse intiation of wtc 1, 2, is a lot more complex and difficult to prove empirically. However in repsct to wtc 7, they could of at least reconstructed a column, exposed it to equivalent temperatures and watched what happened to the nuts and bolts etc. If the failure mechanism they claim was responsible for global collapse of wtc 7 is possible, then it must be repeatible. I would suggest the same is true for many of the steps leading up to collapse initiation of the twin towers.
I believe that with simple explanation a non engineer can come to understand how the global collapse was inevitable - that requires an understanding of how it started and why, once started, it would not stop;
Explanations although persuasive are not what I am seeking. The following video of the Balzac Vitry demolition “showed me” how the crush down-crush up hypothesis is highly plausible and it forced me to question my long held conviction that explosives were planted in the lower end of the structure http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17...zac-vitry_news
That said, to remain consistent I would have appreciated a further 46 floors or so beneath the Balzac Vitry structure, so I could observe just how far the descent would have progressed. Future demolitions of 30 - 50+ storey buidlings could be exploited for the purpose of such experimentation and testing predictions etc?
Let's clarify the "Office fire does not cause collapse". As I read that statement it appears typical to me of the misleading claims made on truth sites or by "truthers". You may not intend it but let's be clear. The "Global Collapse" was caused by the Top Block falling. It fell as a result of what I call the initial collapse - the impact zone was weakened by a series of events over time (and different times for two towers BUT that is not a concern here in this discussion).
I was refering to the “office fire” as the principle reason behind the global collapse of building 7, not the twin towers which have a more complex string of events.
As for the twin towers I agree (95%) that the falling upper block resulted in and was solely responsible for the demoltion of the lower portion. The collapse initiation however is still open for debate.

The distinction is not simply pedantry. Now the initial collapse was part due to aircraft damage; part due to the consequences of fire AND, for our purposes here may have been part due to demolition. I do not say it was - merely leave the option available.
Agreed

So CHECK POINT #1 can we agree that for some undefined reason the "Top Block started to fall" and we do not need to resolve how that happened merely that it did? If "yes" we have our starting point.
Yes

None of what follows presumes demolition or no demolition as a starting position in explaining the "Global Collapse";
I did say I was 95% convinced that the upper block was entirely responsible for the global collapse. You see I ‘m greedy by nature and as such I want all explanations for all observed phenomena demonstrated to be true. To give one example, you have these “squibs” debunkers say they were puffs of air as the descending block acted like a piston; truthers say they were explosive ejections. Now to be honest I have to say they do appear like squibs in demolition (as do the red chips appear to be paint), so for that reason i want to see the debunkers claim demonstrated more so than the truthers.
So we could discuss (A) a little more.
(I assert that) the core was not strong enough to support the Top Block with the outer columns removed or weakened;
My long held convictions that the core columns were taken out are starting to dig their heals. The demolition of the Balzac Vitry building did not appear to have the same robust core structure as the twin towers. And it was this video that persuaded me that the crush down-crush up hypothesis was far more plausible than I had previously gave it credit. But in truth i have no way to say for certain exactly how the core column in a tube and tube design would respond to the falling block of tube and tube design. Would it naturally give in, or would it require a little “assistance” along the way?
Discuss further
(I assert that) the top Block started its fall by wedging itself inside the outer tube of the lower section.
I think i agree, in respect to the North tower 6 floors appeared to give simulatniously and the upper block fell onto the lower block. Was this all inside the outer tube of the lower section? It is hard to tell with all the dust being produced.
The various columns where the essential point is that most were simply bypassed by falling structure and accumulating debris AND few, if any, took part in any "crushing" so beloved of members on both sides of the "Great Divide".
Is going to be hard to abandon the “crush” word. But the core columns were falling and they would be destroying any concrete floor they came in contact with. I have always contended that the floors not the columns were being crushed/destroyed.
So do you wish to pursue a discussion?
Only on the condition i can use ad hominem attacks when frustrated and that you will accept before discussion my preconceived notions of what really happened :)

peace

[ozeco41]

@thewholesoul - I see your post and it seems we have some grounds for discussion but our goals/needs are not fully in agreement - I will respond as soon as I get a clear space to do the typing.

[ozeco41]

....If you were able to produce an alternative model that conformed to all the observations of the collapse as well as the NIST model, using known engineering principles and the scientific method, then I would say we would have a viable competing explanation to what the NIST produced. .... My thoughts also but different words. The killer for most of the "truthers" claims which seem to be all structured, not as "We say this happened" but rather as "you cannot prove it wasn't therefore it was" arguments (AKA the false dilemma leading to "Goddidit" in a somewhat different context)

....However, thus far (it's been 7.5 years) the conspiracy theorists have shown themselves to be wholly incapable of producing a coherent theory that both matches the evidence and doesn't self-contradict - let alone a realistic, scientific model. For what it's worth, I hope you are the first to do so, because it would produce far more interesting banter than most of the discussions on this sub-forum.
I am still perturbed by this forum in that it allows personal insults and trolling to go without control and they seem to 2 to 1 outnumber the posts on topic - if not more. And the mandatory "ad hom" insult to finish most posts. So a lot of good input either lost in the rubbish OR devalued in my eyes by inclusion of personal attacks.

[stateofgrace]

Nonsense. In science there is always a need to demonstrate one’s hypothesis is true because before one’s hypothesis has been proven to be true there will typically be many competing explanations for any given phenomena.

Just because one can offer a reasonable explanation does not prove one’s explanation is true for this purpose demonstration is absolutely necessary. Obviously not all reasonable explanations are true, for example, children were once told that the world is flat because it looks flat, and if it were round people would fall off the bottom. Before gravity was discovered this sounded perfectly reasonable, of course it would be impossiblle to demonstrate because it is false.

So like I said Explanation is not the same as Demonstartion...there even spelt differently!

Now you’re just making stuff up. The only part you got right was that you understand demonstration and explanation are spelt differently. What would you like me to do? Rebuild the WTC's and slam planes into them? Tell me, did they rebuild the Titanic and hit it with an iceberg to make sure an iceberg can sink a ship? Was the sinking of the Titanic explained or demonstrated? Oh how about the Kurtz? Did they refloat that and explode a torpedo inside it to make sure a torpedo can really sink a submarine? Explained or demonstrated? Did they launch satellites to demonstrate that the earth wasn’t flat or did the explain it wasn’t flat by observing the stars? How was it first established that the earth wasn’t flat, through demonstration or observation?
There is nothing, other than a full demonstration that would convince you that these towers suffered a catastrophic structural failure, which resulted in massive dynamic weights falling onto the floor truss system. If you believe this explanation is wrong, then you have two options, explain why it is wrong or do as you keep demanding demonstrate that it is wrong.

I apologise if I have to state the bleeding obvious but sometimes one has to when faced wth someone who disgrees that the wtc towers were crushed by the descending upper block when that is what ever video clearly shows!
. No videos show the WTC being crushed, this is a complete fabrication. ALL the videos show the upper section of each tower falling . Behind the dust cload which you use as an excuse to justify your CD believes, the upper section was being funnelled inside the external columns onto to the floor trusses. The floor trusses were not and could support this weight, they failed. All it takes was for one floor to fail, this happened, once it did, the next floor failed an and the next. Yes TWS the floors really did pancake down, the core survived, this is also shown. Once the floors failed, the external perimeter simply fell away. Your distorting is really silly and fooling nobody; please stop trying injecting meaning into my words that are not there. I did not say there was no crushing, I said and I repeat, the FLOORS were violently dislodged by a massive dynamic weight. The floor truss system was one of the four main structural components of the towers, the other being the core, the external perimeters and the top hat. Remove one and the towers will collapse. If you doubt this, then explain why you doubt it or better still do exactly what you demand of me, demonstrate it.

No I am not underestimating the rest of the planets intelligence I am simply pointing out that the majority is not always right and to think otherwise is a fallacy.

No official explanation pertaining to why the towers collapsed has been empirically demonstrated to be true so what we have a bunch of competing hypothesis and some appear more convincing than others depending on ones personal viewpoint.
Personnel viewpoint? Like the reasonable and rational one whereby planes were slammed into each tower, which burnt and eventually suffered a massive catastrophic structural failure. Or the make believe one? the one that has zero evidence,, the one whereby fully occupied building were packed with explosive prior to Sept 11th, totally unnoticed, the one whereby this secret demo was set up and remotely controlled planes were guide into each towers , totally missing the preplanted explosives and set off by ruthless death squads. The view point that points the finger at NIST and accuses of them of covering up mass murder? The one that simply ignores the message that was sent to us all on Sept 11th, “stop ignoring us, stop pretending we don’t exist, start paying attention to our grievances”, the message that you clearly did not get.The view point that allows you to bury your head in the sand, excuse the terrorists who committed this wicked act and pretend that it all one big false flag operation? The one whereby you don’t really have any enemies, who really do hate you and really are prepared to die for what they believe. The view point that you can support with zero evidence? You mean that view point?


I am flattered you consider me special my friend but I assure you that I am not. Correct you are not.

Now I have a sneeky feeling this would not prove too difficult for supporters of the CD hypothesis, however, I dont think you could demolish any skyscraper with a typical office fire period.Did you suddenly forget the two planes that were slammed into each tower before hand?

Only when I read your distorted interpretations. Like I said, we all saw the towers demolished, what none of us has seen is the explanations as to why they were demolished – demonstarted to be true. until then all explanations whether officially accepted or otherwise could be false.
Yes it could be false, to date you have failed to explain or demonstrate why it could be false. You have not and will offer up a single alternative theory, rather you demand that the commonly accepted theory be explained and demonstrated, even though it as been explained. What could be false is that the towers were secretly demolished in front of the entire planet and nobody noticed apart from a fringe group that nobody is paying a blind bit of attention to. Of course you will not consider that you are actually wrong, it does not enter you mind to apply you strict criteria to the theories you are sold by the truth move, it does not enter you mind to actually look the other way and closely examine what you are being sold by these guys. Oh no, it is far better to hide behind your shield, and imagine that everybody is being sold an official story by the nasty Bush administration and like good little sheep everybody blindly accepts it. Everybody bar you that is.
I agree that the CD hypothesis has not been empirically proven but hang on a second, if you are suggesting that the “official collapse hypothesis” for wtc 1, 2, and 7 has been empirically proven then can you please cite me the tests, experiments, and physical demonstrations when this occured.
This as been explained to you. There is a more than rational and reasonable explanation for the collapse for the towers, if you have more reasonable and rational explanation present it. If you doubt the “official hypothesis” as you so quaintly refer to it then provide it. The burden of proof is entirely upon you, you doubt the “official hypothesis, you believe it was all one big false flag ops, and then prove it. Offer up your own hypothesis. I dare you, TWS, you tell me what went down on Sept 11th.Of course you won’t you will once again hide behind your shield and come up with the well tested phrase “ Oh but that’s why we need a new investigation “, right? By who TWS, who is going to do this new and totally independent investigation? You? Your buddies in the truth movement? Who exactly?

Finally, the reason I refuse to accept just one explanation is because there are more than one and none of them has been proven true. In this context, based on experience of the causes behind global collapse, based on the fact that an office fire has never resulted in global collapse and I would contend never could, then I tend to favor the CD hypothesis which aside from natural disasters was the most commonly observed means to cause global collapse, prior to 911. Really? So why do they fire proof steel framed buildings if the are not susceptible to fire then? Oh by the way can you name a building that has had a plane slammed into at 500mph and not collapsed?

Santa Claus and tooth fairies do not exist, false flag terrorism exists, lying governments exist, explosives exist, controlled demolition exists, access to the twin towers elevator shafts did exist, assassins and death squads do exist, conspiracies do exist, ruthless people do exist,...
Really? And Al Qaeda doesn’t exist right? This are just a figment of the imagine, right? Dreamed up by you nasty Government, who not only control secret assassins and death squads but now actually control the entire planet, including the ideology of Al Qaeda. Oh how wonderful it must be to live is such an insulated world whereby there are not bad guys to fear just you own Gov and anybody who works for them. It must be so lovely for you to readily accuse you fellow countrymen of mass murder, based on nothing other than your demands of explanations that have been provided and you choose to simply ignore.

