Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Grizzly Bear]

Alien entity csn you explain how the 250-odd columns that till remained connecting the upper 10% of WTC1 to the lower 90% failed ? They represented about 85% of the original supporting columns after the plane had destroyed the other 15% . Did they kneel or did they squash down in a concertina fashion ? It's just that people say the top 10% 'dropped' but I can't see how.

They buckled.

[alienentity]

Alien entity csn you explain how the 250-odd columns that till remained connecting the upper 10% of WTC1 to the lower 90% failed ? They represented about 85% of the original supporting columns after the plane had destroyed the other 15% . Did they kneel or did they squash down in a concertina fashion ? It's just that people say the top 10% 'dropped' but I can't see how.

See post on 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1 , Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2 , Frank R. Greening3 , and David B. Benson4
'

I suggest you email a qualified SE to discuss your pet theory. Prepare for a spanking.

[bill smith]

See post on 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant1 , Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2 , Frank R. Greening3 , and David B. Benson4
'

I suggest you email a qualified SE to discuss your pet theory. Prepare for a spanking.

I see you have no answer yourself to this very important question. I think they should come over here and gve me a spanking in public as an example to all the other Truth Movement people.

[Seymour Butz]

Alien entity csn you explain how the 250-odd columns that till remained connecting the upper 10% of WTC1 to the lower 90% failed ?




This explains why only 250C is needed for the core columns to buckle. Heat + time = collapse.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf

In that case, any steel temperature  150C sufficed to
trigger the viscoplastic buckling of columns (Baˇzant and Le 2008). This conclusion is further