Empirical demonstrations of the collapse mechanism of wtc 1, 2, and 7, do not exist.

Over 60,000 american troops, and millions of vietnamese died as a result of the vetnam war. and how was it started? Thats right, based on a LIE, as are all wars because common people all want peace and have no interest in war then, now, or ever.
Then get off your high horse and start facing reality. Stop imagining that everybody blindly follows Bush and cannot see the world injustices. If you want to preach the injustices of war and this planet, do so based on real world events and not the half baked, ill conceived notions of the truth movement. If you wish to take the moral high ground and condemn war and the suffering it brings, do so from a factual basis. Why don’t you throw the Iraq war in every bodies face? Imagining that because I don’t buy into your CD theories that like the obedient sheep I am I simply go along with it all and heaven forbid I should have actually got off my ass and marched against it. Did you? Or you too busy taking the moral high ground and condemning all those around you that don’t buy into your somewhat distorted viewpoint. The viewpoint that somehow imagines the Bush admiration that is capable of fooling the entire planet yet it is actually beyond them to actually plant any WMD inside Iraq.

peace Start practicing what you preach.

[thewholesoul]

Yes, because your statement assumes that they either tried to, but couldn't, or should have, but didn't.

I have to disagree.

My statement: NIST did not demonstrate X to be true is a factual statement.
It does not assume that “they either tried to, but couldn't, or should have”, rather it simply and starightforwardly asserts that they didnt demonstrate X to be true. If they did empirically demonstrate X to be true you could just cite me the test, experiment or physical demonstration and thereby refute my statement.

Consider the statement “Nial Armstrong did not land on Mars”. This too is a factual statement because we know that Nial Armstrong landed on the moon, not on Mars. The above statement does not assume “he tried to, but couldn't, or should have”, it simple states that “he didnt do X”. The only logical counter argument to this statement is “that he did do X”. I hope I have been clear.

They would have been operating outside the bounds of their directive if they had modeled the entire collapse to explain every nuance, and wasting taxpayer money as they didn't have authorized funding for that.

Above you are explaining to me “why they did not do X”, and I agree. But explaining to me the reason x, y, z they did not do X does not remove, change, or negate the fact that “NIST did not do X”.

I've already explained, twice, above, why a computer generated simulation (model) is both more feasible and more practical than any physical model, and also more repeatable.

And I agreed, twice?

Their model fits well with all observed phenomena and I think it's a pretty good explanation, but probably not perfect. It's good enough as a representation to understand the major causes and code issues.

I disagree.

The data in their model was manipulated as in not based on the experiments they had previously conducted.

And what about the simulation of building 7 – it looks nothing like what actually happened?

If you were able to produce an alternative model that conformed to all the observations of the collapse as well as the NIST model, using known engineering principles and the scientific method, then I would say we would have a viable competing explanation to what the NIST produced.

Well if NIST were able to produce a model that conformed to all the observations of the collapse, using known engineering principles and the scientific method, then I would say they would have a viable explanation too.

But you avoided addressing the point I was making. To repeat, if I were to produce a computer simulation of wtc 1, 2, and 7, where explosives take out several vertical columns does that “prove” that wtc 1, 2, and 7, were destroyed by controlled demolition?

However, thus far (it's been 7.5 years) the conspiracy theorists have shown themselves to be wholly incapable of producing a coherent theory that both matches the evidence and doesn't self-contradict - let alone a realistic, scientific model. For what it's worth, I hope you are the first to do so, because it would produce far more interesting banter than most of the discussions on this sub-forum.

Alternative hypothesis have been proposed which require further investigation and testing before we refer to them as theories.

It is a little unfair to dismiss all alternative hypothesis off hand until they have been thoroughly investigated.

It took NIST how many years to finally agree upon a certain collapse hypothesis for building 7, first they thought it was the boilers, then the structural damage from collapsing debris. So alternatvie offical hypothesis had also existed.

The official and agreed upon collapse hypothesis, 7.5 years later remains to be empirically proven according to the scientific method. In other words, the offical collapse hypothesis for wtc 7 (and 1 and 2), may be untrue!

peace

[Minadin]

I have to disagree.

My statement: NIST did not demonstrate X to be true is a factual statement.
It does not assume that “they either tried to, but couldn't, or should have”, rather it simply and starightforwardly asserts that they didnt demonstrate X to be true. If they did empirically demonstrate X to be true you could just cite me the test, experiment or physical demonstration and thereby refute my statement.

That was not your statement anywhere here in this thread. I could agree with that statement, because NIST wasn't tasked with demonstrating it. I've already explained why.

Here's what you have said about NIST in this thread. Perhaps you can see why I might get a different impression of your meaning than the much more clear and concise statement above.

That said, you still make a valid point and i would welcome computer modelling on the global collapse. Something NIST never even attempted.

Listen, NIST made the claim, not me, that once collapse initiation occurs global collapse is inevitable. This is their claim – a physical claim – that they did not prove empirically. If what i am saying to you now is false or untrue you could simply point to the test, experiment, or demonstration when NIST proved their physical claim empirically.

Asking me to prove their claim only confirms the simple point I am making, namely, that NIST’s claim remains empirically unproven.

I know that NIST’s claim (i.e. global collapse was inevitable following collapse initiation) has never been empirically proven for financial, technical reasons, et cetra. I do not need any particular expertise to know this fact.

No it hasnt, the claim that global collapse inevitably follows collapse initiation i.e. the crush down-crush up theory of Bazant, has never been physically demonstrated by NIST.


If I claimed that NIST’s explanation for X has not been empirically demonstrated and you said well thats because it was not their task to empirically demonstarte X, does that refute my claim that their explanation for X has not been demonstrated?

Shame their study didnt involve representative experiments according to the scientific method. They essentially “proved” their collapse initiation hypothesis with a simulation. Not very empirical.

The problem I see here is that, while you seem willing to use science and scientific principals in your research, most of your arguments are based on your own lack of knowledge in the field you are trying to investigate. NIST was doing its investigation to explain the collapse initiation mechanism to the many thousands of building design professionals in the country, not Joe the Truther or other laypeople. The professionals, people with years of specialized education, training, and experience, with the ability to apply their knowledge in a practical way - these people don't need the explanations that you seem to require.

I think that some conspiracy theorists have a hard time wrapping their brains around that. It's OK - you can't be an expert in everything; that's why we have specialized fields in the first place. Earlier in the thread, when I suggested that you would want a post-graduate physicist and post-graduate structural engineer to help you design a scaled-down model, I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence or suggest you were incompetent. That is who I would want on my team if I were to attempt to design such a model.

[ozeco41]

@thewholesoul
Since your response to me there have been a couple of further interactions.

I see that the possibility of us continuing our discussion faces several process barriers.

Broadly you appear to be constructing an impenetrable barrier around your position:

First by your requirement that nothing be "proved" until it has been physically modelled.

Second by your idiosyncratic use of language and your willingness to "change horses" on how you use words which then enables you to argue against either side of any aspect of debate.

In general the discussion of WTC events suffers from misapplication of the so called "scientific method" whether such misapplication is deliberate or unintended. Analysis of the events of 9/11 at WTC are not one example of many about which a new "Theory" is being developed so terms such as "hypothesis" in its scientific sense are only partially relevant and the use of "prove" is ambiguous as to its lay or scientific usage.

The process of analysis is one of Engineering Forensics which seeks to find explanations of a one off event. It is not part of a process to develop hypotheses leading towards a new scientific theory.

Let's take some of the barriers you appear to build in some sort of sequence:

1) The demand for "empirically proven" or physical reproducibility as the only standard you are prepared to adopt is the most easily seen and it is clearly either a problem of your own approach OR simply an excuse raised as a barrier.

I can see little point in progressing whilst you hold to that position. I am too old a hand to fall for the trap of the inviting derail to discuss why you hold such a position.

2) The "variable usage" of language. Take for example "hypothesis". You make several statements about so-called hypotheses BUT you use the word differently. The hypotheses of the "official explanations" are framed as complete explanations where all the parts fit together to form a whole. Contrast that with your claims for alternate hypotheses. I am not aware of any (strong statement there) hypothesis from any truther source that attempts to be a completely framed explanation. Most are characterised by incompleteness. Many are internally inconsistent.

Now such unformed potential hypotheses do not warrant equal consideration with fully framed ones AND, even more important, the burden of proof rests with the proponent to support their hypothesis NOT on the opponent to disprove. However you make claims about "alternate hypotheses" as if such hypotheses are extant. Show me one, or two or more....

At the simplest level "jones found thermate residue" is several orders of formulation and proof away from being an hypothesis. And look how much time and space is spent on debating it. No-one has proposed ant framework for how thermate could be used as part of the actual mechanisms of collapse which occurred at WTC on 9/11. Taint no hypothesis until jones says "I suggest Thermate was used to (XYZ) which caused the (bnm) to (DFG) leading to collapse. (fill in the blanks :D )

At present the status of thermate is little further advanced than the laser bolts from space craft "Hypothesis".

3) You appear to conflate and link issues which are separated or separable. I offered to discuss the inevitability of the Global collapse. In other posts since mine you link issues like the wars and you political views as if they somehow are relevant to the mechanism of global collapse. They are not and such conflation does not augur well for rational discussion.

Without seeking to "teach grandmother to suck eggs" or otherwise offering unwarranted advice....I suggest that "truth seeking advocates" such as you, who are concerned about the politics of issues such as the Iraq war do their cause harm by trying to uphold false claims about technical issues such as demolition of the WTC Towers. Those towers were not demolished. Trying to make a probably valid political point whilst using false technical claims as support surely does harm to the political point you try to make?

You will see that it is not my style to pad out disagreements with personal attacks - I come from a more controlled forum experience - and I can return to the "global collapse" issue at an appropriate stage in the discussions on this thread.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A “majority” once thought the world was flat aswell. But after seeing the Balzac Vitry video I beleive i may be be joining the "majority" soon myself.
peace


I'm curious as to why you would put the word majority in scare quotes if you were actually trying to point out that the majority can be wrong. Putting that word in scare quotes indicates, to me, an attempt at sarcasm; meaning that you actually recognize that a majority of people never actually believed the world was flat, and that you are indeed aligning yourself with a [fringe] minority.

Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BC, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth. (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth))

[thewholesoul]

What would you like me to do? Rebuild the WTC's and slam planes into them?
In relation to Wtc 7, was the kind of core column that failed rebuilt and subjected to the same heat as an normal office fire and its behaviour thereafter observed?
In relation to Wtc 1 + 2, the data in the computer models which generated the “virtual” initial collapse were inconsistent from the data measured from the “actual” experiments in the fire burn tests, floor trusses, etc.
Tell me, did they rebuild the Titanic and hit it with an iceberg to make sure an iceberg can sink a ship?
The phenomena of (a) a boat sinking and (b) a building globally collapsing are not new phenomena as they have been observed many times prior to the sinking of the titanic and 911 respectively.
The hypothesis of (a1) collisions cause boats to sink and (b1) controlled demolition cause global collapse are not new hypothesis and have explained many times prior to the titanic and 911 why boats sink and buildings globally collapse.
We do not need to demonstrate an already proven hypothesis for an observed event. We only need to demonstrate new and unproven hypothesis for an observed event.
The hypothesis – a normal office fire caused the global collapse of a building IS a NEW explanation for global collapse hence it REQUIRES demonstration before we can and should accept it as fact. Moreover, given that we have observed many office fires prior to 911 and none of them caused global collapse only serves to underscore the need to demonstrate this new hypothesis.
Was the sinking of the Titanic explained or demonstrated?
It was explained based from experience of collisions causing boats to sink. The hypothesis of collisions causing boats to sink was not a new phenomena and for that reason did not require extensive demonstration.
Nevertheless, it could have been demonstrated but it would only have served to affirm the obvious.
Office fires causing global collapse is not obvious and neither has it ever been demonstrated prior to or since 911.
Oh how about the Kurtz? Did they refloat that and explode a torpedo inside it to make sure a torpedo can really sink a submarine?
Not necessary, the hypothesis - torpedos cause submarines to sink - is not new and has been observed and proven many times prior to and since the sinking of the Kurtz.
Office fires causing gloabl collapse is a new hypothesis and has never been demonstrated prior to or since 911. Are you starting to see the difference?
Explained or demonstrated? Did they launch satellites to demonstrate that the earth wasn’t flat or did they explain it wasn’t flat by observing the stars? How was it first established that the earth wasn’t flat, through demonstration or observation?
It was already known that the earth was a globe prior to the launching of satellites.
They observed stars prior to the discovery and realisation that the earth was a globe. They Demonstrated that the earth was not flat by circumnavigating the globe in a ship and by not sailing off an edge!

[thewholesoul]

There is nothing, other than a full demonstration that would convince you that these towers suffered a catastrophic structural failure, which resulted in massive dynamic weights falling onto the floor truss system.
Thats a straw man. I am not advocating a full demonstration.
If you believe this explanation is wrong, then you have two options, explain why it is wrong or do as you keep demanding demonstrate that it is wrong.
Should not those proposing a hypothesis be responsible for proving it?
Jones says red chips are not paint and that they are nanothermite yet he fails to provide a sample of the wtc paint and a sample of nanothermite.
To demonstrate that the NIST hypothesis for wtc 1 + 2 are true they could start by placing the data they recorded from actual experiments in the fire burn station and floor trusses into their computer simulations. Wouldnt you agree?
For building 7 they could reconstruct an identical core column (column 49) and subject it to the same temperature of an office fire an observe how the connections behave. Wouldnt you agree?
No videos show the WTC being crushed, this is a complete fabrication. Yes TWS the floors really did pancake down, the core survived, this is also shown. Once the floors failed, the external perimeter simply fell away. Your distorting is really silly and fooling nobody; please stop trying injecting meaning into my words that are not there.
I thought i made it clear that after watching the Balzac Vitry demolition i have revised my belief that explosives needed to be planted in the lower structure to produce global collapse? In other words, I do not have much objections to what you said above, but if I am unable to use the word “crush” could you please suggest what word more appropriately describes what happened?
I did not say there was no crushing, I said and I repeat, the FLOORS were violently dislodged by a massive dynamic weight.
Thats a mouth full. Should we call Bazants crush down-crush up hypothesis “the FLOORS were violently dislodged by a massive dynamic weight down- the FLOORS were violently dislodged by a massive dynamic weight-up hypothesis”?
Debating over a word is the height of nit picking. But in future every time i say “crush” i really mean the long tongue twister you provided.
The floor truss system was one of the four main structural components of the towers, the other being the core, the external perimeters and the top hat. Remove one and the towers will collapse. If you doubt this, then explain why you doubt it or better still do exactly what you demand of me, demonstrate it.
No, i agree. My point of contention is now with the official hypothesis of collapse intiation.
Personnel viewpoint? Like the reasonable and rational one whereby planes were slammed into each tower, which burnt and eventually suffered a massive catastrophic structural failure.
What about the less so dramatic “normal office fire” causing “massive catastrophic structural failure”. You debunkers sure love those plane crashes which by the way were not the reason for core column failure nor cause of collapse initiation.
What is rational is to say well if C always caused X and P never caused X then maybe we should investigate both C and P hypothesis.
What is irrational is to beleive that a normal office fire can cause global collapse eventhough O never caused X prior to and since the event; and eventhough the new hypothesis O causes X has never been physically demintrated to be true.
Or the make believe one? the one that has zero evidence, the one whereby fully occupied building were packed with explosive prior to Sept 11th, totally unnoticed, the one whereby this secret demo was set up and remotely controlled planes were guide into each towers , totally missing the preplanted explosives and set off by ruthless death squads.
Global collapse of buildings from controlled demolition is not make belief.
There is accumulating evidence but it has never been official investigated.
After viewing the Balzac Vitry demolition only a relatively few floors would need to be rigged to produce a global collapse. All that is required to covertly plant explosives is trust and access.
Remote control planes exist. The planes did not cut through all the core columns on all the floors it impacted. Explosives could be placed in the columns or on the rear of the columns or have protection around them as not to ignite during an FAE.
Death squads exist. It has been recently uncovered by Semore Hersh that Dick Cheney has his own political death squad. Reality is sometimes more fantastic than fanzy. Did you ever hear that expression before.
The view point that points the finger at NIST and accuses of them of covering up mass murder?
I never accused them or any body of murder. Everyone is innoncent until proven guilty. You accuse Osama Bin Laden of 911 yet the FBI admits they have no hard evidence linking hm to 911? But we can both agree mass murder did occur, problem is NO-ONE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY 7 years after the fact that tells me either the investiagtion may have been a cover up, it must have been poorly conducted, and that a new investigation for the alterior reasons is needed. (those tortured confessions dont count either)
The one that simply ignores the message that was sent to us all on Sept 11th, “stop ignoring us, stop pretending we don’t exist, start paying attention to our grievances”, the message that you clearly did not get.
I may be wrong but are you refering to the message from the musilm world? I myself once believed that 911 was blow back for decades of U.S. ocupation and interference in the middle east. And what happened after 911? Thats right, more occupation and more interference in the middle east. Indeed if you ascribe to the blow back hypothesis then you must be apauled at Obama’s refusal to immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, his increase of troops into Afganistan and his expansion of the “war on terrorism” into neighbouring Pakistan?

[thewholesoul]

The view point that allows you to bury your head in the sand, excuse the terrorists who committed this wicked act and pretend that it all one big false flag operation? The one whereby you don’t really have any enemies, who really do hate you and really are prepared to die for what they believe. The view point that you can support with zero evidence? You mean that view point?
I do not excuse terrorists. The question still remains as to who are the terrorists? Watch the documentary Fabled enemies there is increasing evidence that secret servces of Israel Pakistan and Saudia Arabia were involved.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407
Of course we have enemies, dont be silly. Indeed anyone who accepts the fact that terrorist cells exist and also accept the fact that governments commit false flag terrorism have more enemies than your narrow and reductionist view of reality. can you even admit that governments have committed false flags in the past? Can you do that?
Did you suddenly forget the two planes that were slammed into each tower before hand?
Can you cite me the page number in the NIST report where they claim that the core columns failed from the plane impact? Or that collapse initiation was caused by the plane crash. Thank you.
Btw: once again you ignore building 7, no plane impact. Only normal office fires were supposedly responsible for the global collapse.
Yes it could be false, to date you have failed to explain or demonstrate why it could be false.

At last some progress!

So we both agree that the official and unofficial collapse hypothesis for wtc 1, 2, and 7 could all be false.

I may not possess the ability to demonstrate why the official hypothesis is false (well i have in relation to the first basement explosion http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099&page=19 post #733) but I have, given your above addmission, succeeded in explaining to you why they could be false.

All competing hypothesis for an observed phenomena can be false because (a) they cannot all be true and (b) they require demonstration before we can accept them as factual or true.

You have not and will offer up a single alternative theory, rather you demand that the commonly accepted theory be explained and demonstrated, even though it as been explained.

I told you I ascirbe to the CD hypothesis. is that not alternative enough?

Correction: the official theory is a commonly accepted “hypothesis” and although it has been explained, this “explanation” has never been empirically proven and I contend that it should be.

[thewholesoul]

Of course you will not consider that you are actually wrong,

Simply not true I have changed my position in respect to the crush down-crush up theory of Bazant. My current beliefs are always subject to revision in light of new information. I dont recall your beleifs ever wavering once. Besides it is irrational to consider one’s beleifs actually wrong until they are actually proven to be wrong. Until then, it is more accurate to say that I consider some of my beliefs (those that have not actually been shown to be true) to be possibly right or possibly wrong.

like good little sheep everybody blindly accepts it. Everybody bar you that is.

I am far from alone in my beliefs. Heres is a local news station on chemtrails. How does that make you feel? Does it upset you that this is actually happening? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI are you going to sheepishly accept the air being poisoned, or are you going to get upset and angry cos thats how it makes me feel. Does the fact that the U.S. tortures people upset you? That it occupies foreign nations illegally? That you were lied to about WMD’s? That over a million iraqis have been killed? If stuff like this does not upset you then there is something wrong with you.

This as been explained to you. There is a more than rational and reasonable explanation for the collapse for the towers, if you have more reasonable and rational explanation present it.

Ok, because practically all global collapses prior to and since 911 have been caused by controlled demolition seems to a perfectly valid reason to believe that wtc 1, 2 and 7, may have been destroyed by contolled demolition.
Given that the offical collapse hypothesis (as you admit yourself) may be false is a perfectly valid reason to maintain the belief that wtc 1, 2, and 7 may have been destroyed by controlled demolition.
The abundance of witness testimony inexplicable in the context of the official hypothesis is another reason to beleive that wtc 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed by controlled demoltion.
The fact that NIST’s explanation for the molten metal flowing from south tower has been physically demonstrated to be false is another reason to beleive that wtc 1, 2, and 7, may have been destroyed by contolled demolition.
My little 4 line argument – still unrefuted – explains how the first basement explosion could not possibly be caused from jet fuel is yet another reason to beleive that wtc 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed. (maybe you could give it a shot and thats a challenge. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099&page=19 post #733)
The fact that false flag terrorism exists, that government constantly lie, and new lies in relation to 911 continue to surface is another reason to maintain the belief that wtc 1, 2 and 7, were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Until alternative hypothesis have been thoroughly and independently investgated, until all secret documents have been released and until heads of state, ex-and vice presidents have been subpoened to testify separtely under oath is a further reason to maintain the belief that wtc 1, 2 and 7 was an inside job.
If you doubt the “official hypothesis” as you so quaintly refer to it then provide it. The burden of proof is entirely upon you, you doubt the “official hypothesis, you believe it was all one big false flag ops, and then prove it. Offer up your own hypothesis. I dare you, TWS, you tell me what went down on Sept 11th. Of course you won’t you will once again hide behind your shield and come up with the well tested phrase “ Oh but that’s why we need a new investigation “, right? By who TWS, who is going to do this new and totally independent investigation? You? Your buddies in the truth movement? Who exactly?
Correct that is why we need a new investigation
But there is another way, if the official hypothesis was physically demonstrated to be true then there would be no need for a new investigation. The burden of proof is on those claiming that a normal office fire can cause global collapse – to prove it because it has never happened before.
Really? So why do they fire proof steel framed buildings if the are not susceptible to fire then? Oh by the way can you name a building that has had a plane slammed into at 500mph and not collapsed?
The reaosn why we apply fireproofing is obvious. Fire proofing only lasts 2 to 4 hours. No steel framed shyscraper in history has ever globally collapsed from a normal office fire.
Please cite me the page no. in the NIST report that claims the plane crashes caused core column faliure.
Really? And Al Qaeda doesn’t exist right?
No they do. They were funded by the U.S. and Osama binladen was trained by the CIA.
Oh how wonderful it must be to live is such an insulated world whereby there are not bad guys to fear just you own Gov and anybody who works for them.
Terrorism exists, false flag terrorism also exists. Your narrow reductionist view is out of touch with Reality.
If you want to preach the injustices of war and this planet, do so based on real world events and not the half baked, ill conceived notions of the truth movement. If you wish to take the moral high ground and condemn war and the suffering it brings, do so from a factual basis. Why don’t you throw the Iraq war in every bodies face? Imagining that because I don’t buy into your CD theories that like the obedient sheep I am I simply go along with it all and heaven forbid I should have actually got off my ass and marched against it. Did you?
It is a fact that 911 was used to invade two UNRELATED nations – illegally. So to prevent future illegal and preemptive wars exposing that 911 was an inside job is not a bad place to start.
People want peace not war yet they keep on happening. Why is that? I beleive that almost all wars are based on LIES. Those who manipulate the people for war are those who benefit from war.
No i didnt march. They are pointless endevours once you realize that democracy is a joke, that there is no right and left only above and below, that is, the elite and the rest of us. In this context politicians act as middle men selling to an already exhausted public more taxes and wars. Exposing 911 exposes the ruling elite.

peace

[ozeco41]

....The hypothesis – a normal office fire caused the global collapse of a building IS a NEW explanation for global collapse hence it REQUIRES demonstration before we can and should accept it as fact. Moreover, given that we have observed many office fires prior to 911 and none of them caused global collapse only serves to underscore the need to demonstrate this new hypothesis.....

There you go again changing horses tws.

Skipping over your preliminary false analogies, we are discussing the WTC 9/11 events. YOU raise this hypothesis of "a normal office fire caused the global collapse of a building" - it is your hypothesis so it is your responsibility to demonstrate it.

However, since I am only interested in what happened at WTC, your hypothesis is irrelevant. I have no intention of accepting it as fact.

So it is your problem if you want me to accept it for some reason.

And the lengthy circumnavigation of the issue you indulge in does not change that central fact.

[Grizzly Bear]

I see one of the posters got to some of these before I could. I'll keep my response a bit short(er).

The only time we ever observed or experienced a global collapse of steel framed buildings was through demolition
If I simplified a collapse down to its most basic component it's nothing more than structural failure. A controlled demolition only distinguishes itself from any other collapse in it's intent to bring a building down cleanly while minimizing the impact on nearby infrastructure. The manner in which failure modes occur are functions of the design.

It may be true that no building of the same construction and size as the trade center has ever collapsed due to fire, but that isn't grounds for me to look at controlled demolitions as a reference since the mechanisms involved in the two are mutually exclusive. The plane impacts and the fires are dead ringers. I'll go into this more with another part of your post since you've finally changed aclnowledged something I'd been trying to get at with you for a long time.


However in relation to building 7 we had plenty of experience of office fires yet never experienced X?
Just like with the towers, the first thing I look at when I want to know anything about a collapse are in this case: the structure was on fire after being struck by debris from a nearby skyscraper that collapsed, and then I want to know how the building was designed and what aspects of it would be vulnerable to failure. Saying it looks like any controlled demolition doesn't tell me anything... I'm interested in what failed, what mechanisms led to that failure, and how the structure responds to that failure. Buildings aren't homogeneous, they are designed according to the needs expressed on the site. It's the architect's and engineer's job to find a solution to the conflicts which are encountered on-site.

If Building 'X' did not fail where Building 'Y' did I'd ask myself what differences in their design, materials, whatever... led to the to the performance of one versus the other.



http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17lks_demolition-tour-abc-balzac-vitry_news
No doubt, that is precisely why laymen like myself with high standards of proof require empirical or physical demonstrations. All I wanted was an example of 1/10 crushing 9/10 and the Balzac Vitry demolition definitely went a long way to prove that this is highly probable. Indeed it caused me to revise my belief that the bottom part of the building was rigged with explosives!

The Balzac Vitry video also told me that you only need to take out the vertical columns on a relatively few number of floors and the weight of the upper block will do the rest. Would you agree?

There's a specific reason I kept explaining to you that the 1/10 vs 9/10 ratio argument was bizarre. That line of argument wasn't relevant to begin with because the dynamic loads from these sections accelerating downward under gravity would generate abrupt loads that far exceeded the weight of the upper sections. I'm glad you finally understand this point, although my opinion is that it should not have required a video to demonstrate this. The dynamic loading is the key factor that drives collapse progression, not the ratios you and others have a habit of assigning, and hence NIST's conclusion.



You see that argument only applies to the twin towers, not building 7. Office fires were not unseen prior to or after 911 and yet no global collapse was ever observed. If it is not possible to fell a 50 floor skyscraper with a small office fire then covert planting of explsoives must have occured. it is an either/or.

This leads me to question a whole set of things. But why par tell should controlled demolition be the first? Thermal expansion, and softening of the steel have both been causes for concern in the past. The weakening of steel is notoriously documented in architectural text books and there have been numerous incidents where steel components did fail. I wouldn't find the thermal expansion issue all that earth shattering either:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

And yes, I am aware that in the above case it did not lead to catastrophic failure. The construction differs here far too much from WTC 7 to be of any value as a direct comparison. The intention here is to illustrate that design flaws which are not addressed as would be the case in WTC 7 magnify the effects of it and as seen in the case of WTC 7 finally did.


Ultimately the design determines how much influence these two variables for example affect the structural integrity. For most conventional buildings, designed with either reinforced concrete or a traditional skeleton frame the likelihood of catastrophic failure is less than what would be expected of a structure with very long floor spans and a relatively non-traditional construction. WTC 7 & the towers are both examples. You can point out as many examples as you want that you think argues in your favor but if you do I expect you to link to case studies that offer some insight into their construction. I'll be more than happy to explain to you why I object to/agree with those examples.

I await anybody to demonstrate or recreate how an office fire can cause global collapse. Because if it is possible it must be REPEATIBLE. Would you agree with that statement Griz?
I agree with it. The towers were nearly identical, and suffered nearly identical damage. It doesn't get much more repeatable than that. Would you at least agree to this extent?

No it hasnt, the claim that global collapse inevitably follows collapse initiation i.e. the crush down-crush up theory of Bazant, has never been physically demonstrated by NIST.
Although the Balzac Vitry demolition goes a long way to this end

I've bolded the part that interests me, because I think this is a short step in the right direction. Do you now understand the point I was making in response to your 1/10 vs 9/10 argument? That the dynamic weight of the accelerating mass is more relevant than how big one section is compared with the other? Do you understand that the collapse progression is the failure of individual elements of the structural system in rapid succession as opposed to the failure of the overall system at once?


Accirding to NIST and common sense the jet impact did not cause vertical column failure.
I'm a bit confused where you got "impact caused collapse" out of "did not help." The impacts didn't cause any immediate collapse, but "they did not help" the situation by plowing through load bearing columns causing uneven load redistribution to whatever was left intact...

[thewholesoul]

That was not your statement anywhere here in this thread.
your right. my positon with regard to NIST has naturally changed in light of new information.

In my initial posts i had argued that NIST did not demonstrate X to be true. X in this case was the claim that global collapse was inevitable post collapse initiation.

After I was sent a video of the Balzac Vitry demolition by Dave Rogers this - visual and physical demonstration - persuaded me to revise my long held conviction that explosives had to be planted in the lower structure. Before, I could not envisage the one way crush down hypothesis because nobody could show this layman some actual examples.

In my current posts, I still argue that NIST did not demonstrate X to be true. X in this case is the collapse mechanism or series of events that NIST claim caused collapse initiation.

I could agree with that statement, because NIST wasn't tasked with demonstrating it. I've already explained why
Were they tasked to demonstrate how collapse initiation was caused?

NIST "proves" their hypothesis via computer simulation. This is why i asked that you answer the following question:
If I devised a computer simulation and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?

If you could just answer this question you would soon realize the problem i have with computer simulations being used to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events.

Now lets say for arguments sake that I accept computer simulations as a means to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events. Would you agree with me that at the very least NIST should have used the data they obtained from "actual" tests they performed instead of exaggerating this data in order to generate a "virtual" collapse iniation?

The problem I see here is that, while you seem willing to use science and scientific principals in your research, most of your arguments are based on your own lack of knowledge in the field you are trying to investigate. NIST was doing its investigation to explain the collapse initiation mechanism to the many thousands of building design professionals in the country, these people don't need the explanations that you seem to require.

It is not a problem to expect someone to physically demonstrate why their new causal hypothesis is true given that there is more than one explanation out there.

To be perfectly frank, i dont give a hoot if all those professinals were satisfied with NIST. i read the relevant sections of the NIST report on wtc 1 + 2 and the data they used to generate the virtual collapse initiation was not the same data they recorded from the limited testing they actually conducted. I see this as unscientific, would you agree?

As for building 7 - we have a normal office fire allegedly causing global collapse. Because this has never happened before and if true has enormous implications in building safety design then this hypothesis must be physically demontrated to be true!

On a side note, consider the lives we would have saved if we demanded Bush and co to physically demonstrate that Iraq had WMD’s. By raising our standards of proof the world would be a better place.

I think that some conspiracy theorists have a hard time wrapping their brains around that.

Perhaps, but I have a brain of my own and when i learn of facts such as NIST using sexed-up data to generate their virtual collapse, I do not need an expert to tell why this is wrong and unscientific.
I await your response to my questions before I determine whether you can wrap your head around that fact.

Earlier in the thread, when I suggested that you would want a post-graduate physicist and post-graduate structural engineer to help you design a scaled-down model, I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence or suggest you were incompetent.

No worries amigo, i didnt take offence because the tone of your posts are not beligerant. Besides once you have debated in jrefer forum you soon develop a thick skin to insults and ad homs. Its all part of the charm of this forum
peace

[ozeco41]

I see one of the posters got to some of these before I could. I'll keep my response a bit short(er).....
..... :blush: :blush: :o

Didn't intend to steal your thunder GB.... That the dynamic weight of the accelerating mass is more relevant than how big one section is compared with the other? Spot on - hence why a tank of aviation fuel could cut through the steel columns. Do you understand that the collapse progression is the failure of individual elements of the structural system in rapid succession as opposed to the failure of the overall system at once?That point must rank as the most misunderstood and overlooked by both sides of WTC 9/11 debates. It was not a "Block C" hits "Block A" situation where C<<A therefore C loses OR "C runs out of floors in a onefor one 'trade' before A does"

Remember also that the top block impacted mostly on the floors not the columns and MOSTLY bypassed the core - simple probability - there was a lot of space in the falling bit of core. So must be true even though not visisble. The exact proportion of "MOSTLY" matters little.

[ozeco41]

@thewholesoul

Just for the record I see you are still playing with "changing horses" - using words with different meaning or swapping objectives on the fly. General fogginess and use of innuendos.
..... I still argue that NIST did not demonstrate X to be true. X in this case is the collapse mechanism or series of events that NIST claim caused collapse initiation.

OK we get the message that "[you] still argue" - is that the message you intended because that is what you say
Were they tasked to demonstrate how collapse initiation was caused? err.. Yes says me - looking for the trap........NIST "proves" their hypothesis via computer simulation. This is why i asked that you answer the following question: ..presuming you mean the lay definition of proves -- yes they did. despite my caution to you in previous posts you persist in using ambiguous terms without defining which meaning you intend. That is naughty! ....If you could just answer this question you would soon realize the problem i have with computer simulations being used to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events. .......we get the message (again) that you have problems... ... Now lets say for arguments sake that I accept computer simulations as a means to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events. Would you agree with me that at the very least NIST should have used the data they obtained from "actual" tests they performed instead of exaggerating this data in order to generate a "virtual" collapse initiation? well several foggies or ambiguities or innuendoes in that. Clearest message, in the absence of any suggestion as to how the MODEL could be improved OR why the values adjustment was wrong, is you do not understand model calibration. ... It is not a problem to expect someone to physically demonstrate why their new causal hypothesis is true given that there is more than one explanation out there. Three main problems (1) They have demonstrated the truth of the hypothesis to anyone sufficiently knowledgeable to understand and ethical to accept;(2) Demonstration do not need to be physical when neither the issue being demonstrated nor the responsible members of the target audience needs physical; AND (3) There are no alternates of any equivalent status. Try naming at least one other explanation that differs from NIST. ...To be perfectly frank, i don't give a hoot if all those professionals were satisfied with NIST. i read the relevant sections of the NIST report on wtc 1 + 2 and the data they used to generate the virtual collapse initiation was not the same data they recorded from the limited testing they actually conducted. I see this as unscientific, would you agree? ..I cannot speak for Minadin but I have not the slightest difficulty agreeing with you that "[you] see this as unscientific". However I cannot tell if you genuinely hold that opinion or if it is a pretense for purposes of debate. Whichever it is the NIST explanation is not the subject of debate. The issue is does their explanation give a valid mechanism for collapse initiation. First principle of war (Aussie version) here tws - "Selection and maintenance of the Aim. you once again change aim.

As for building 7 - we have a normal office fire allegedly causing global collapse. Because this has never happened before and if true has enormous implications in building safety design then this hypothesis must be physically demontrated to be true! ..more ambiguity .. you mean "...must be physically demonstrated before you will believe it to be true! The NIST objective does not include convincing all three of those who set unrealistic standards of proof whether for genuine or not so genuine reasons. ....On a side note, consider the lives we would have saved if we demanded Bush and co to physically demonstrate that Iraq had WMD’s. By raising our standards of proof the world would be a better place....Gawd!!! How does raising the standard of proof for US domestic engineering forensic analysis have any affect on "Iraq had WMD’s". As for the ridiculous suggestion that such physical evidence would.....nah...forget it. ...Perhaps, but I have a brain of my own and when i learn of facts such as NIST using sexed-up data to generate their virtual collapse, I do not need an expert to tell why this is wrong and unscientific. Actually the matter of your possession of "Cranially Embedded Grey Cell Unit Mk 1" is not in debate. Wrong objective yet again. BUT the manner in which it is employed is under question. Even there the issue is not the functioning of said brain. Rather the adoption of questionably too high standards for the forensic exercise in debate.
I await your response to my questions before I determine whether you can wrap your head around that fact...and what I could do with that visual metaphor....I will resist. :D :D ..... Besides once you have debated in jrefer forum you soon develop a thick skin to insults and ad homs. Its all part of the charm of this forum...
As a newcomer I find the "insults and ad homs" childish BUT the real problem they present me is that they seem to be the #1 objective with discussion of issues #2 at best. I may disagree strongly with what you say OR how you say it but personal attacks seem to me to merely lower the credibility of the person making them and what they are saying.

[stateofgrace]

In reply to TWS


In relation to Wtc 7, was the kind of core column that failed rebuilt and subjected to the same heat as an normal office fire and its behaviour thereafter observed?
In relation to Wtc 1 + 2, the data in the computer models which generated the “virtual” initial collapse were inconsistent from the data measured from the “actual” experiments in the fire burn tests, floor trusses, etc.

No because it was fully explained, it did not need to be rebuilt.


The phenomena of (a) a boat sinking and (b) a building globally collapsing are not new phenomena as they have been observed many times prior to the sinking of the titanic and 911 respectively.

Correct.


The hypothesis of (a1) collisions cause boats to sink and (b1) controlled demolition cause global collapse are not new hypothesis and have explained many times prior to the titanic and 911 why boats sink and buildings globally collapse.

Correct.


We do not need to demonstrate an already proven hypothesis for an observed event. We only need to demonstrate new and unproven hypothesis for an observed event.

Really? I thought you just said that global collapse was not new phenomena?



The hypothesis – a normal office fire caused the global collapse of a building IS a NEW explanation for global collapse hence it REQUIRES demonstration before we can and should accept it as fact.

Really? So an explanation is not sufficient, it requires a demonstration, right? Hold this thought while I decode the rest of your words.


Moreover, given that we have observed many office fires prior to 911 and none of them caused global collapse only serves to underscore the need to demonstrate this new hypothesis.

Really? So we now have to ignore the planes slamming into each WTC and the damage done to the other skyscraper by the collapse of the said towers and imagine that there were only fires on Sept11th, right? Is this how it works in crazy town?

It was explained based from experience of collisions causing boats to sink. The hypothesis of collisions causing boats to sink was not a new phenomena and for that reason did not require extensive demonstration.

I thought you said that global collapse was not a new phenomenon? Is it only new in the case of the WTC’s that not only suffered massive fires but had planes slammed into them, right?


Nevertheless, it could have been demonstrated but it would only have served to affirm the obvious.
Office fires causing global collapse is not obvious and neither has it ever been demonstrated prior to or since 911.

Really? So unless it as happened before it cannot possibly happen, right? It cannot possibly happen that hijackers would slam planes into building, right? Cos it has never happened before, right? Please cite a single example of terrorist slamming planes into buildings and the building survived, as it ever happened before?I now require a full explanation and a demonstration.


Are you starting to see the difference?

Are you? Are you starting to realise that just because it has never happened before does not mean that it cannot happen? Or are you clinging to the belief that secret death squads planted lot and lots of explosives inside fully occupied buildings and went totally unnoticed? Please cite an example of death squads sneaking into fully occupied building and packing them full of explosives, as it ever happened before? I now not only require an explanation but require a full demonstration.


They Demonstrated that the earth was not flat by circumnavigating the globe in a ship and by not sailing off an edge!

Did they? So unless “they “ had circumnavigated the earth I guess “they “ would still imagine it was flat and totally reject science that said otherwise, right?



Thats a straw man. I am not advocating a full demonstration.

So what are you advocating, exactly?


Should not those proposing a hypothesis be responsible for proving it?

Yep they should, when you are ready feel free to do so.

I thought i made it clear that after watching the Balzac Vitry demolition i have revised my belief that explosives needed to be planted in the lower structure to produce global collapse? In other words, I do not have much objections to what you said above, but if I am unable to use the word “crush” could you please suggest what word more appropriately describes what happened?

How about the correct wording? Global collapse or progressive collapse, take your pick.


Debating over a word is the height of nit picking. But in future every time i say “crush” i really mean the long tongue twister you provided

Use which ever word you see fit,but rather than implying the entire lower section was totally crushed by the upper section, which did not happen , you could actually be honest when you try to describe the collapse of the towers.


You debunkers sure love those plane crashes which by the way were not the reason for core column failure nor cause of collapse initiation.

Nobody “loves “ those plane crashes and most sane, rational people are appalled by those plane crashes. Nobody suggested that those “lovely “plane crashes were the sole reason the core failed or the cause of the collapse initiation


What is rational is to say well if C always caused X and P never caused X then maybe we should investigate both C and P hypothesis.
What is irrational is to beleive that a normal office fire can cause global collapse eventhough O never caused X prior to and since the event; and eventhough the new hypothesis O causes X has never been physically demintrated to be true.

I have read this three times now and it still makes zero sense, please repost it in ration, sane English.


Global collapse of buildings from controlled demolition is not make belief.
There is accumulating evidence but it has never been official investigated.

Please present it.


Remote control planes exist.

Please provide evidence that this is relevant to the events of 911.


The planes did not cut through all the core columns on all the floors it impacted.

Please back up this statement with evidence.


Explosives could be placed in the columns or on the rear of the columns or have protection around them as not to ignite during an FAE

Evidence? You have zero.


Death squads exist..

Present your evidence they were used on Sept 11th.


I never accused them or any body of murder. Everyone is innoncent until proven guilty


Of Course you have not.


You accuse Osama Bin Laden of 911 yet the FBI admits they have no hard evidence linking hm to 911?

Do I? Where did I say this? You do understand there is hugh differance between evidence and intelligence don’t you?


But we can both agree mass murder did occur, problem is NO-ONE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY 7 years after the fact that tells me either the investiagtion may have been a cover up, it must have been poorly conducted, and that a new investigation for the alterior reasons is needed

Really? Have you told the UN?


But the orgy of barbarism brought about by Bin Laden and his followers in American cities is far worse than anything suffered up to then and made a change of attitude urgently necessary.

http://www.un.org/terrorism/ruperez-article.html (http://www.un.org/terrorism/ruperez-article.html)


I may be wrong but are you refering to the message from the musilm world?

You are wrong; I am referring to the message from Muslim extremists.


I myself once believed that 911 was blow back for decades of U.S. ocupation and interference in the middle east. And what happened after 911? Thats right, more occupation and more interference in the middle east. Indeed if you ascribe to the blow back hypothesis then you must be apauled at Obama’s refusal to immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, his increase of troops into Afganistan and his expansion of the “war on terrorism” into neighbouring Pakistan?

But of course this blow back could not have instigated Sept 11th, right? After all we are dealing with cavemen, right?


Of course we have enemies, dont be silly. Indeed anyone who accepts the fact that terrorist cells exist and also accept the fact that governments commit false flag terrorism have more enemies than your narrow and reductionist view of reality.

Really? But you fail to acknowledge that the same terrorist cells could actually act unalterably, they of course have be controlled by your all powerful, all seeing, all controlling USG, right? It is really silly to acknowledge that that those who genuinely believe they really have genuine grievance could take matters into their own hands and really strike at the “great Satan “. They have to be controlled; they have to be totally under your Governments control, right?


At last some progress!

So we both agree that the official and unofficial collapse hypothesis for wtc 1, 2, and 7 could all be false.


Wrong , you have got it into your head that I agree. To date I have agreed with zero you have said, you have said zero to make me abandon the rational world and buy into your theories. When you feel ready, please present something to change my mind.


I told you I ascirbe to the CD hypothesis. is that not alternative enough?

Then back up your aspirations with fact, evidence and logic, something, to date you have failed to do.

OK, I am bored with this now I may or may not address your last post later, the one where you claim, and again without evidence, that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are funded by the US. But judging by you latest outbursts, it hardly seems worth it.

[stateofgrace]

It is a fact that 911 was used to invade two UNRELATED nations – illegally. So to prevent future illegal and preemptive wars exposing that 911 was an inside job is not a bad place to start.
People want peace not war yet they keep on happening. Why is that? I beleive that almost all wars are based on LIES. Those who manipulate the people for war are those who benefit from war.
No i didnt march. They are pointless endevours once you realize that democracy is a joke, that there is no right and left only above and below, that is, the elite and the rest of us. In this context politicians act as middle men selling to an already exhausted public more taxes and wars. Exposing 911 exposes the ruling elite.

peace


It is not a fact that 911 were used to invade two unrelated nations, stop posting absolute BS. The invasion of Iraq was decided before 911. The events of Sept 11th had absolutely zero to do with the war in Iraq, other than the fact it was used to ride rough shot over the UN. The war in Iraq, may or not be illegal and is hotly debated to date but save your absolute conspiracy rubbish for your teenier bobber forums. Whether you believe wars are based on lies, is irrelevant, the war in Iraq was based on WMD and nothing else.Iraq was not linked to 911, Iraq was not linked to Al Qaeda prior to 911. To suggest that 911 were staged to validate such a war is the height of stupidity.

Democracy is not a joke, it is what tens of thousands died for in the great wars. The freedom that you now take for granted and mock was paid for in blood.You, sir, are an absolute disgrace to all those that laid down their lives allowing you to spew your BS.

Go read a history book, child, stop making crap up and better still stop posting it on this forum.

PS, when you have finished spewing BS, any chance you will actually get this thread back on topic?

PPS, Politics is that way=====>, go start your Demoracy is a joke thread down there.

[Minadin]

Were they tasked to demonstrate how collapse initiation was caused?

NIST "proves" their hypothesis via computer simulation. This is why i asked that you answer the following question:


If you could just answer this question you would soon realize the problem i have with computer simulations being used to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events.

Yes, they were tasked to explain the mechanisms behind the initiations of the collapse. Specifically, this was their summary of goals:

The collapse of the WTC buildings has led to broad reexamination of how tall buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used, especially with regard to major events such as fires, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks. Reflecting the enhanced interest in effecting necessary change, NIST, with support from Congress and the Administration, has put in place a program, the goal of which is to develop the standards, technology, and practices needed for cost-effective improvements to the safety and security of buildings and building occupants, including evacuation, emergency response procedures, and threat mitigation.



The strategy to meet this goal is a three-part NIST-led public-private response program that includes:

A federal building and fire safety investigation to study the most probable factors that contributed to the post-aircraft impact collapse of the WTC towers and the 47-story WTC 7 building, and the associated evacuation and emergency response experience.
A research and development (R&D) program to (a) facilitate the implementations of recommendations resulting from the WTC Investigation, and (b) provide the technical basis for cost-effective improvements to national building and fire codes, standards, and practices that enhance the safety of buildings, their occupants, and emergency responders.
A dissemination and technical assistance program (DTAP) to (a) engage leaders of the construction and building community in ensuring timely adoption and widespread use of proposed changes to practices, standards, and codes resulting from the WTC Investigation and the R&D program, and (b) provide practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters.
The desired outcomes are to make buildings, occupants, and first responders safer in future disaster events.Warning: the link to the document takes you to a 59Mb PDF.

But they don't make their case via the computer simulation. They use the model to demonstrate it, and as a way to understand it better because it's something that they can repeat and observe and take various measurements from. They make their case by thorough documentation of the conditions, analysis of that documentation, and a substantial amount of engineering calculations to account for the observations, using known (via much prior experimentation) engineering principles.

Without the extensive documentation, analysis and mathematics behind your hypothetical model, it wouldn't 'prove' anything at all. The reason I say this is that it isn't the computer simulation I accept as NIST's explanation, it's the work that it was based upon.

Now lets say for arguments sake that I accept computer simulations as a means to prove the causal mechanisms behind physical events. Would you agree with me that at the very least NIST should have used the data they obtained from "actual" tests they performed instead of exaggerating this data in order to generate a "virtual" collapse iniation?

But, they did use experimental data from actual tests to produce their mathematical model. They had experimental data giving them structural properties of the steel, for instance. They had experimental data for potential damage to the fireproofing which might have been caused by airplane impact debris. They had experimental data describing the performance of the floor assemblies under a range of fire conditions. They had wind tunnel tests to ascertain the probable values for wind loads . . . They had many more.

You can see a list of the many various reports they compiled on pages 34 - 38 of the NCSTAR 1-2 document I quoted (and linked to) above. They include detailed experiments such as:

-Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire, NIST NCSTAR 1-5B
-Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations, NIST NCSTAR 1-5C
-Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks, NIST NCSTAR 1-5D
-Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Office Workstations Burning in a Compartment, NIST NCSTAR 1-5E
-Fire Resistance Tests of Floor Truss Systems, NIST NCSTAR 1-6B

It is not a problem to expect someone to physically demonstrate why their new causal hypothesis is true given that there is more than one explanation out there.

I think I agree with ozeco41 in that you seem to not be consistently applying the same standards to 'alternative' explanations as you are to the NIST report, though perhaps that is because theirs is so much more extensively documented and easily available to invite this level of scrutiny. At a glance, however, it appears that you are committing a sort of special pleading (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Special_pleading).

Earlier, you seem to have committed a God of the Gaps (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/God_of_the_Gaps_Fallacy) fallacy when you stated that if it wasn't fires that cause the collapses, it must have been controlled demolition. This sort of argument is easy to fall into when you already have a conclusion in mind, but needs to be limited as much as possible in a scientific discussion. Ozeco41 cautioned you earlier about your casual and seemingly fluctuating use of potentially misleading definitions (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Misleading_Definition).

To be perfectly frank, i dont give a hoot if all those professinals were satisfied with NIST. i read the relevant sections of the NIST report on wtc 1 + 2 and the data they used to generate the virtual collapse initiation was not the same data they recorded from the limited testing they actually conducted. I see this as unscientific, would you agree?

Well, as I said earlier, the virtual model was based upon the mathematical model, which was based on observed phenomena and experimental data. The virtual model was of course tweaked within the bounds set by the mathematical model and experimental data to mimic the observed phenomena as closely as possible in later iterations of the experiment. That's not unusual or unethical - in fact I would be more upset if they had not followed through with this.

So, I don't see this as unscientific, but I understand how you might get the impression that they were 'cooking the books'. I am not concerned about this because as long as their adjustments were within the range of the data they had available and conform to known engineering principles, they are not only still valid, but likely more accurate since they also match the documented observations.

As for building 7 - we have a normal office fire allegedly causing global collapse. Because this has never happened before and if true has enormous implications in building safety design then this hypothesis must be physically demontrated to be true!

NIST covered Building 7 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm). Fires have, in fact, caused buildings to collapse prior to Building 7, and not just the 2 previous on that day. There's a good reason we have to fire-insulate steel structural elements, more so in tall buildings, and if it weren't very important to protect these members, owners would never pay for it, as it's quite costly.

However, NIST did conclude that there were some unique structural issues with WTC 7 which contributed to its collapse, in addition to the structural damage cause by falling building debris from WTC 1 and the fires. These included the long spans in the floor beams and trusses affected by the fires, which exacerbated the impact of thermal expansion, and a lack of lateral bracing for some key structural elements.

It is interesting to note that the NIST believes, based on some model scenarios that they tested, that if the sprinklers had been functioning in WTC 7, it wouldn't have collapsed at all. (Anecdotally, I've been told that no-one has ever died in a fire in a building with a working sprinkler system, not that anyone did in WTC 7)

Still, I would expect some significant changes to building codes, standards, and practices to proceed from their findings.

Perhaps, but I have a brain of my own and when i learn of facts such as NIST using sexed-up data to generate their virtual collapse, I do not need an expert to tell why this is wrong and unscientific.
I await your response to my questions before I determine whether you can wrap your head around that fact.

I did not find any 'sexed-up' data in the NIST report. Perhaps you are referring to the tweaks they made to their model? They ran multiple scenarios for each collapse to test a wide range of assumptions based on the available data and observations to find a situation that most closely fit reality. I don't really have a problem with that. Neither do (the vast majority of) the rest of building design professionals, and I think that should tell you something.

[thewholesoul]

Broadly you appear to be constructing an impenetrable barrier around your position: First by your requirement that nothing be "proved" until it has been physically modelled.

No you misunderstand. I am simply stating a fact that NIST has not proven empirically their hypothesis as to how wtc 1, 2 and 7 globally collapsed. This fact has implications. Of course I am aware there are other kinds of proof such as mathemathical, computer modelling i.e. that empirical proof is not the only kind of proof.

Second by your idiosyncratic use of language and your willingness to "change horses" on how you use words which then enables you to argue against either side of any aspect of debate.

Refer to dictionary.com for the meaning of any word I use.

In general the discussion of WTC events suffers from misapplication of the so called "scientific method" whether such misapplication is deliberate or unintended.

It is a fact that NIST misapplied the scientific method when investigating the collapse wtc 1, 2 and 7.

The process of analysis is one of Engineering Forensics which seeks to find explanations of a one off event.

Defintion of Engineering forensics in wikipedia:

“Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property”

NIST’s process of analysis explained the global collapse of wtc 7 without any investigation or analysis of any actual material from the wtc 7 structure because it was all removed and destroyed.

The demand for "empirically proven" or physical reproducibility as the only standard you are prepared to adopt is the most easily seen and it is clearly either a problem of your own approach OR simply an excuse raised as a barrier.

A demand for “empirical proof” is a question of resolving the polar divide once and for all. Your position, if I understand you correctly, is that forensic engineering is not required to physically demonstrate its explanations. The problem for me is that there is another bunch of engineers who offer an alternative explanation. How should the layman decide which bunch of engineers has the correct explanation?

The "variable usage" of language. Take for example "hypothesis" you use the word differently. The hypotheses of the "official explanations" are framed as complete explanations where all the parts fit together to form a whole. Contrast that with your claims for alternate hypotheses. I am not aware of hypothesis from any truther source that attempts to be a completely framed explanation. Most are characterised by incompleteness. Many are internally inconsistent.

On the crudest level are only two competing hypothesis (a) global collapse caused by structural failure [NIST] and (b) global collapse caused by controlled demolition.

In post 109 i defined hypothesis as – the explanation of the observed phenomena, how it happened.

Now your answer to “How should the layman decide which bunch of engineers has the correct explanation?” Is that I should believe the hypothesis of the official explanation because they are “framed as complete explanations where all parts fit together” whereas alternate hypothesis are incomplete. But you are unfairly comparing a fully funded official investigation with all the resources at its disposal to an unofficial privately funded group(s) and expect the latter to have a completely framed explanation?

Now such unformed potential hypotheses do not warrant equal consideration with fully framed ones AND,

The only reason they are unformed is precisely because they were not offiically investigated. If they were then we would have an even playing field to choose from.

even more important, the burden of proof rests with the proponent to support their hypothesis NOT on the opponent to disprove.

I agree. The burden of proof rests on NIST to support their own hypothesis. The argument however is whether one considers a computer simulation with sexed up data as sufficient and reliable in proving a physical event.

At present the status of thermate is little further advanced than the laser bolts from space craft "Hypothesis".

I wouldnt go that far, but i would agree that he has a lot further to go. By the way, his hypothisis has moved on from thermate to nanothermite. However i have seen no demonstration of how nanothermite can cut through core beams.

3) You appear to conflate and link issues which are separated or separable. I offered to discuss the inevitability of the Global collapse. In other posts since mine you link issues like the wars and you political views as if they somehow are relevant to the mechanism of global collapse. They are not and such conflation does not augur well for rational discussion.

When some asks a political question they will recieve a political answer.

As for the inevitability of the global collapse I agree. I would be interested however in hearing your explanation of why wtc 7 globally collapsed.

we are discussing the WTC 9/11 events. YOU raise this hypothesis of "a normal office fire caused the global collapse of a building" - it is your hypothesis so it is your responsibility to demonstrate it.

Exactly!! The problem is this is NIST’s hypothesis, not mine! You are aware a third skyscraper globally collapsing on Sept 11th? NIST claim that a normal office fire was the cause. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

I dont believe them. Only an empirical demonstration would convince me of its “actual” truth. This does not involve lighting a match in 47 steel framed building. It involves rebuilding to scale the floor beams and girders and exposing them to the same environmental conditions that a normal office fire would produce then observing to see IF the thermal expansion would lead to a girder losing its connection to a column like they claim it did. If something is possible then it must be repeatable.

I have no intention of accepting it [NIST’s hypothesis for wtc 7] as fact.

Exactly!! Now we are on the same page.

Just for the record I see you are still playing with "changing horses" - using words with different meaning or swapping objectives on the fly. General fogginess and use of innuendos.

I apologise, sometimes words have more than one interpretation.

well several foggies or ambiguities or innuendoes in that. Clearest message, in the absence of any suggestion as to how the MODEL could be improved OR why the values adjustment was wrong, is you do not understand model calibration.

Forgive me but you give me the impression of being unfamilar withe the NIST report. For an excellent critique see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM and read this if you get a chance http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

Three main problems (1) They have demonstrated the truth of the hypothesis to anyone sufficiently knowledgeable to understand and ethical to accept;

In respect to wtc 1 + 2 they have demonstrated the “possible” truth of their hypothesis through a manipulated computer simulation.

In respect to wtc 7 they have demonstated the “possible truth” of their hypothesis without testing any of actual stuctural components or rebuild to scale components they claim to have failed.

(2) Demonstration do not need to be physical when neither the issue being demonstrated nor the responsible members of the target audience needs physical;

Such reasoning only serves to prevent the public at large from understanding what really happened. It also excuses the practice of poor science by NIST.

What if NIST’s physical claim that – thermal expansion caused the girder in wtc 7 to loose its connection to a column – was tested and they could not reproduce what they claim happened? Do we continue believing that the offical explanation is possibly true despite their inability to physically prove it, or do we seek an alternative explanation?

AND (3) There are no alternates of any equivalent status. Try naming at least one other explanation that differs from NIST.

There are alternates they are not of equivalent status because they are unoffical, under funded, lack resources, et cetera.

..I cannot speak for Minadin but I have not the slightest difficulty agreeing with you that "[you] see this as unscientific". However I cannot tell if you genuinely hold that opinion or if it is a pretense for purposes of debate.

It is a genuinely held opinion. Its implications are grave. The official explanation for why the towers globally collapsed rests on a virtual simulation that used manipulted data. It shocked me when I found this out. And angers me that their investigation is regarded as sufficient.

Whichever it is the NIST explanation is not the subject of debate.

There is nothing beyond debate.

The issue is does their explanation give a valid mechanism for collapse initiation.

My issue is whether their explanation should be considered valid.

..more ambiguity .. you mean "...must be physically demonstrated before you will believe it to be true!

Not exactly. If something has been shown to be an actual objective fact you can always subjectively believe that its false but it is still a fact. This is why empirical truth is so powerful because it cannot rationally be denied.

The NIST objective does not include convincing all three of those who set unrealistic standards of proof whether for genuine or not so genuine reasons.

Expecting NIST not to manipulate the data to generate a virtual collapse initiation is not setting an unrealistic standard. Expecting NIST to make some actual tests on structural beams and columns that failed to support their hypothesis is not unrealistic.

Peace.

[A W Smith]

It is understood how structural steel behaves because it has been used in skyscrapers for over 100 years (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blskyscapers.htm). The data is known and accepted by engineers world wide. It is also known and accepted worldwide by engineers that steel loses its strength if fires (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm). Therefore It is not necessary to have steel in hand to predict or analyze its behavior because it is predictable using existing known historical data and computer simulations that match observed events. It is your burden of proof to demonstrate that NIST has not proven empirically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) their hypothesis as to how wtc 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. So far you have failed to do so.

[Crungy]

@ ozeco41. FYI, Ryan Mackey has addressed and answered most of questions the wholesoul has thrown at you. He knows that. Restating them and pretending that they weren't addressed is par for the twoofer course. After experiencing this type of intellectual dishonesty over and over you'll understand why many helpful professionals such as yourself burn shorter fuses.

[Minadin]

The NIST actually did do a fair job at explaining why WTC 7 collapsed disproportionately (progressively, globally) and their report is quite different in that aspect compared to their prior reports for WTC 1 and 2.

They also looked into alternative hypotheses such as Blast Scenarios, Diesel Fuel Fires from generators, and the Con-Ed substation below the building. They cover these things in NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf) (Warning: 29Mb PDF) in Chapter 13.3 and Appendix D.

The bottom line is that the WTC 7 collapse looked more like a conventional building demolition because the failure initiated near the base of the structure, and progressed due to gravity. That's the goal of most professional CD's - you do the least amount of destruction to ensure the necessary effect, getting more 'bang' for your buck (apologies for bad pun).

[jaydeehess]

In relation to Wtc 7, was the kind of core column that failed rebuilt and subjected to the same heat as an normal office fire and its behaviour thereafter observed?


I've been away enjoying the long weekend and This caught my eye at the top of the page.

It is apparent that TWS may not have bothered to read the NIST report.

The core column, column 79 IIRC, failed not because it got hot. It failed because the girders and beams around it got hot and the floor collapsed (that's the short story, read the NIST doc for more detail) The assymettric construction allowed the floor failure to occur as it did. The loss of floors led to loss of lateral bracing of column 79 which then buckled bringing down all floors it was attached to.

.

[Minadin]

That's correct. It lost lateral bracing, which made its effective length longer than what it was designed for. It buckled.

[Seymour Butz]

To be honest no. It was a great video and forces me to seriously question my belief that the lower structure was demolished by controlled demolition. It is the kind of empirical demonstration that I think we all need more of.



This is because you can see what actually happened, and you know that it challenges your beliefs about 9/11, which are based in ignorance.

The top part didn't demolish the lower part.

The top part demolished one floor.

Then another.

Then another.

Until it gets to the bottom.

[A W Smith]

This is because you can see what actually happened, and you know that it challenges your beliefs about 9/11, which are based in ignorance.

The top part didn't demolish the lower part.

The top part demolished one floor.

Then another.

Then another.

Until it gets to the bottom.

Im still on my back up computer so the Balzac Vitry video is quite jumpy. But in the video. Can you slow it down enough to count the time it takes to crush each floor? Does the time increase as it reached the ground? or decrease? If the time increment decreases for each successive floor than we can conclude that collapse would not arrest regardless of height.

[3bodyproblem]

If something is possible then it must be repeatable.


The lottery numbers for the 6/49 on Saturday were 5, 6, 7, 11, 17 & 34. It's a very simple process, you place numbered balls 1-49 in a drum and pick 6 at random. They came out 7, 11, 6, 34, 5, 17.

Do you really believe this isn't true because it can't be repeated?

[jaydeehess]

The lottery numbers for the 6/49 on Saturday were 5, 6, 7, 11, 17 & 34. It's a very simple process, you place numbered balls 1-49 in a drum and pick 6 at random. They came out 7, 11, 6, 34, 5, 17.

Do you really believe this isn't true because it can't be repeated?

The odds of hitting the 6/49 jackpot are
49 X 48 X 47 X 46 X 45 X 44 = 10 billion+ to one
Duplicating this feat with the same 6 numbers is nigh on impossible but the probability is greater than zero.

According to TWS the complex , chaotic actions of the tower collapses should be replicatable. Indeed it would be IF you allow that it will not be exact. In your lottery example this would be the same as keeping two of the six numbers for the next draw and four new ones and being satisfied with the two coming up again while the other four are within say +/- 5 of the numbers that come up.

[thewholesoul]

Yes, they were tasked to explain the mechanisms behind the initiations of the collapse. Specifically, this was their summary of goals: “to study the most probable factors that contributed to the collapse of the WTC towers and the 47-story WTC 7 building, et certa”. But they don't make their case via the computer simulation. They use the model to demonstrate it...Without the extensive documentation, analysis and mathematics behind your hypothetical model, it wouldn't 'prove' anything at all. The reason I say this is that it isn't the computer simulation I accept as NIST's explanation, it's the work that it was based upon.

If I understand you correctly then your position is as follows: NIST through computer modelling – demonstrated – how the most probable factors contributed to the collapse of wtc 1, 2, and 7. But the reason you accept NIST’s explanation is not because they used a computer model to demonstrate their collapse hypothesis, but rather because of the work [documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] they based their computer modelling upon. Therefore if I devised a computer model, based on no work, which showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, this according to you would not “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition? Ok, so if

I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?

peace,
ps i ve been a little busy of late. will get to the rest of your post in time.

[ozeco41]

@ ozeco41. FYI, Ryan Mackey has addressed and answered most of questions the wholesoul has thrown at you. He knows that. Restating them and pretending that they weren't addressed is par for the twoofer course. After experiencing this type of intellectual dishonesty over and over you'll understand why many helpful professionals such as yourself burn shorter fuses.

Thanks Crungy. I am well aware of the phenomenon and becoming aware of R Mackey's top quality work.

I post for the benefit of lurkers and reasonable people. Plus having two or three or more competent persons say the same things in principle is IMO stronger than me saying "I fully agree with R Mackey" and looking like I am only running off someone else's hard work.

(Plus it's fun the first dozen or so times :D )

[Minadin]

It would prove it as well as the NIST model / explanation, yes.

I understand you might be busy, I've been busy myself from time to time.

I don't hold out a lot of hope that you'll be able to produce a better model than the NIST to conform to known engineering principles, observations, and experimental data, but I do wish you the best of luck if you decide to proceed with such an endeavor. Hopefully, you will at least learn something from the experience.

[ozeco41]

....I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition? .....

It would: Show that you had a computer model which you claimed to have designed; Be available for testing to see if it did what you claimed; Even if legitimate and did show that demolition COULD succeed, do nothing to advance the cause of those who claim demolition. WITH ONE DIFFERENCE; The difference is that you would be placed in the position of putting money where mouth is by forming AND revealing the mechanism by which you claim the towers could be demolished; AND That would AFAIK make you unique in the Truth Movement as the FIRST person to offer such a suggestion to the level that it could be modeled and the model work.

That last point alone would be worth the effort - you would be the instant hero of the truth movement. Feted across the land as guest speaker etc.

AND do you want to know the sad secret? It would still not "prove" that demolition had occurred.

Sorry but the evidence against demolition is not simply that no-one has shown how it could be done to produce the collapse which actually happened. The remaining evidence is still overwhelmingly conclusive.

Far safer to stick with your demands for everything to be proved by demonstration. There are many thousands of those which you can continue to delay and prevaricate over.

But,as I said, you could become the feted hero of the movement so "Go for it!"

[3bodyproblem]

The odds of hitting the 6/49 jackpot are
49 X 48 X 47 X 46 X 45 X 44 = 10 billion+ to one
Duplicating this feat with the same 6 numbers is nigh on impossible but the probability is greater than zero.



I forget my stats, but I think its combinations not permutations in regards to winning the 6/49, so it's 14 000 000 : 1 (49nCr6), the chances of the numbers being picked in that order ar 10 billion to 1 (49nPr6).

I just don't understand how people get it in their minds NIST was supposed to recreate a chaotic event by plugging it in to a computer program.

[Minadin]

These are the same people who think that because it's difficult (or takes a lot of memory and computations) to use a computer to simulate Apollo rocket launces and moon landings, that it would have been impossible to do if you just asked the computers where to point the ship and how fast you needed to go.

[jaydeehess]

I forget my stats, but I think its combinations not permutations in regards to winning the 6/49, so it's 14 000 000 : 1 (49nCr6), the chances of the numbers being picked in that order ar 10 billion to 1 (49nPr6).

I just don't understand how people get it in their minds NIST was supposed to recreate a chaotic event by plugging it in to a computer program.

Oops
You start with 6 of your own numbers and one is picked from 49
Your odds of having the first number drawn are
6/49
If you do have that number the odds of your having the next number drawn are 5/48
then 4/47
3/46
2/46
1/45
Multiplying
(6X5X4X3X2X1)/(49X48X47X46X45)=720/228826080 =,,,,,,,nah that does not work
Dang, its been 30 years since my stats classes and even the simple stuff is all balled up.<<sighs>>

14 billion to one sounds familiar though.

[alienentity]

thewholesoul wrote 'I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition? '

Sure, but only if it conformed with the other evidence available. One of the reasons the NIST analysis rejected CD was because there was no way to model the explosives needed without without shockwaves/windows and debris flying/loud explosions/bright explosive flashes, etc etc...
Since those things didn't happen on WTC7, explosives don't fit. The theory was rejected.

fyi they used computer programs identical to those used by demolition companies to do some of the research....isn't that ironic?

[thewholesoul]

If I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?

Sure, but only if it conformed with the other evidence available.
I agree.
One of the reasons the NIST analysis rejected CD was because there was no way to model the explosives needed
Thats the first time I heard that can you cite me the page number where NIST claims that one reason they rejected CD was because they couldnt model it?

without without shockwaves/windows and debris flying/loud explosions/bright explosive flashes, etc etc... Since those things didn't happen on WTC7, explosives don't fit. The theory was rejected.

Testimony exists for all of the charateristics you have cited above. Testimony is evidence. and this testimony was ignored by NIST.

other evidence (not proof) of CD was the sudden onset of collapse, the free fall speeds, etc

Besides NIST assumes that all demolition must use conventional explosives and no tests have been conducted by NIST or the truth movement using unconventional explosives to weaken and/or cut through core columns.
peace

[beachnut]

If I were to devise a computer model ...
You can't understand physics so how do you expect to make a model for your failed delusions based on lies and hearsay?

Make the model!

[ozeco41]

If I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition? ...

No, it would not.

It would prove that you can devise a computer model to give that result.

It could be a valid dempolition plan so it could "prove" that the towers could be brought down by contolled demolition. It cannot prove were brought down because the towers were not brought down either by demolition OR a computer model.

[jaydeehess]

If I were to devise a computer model [based on documentation, analysis, calculations, experimentations] and showed collapse initiation through contolled demolition, would that “prove” that the towers were brought down by contolled demolition?


I agree.

Of course one can produce a computer sim in which explosives produce the same result of destruction to the towers.

Thats the first time I heard that can you cite me the page number where NIST claims that one reason they rejected CD was because they couldnt model it?

I believe he was referring to the fact that NIST could find no empirical evidence for the type and magnitude of flashes and bangs necessary for such a demolition. That is that although these events were probably the single most recorded events in the past 50 years, there are no video's showing the bright flashes or recording on their audio tracks, the extreme bangs that result from demoltion charges.


Testimony exists for all of the charateristics you have cited above. Testimony is evidence. and this testimony was ignored by NIST.

Oddly enough then there is NO recordings of the flashes or bangs that would be present in a explosive demolition.

other evidence (not proof) of CD was the sudden onset of collapse, the free fall speeds, etc

Sudden onset, see the video of the collapse of the univesity building on fire, and there was no 'free fall speed'. do the math!

Besides NIST assumes that all demolition must use conventional explosives they also assume that magic was not used.

and no tests have been conducted by NIST or the truth movement using unconventional explosives to weaken and/or cut through core columns.
peace
Meaning you want them to look for zebras because you heard hoofbeats on the American plains.

That, or you are just begging for someone to mention the 'hushaboom' again.

[thewholesoul]

NIST covered Building 7 in NIST NCSTAR 1-9. Fires have, in fact, caused buildings to collapse prior to Building 7, and not just the 2 previous on that day.

I said caused “global” collapse and no, office fires prior to or since 911 have never caused global collapse of a steel framed building. Even NIST accept this - fact - on their own web page! The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

peace

[thewholesoul]

No, it would not. It would prove that you can devise a computer model to give that result. It could be a valid demolition plan so it could "prove" that the towers could be brought down by contolled demolition. It cannot prove they were brought down because the towers were not brought down either by demolition OR a computer model.

yet you believe that when NIST performs a computer model then that does prove the towers were brought down by their collapse hypothesis?

can you explain to me what exempts NIST's "proof" through computer modellling from your above reasoning.

peace

[beachnut]

yet you believe that when NIST performs a computer model then that does prove the towers were brought down by their collapse hypothesis?

can you explain to me what exempts NIST's "proof" through computer modellling from your above reasoning.

peace
When will you show a model?

Do you understand the primary energy used in CD is gravity?

When do you think you can prove your ideas on 911? I suspect if you were to gain the required skills to make a model of the WTC to try and prove a CD took place you would figure out how the WTC collapsed by gravity after fires and impact damage. Robertson the WTC chief structural engineer thinks your ideas about CD are ridiculous. Does the chief structural engineer have the upper hand on knowledge of his own design? Yes

Do you understand Newton and physics?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It cannot prove were brought down because the towers were not brought down either by demolition OR a computer model.


Careful... That's circular.

[jaydeehess]

yet you believe that when NIST performs a computer model then that does prove the towers were brought down by their collapse hypothesis?

can you explain to me what exempts NIST's "proof" through computer modellling from your above reasoning.

peace

Because NIST has the correlation between their modeling and the empirical evidence of the videos and still pics of the fires to compare to.

NIST has steel samples that can be positively identified as to where they were located in the structures, and which were not affected by the below ground fires, the heat damage to which they can compare to the heat damage predicted by their modeling and which was found to be consistent with that modeling.

ETA: NIST also has the very obvious fact that two large, fast , fuel laden aircraft flew into the structures igniting fires that, in a 'normal' office fire, would have taken several hours to develop. These impacts also caused signifcent structural damage to the very floors that would be involved in the fires and the initial collapse. however the exact quatification of that damage is impossible. If you were devising a CD you would have the great advantage of knowing the exact nature of the building you were destroying.

There is NO empirical evidence indicating explosive or incindiary use. Thus although one could devise an explosive demolition that could mimic what took place at the WTC towers there is nothing to indicate that this is what took place.

In order to call it a duck it really should quack, have feathers, webbed feet and paddle about in ponds. If all it has is webbed feet it is unwise and illogical to declare it a duck!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by ozeco41
It cannot prove were brought down because the towers were not brought down either by demolition OR a computer model.Careful... That's circular.

It does have that appearance - teach me to be cryptic.

I was actually referring to two bold assertions and I expected some one to pick up on those: towers were not brought down...by demolition; AND the towers were not brought down ... by ... a computer model.

The former I would be prepared to justify whilst the latter is/was intended as a joke.

Maybe that was also a mistake given the bizarre "logic" of some truther types. :D

[ozeco41]

..... Thus although one could devise an explosive demolition that could mimic what took place at the WTC towers there is nothing to indicate that this is what took place....

I have endeavoured to do just that including the requirement for the demolition to complement an aircraft impact and fire. PLus it must no give more visual evidence than the original process did. So that eliminates explosive cutting of outer tube columns.

If you include all three aircraft impact, fire and no additional visual evidence it becomes, in my opinion, not possible.

The key characteristic of the "Initial collapse" - the stage which started the fall of the top block, you have to get that block to fall wedged inside the outer tube walls of the lower structure. The simplest way to do that is to cut some floor joist trusses and partially cut others - cut only the bottom chord. Net result the sagging trusses cause the columns to bow inwards and you can precipitate a "rolling cascade" of column failures and load redistributions till BINGO...

BUT doing that in the fire scenario requires that any pre positioned cutting technology remain in place whilst a breaking up aeroplane sandblasts the relevant area where you need the charges. And any post crash installation requires that fire suited suicide workers install those charges without being detected and without premature ignition.

So, I can be a devious thinker BUT I don't fancy the chances of replicating 9/11 WTC to incorporate demolition assistance.

And why should you - it wasn't needed anyway.


EDIT PS ...but trying to work out how to do it is a great technique to put yourself in the mindset of the "other side" - I have a real life anecdote there but it can wait for a more opportune situation.

[Grizzly Bear]

So, I can be a devious thinker BUT I don't fancy the chances of replicating 9/11 WTC to incorporate demolition assistance.

And why should you - it wasn't needed anyway.


EDIT PS ...but trying to work out how to do it is a great technique to put yourself in the mindset of the "other side" - I have a real life anecdote there but it can wait for a more opportune situation.

I've tried to think that way but I tend to think that if a situation is severe enough, depending on the design of the building if you have the right combination of disasters there would be a collapse... I think a plane taking out a sizeable chunk of structural members and igniting a multistory fire, while disabling all means of fire suppression all at once is pushing it... Then having an entire section which happens to be roughly larger than an average sized high rise slamming down on the rest of the building... I don't think there are too many scenarios where the right combination of events makes this happen...

[ozeco41]

...... I don't think there are too many scenarios where the right combination of events makes this happen...

Quite correct. The technical literature generally referred to has only one example including three if you count separate buildings on the one site.

and two of those buildings were of a uniquely vulnerable structure subject to trauma somewhat worse than design which still stood until other factors took control. And the third building was strongly but nor perfectly analogous.
so only one real example but three instances. At least it was "replicable" but I don't think that is what the "Scientific Method" means. :D :rolleyes:

[Minadin]

I said caused “global” collapse and no, office fires prior to or since 911 have never caused global collapse of a steel framed building. Even NIST accept this - fact - on their own web page!

peace

You said:

As for building 7 - we have a normal office fire allegedly causing global collapse. Because this has never happened before and if true has enormous implications in building safety design then this hypothesis must be physically demontrated to be true!

I said:

Fires have, in fact, caused buildings to collapse prior to Building 7, and not just the 2 previous on that day.

They said:

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires
(bolding mine)

The bolded words in their statement are important. Your use of 'globally' is not, because there have been several buildings which have collapsed completely, due to fires, primarily. Steel-framed buildings, even. What's your explanation for how they are different?

Their use of 'tall' in the description in significant. Tall buildings are typically defined by US building codes as those which have an occupable floor at or above 75 feet over the level of primary egress. At that point, there are certain changes in the code for how the building and its occupants need to be protected. The codes become more strict because these structures are more susceptible to fires, not less, and because it takes longer to evacuate them.

As for being brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires I agree with NIST that this is a first for a tall building. It's also the first time that a tall building suffered fires for seven hours without firefighting efforts.

It's the first time that a building such as this had severe fires without its fire suppression system available. That there were no functioning sprinklers in WTC 7 is probably more significant than you realize. In the modern building code, sprinkler protection is a dominant factor in determining fire ratings for most building elements. With this capability removed, the building isn't going to perform as designed in the case of a fire.


I thought that you were going to take the time to respond to my entire post. Are you just going to respond to it piecemeal, like this? I guarantee that I can back up everything that I posted earlier.

[jaydeehess]

I have endeavoured to do just that including the requirement for the demolition to complement an aircraft impact and fire. PLus it must no give more visual evidence than the original process did. So that eliminates explosive cutting of outer tube columns.

If you include all three aircraft impact, fire and no additional visual evidence it becomes, in my opinion, not possible.

The key characteristic of the "Initial collapse" - the stage which started the fall of the top block, you have to get that block to fall wedged inside the outer tube walls of the lower structure. The simplest way to do that is to cut some floor joist trusses and partially cut others - cut only the bottom chord. Net result the sagging trusses cause the columns to bow inwards and you can precipitate a "rolling cascade" of column failures and load redistributions till BINGO...

BUT doing that in the fire scenario requires that any pre positioned cutting technology remain in place whilst a breaking up aeroplane sandblasts the relevant area where you need the charges. And any post crash installation requires that fire suited suicide workers install those charges without being detected and without premature ignition.

So, I can be a devious thinker BUT I don't fancy the chances of replicating 9/11 WTC to incorporate demolition assistance.

And why should you - it wasn't needed anyway.


EDIT PS ...but trying to work out how to do it is a great technique to put yourself in the mindset of the "other side" - I have a real life anecdote there but it can wait for a more opportune situation.


Given the long span of the trusses, the fact that the columns were concentrated in the core and perimeter with none in between and the damage caused by aircraft impact to portions of several floor spans it is not unusual to consider that the trusses (with less fire insulation than they had 10 seconds before impact) would bow severly. No cutting required.

I see that you like to skip over the part that NIST does have empirical evidence that correlates with its computer modeling which therefore goes toward validating their model.
You also skip the part where there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to bolster a claim of explosive or incidiary use.

[Minadin]

I think ozeco was trying to construct an hypothetical situation as a devil's advocate.

[jaydeehess]

I think ozeco was trying to construct an hypothetical situation as a devil's advocate.

OK, I have never doubted that one could produce very similar reults with explosives. Just take out columns similarily to how the fire did. Over the course of a few dozen minutes take out smaller core columns, a some truss seats and bottom chords then finally sever a few large core columns. Of course this requires that all witnesses be deaf.

Using therm*te would reduce explosive noise but it is inconsistent in the rapidity of its action and at some point you will have to have columns timed right at which point you need the precision that explosives will allow, and the deafness of witnesses.(this is all assuming that the fire is not affecting the steel) The therm*te would need to be hidden from outside view and none on the highest or lowest fire floors(they had survivors that either used their cell phones or made it out alive and a large, white hot, hissing, sputtering,flame on a column or truss is something that would be reported)

Explosives or therm*te and their timed detonators/ignitors would have to be immune to the effects of the office fires and placed on the floors that would later be hit by the aircraft.

Quite the thought experiment but it in no way resembles the known events of that day.

[Minadin]

I guess the resident truthers forgot about this thread - that's OK.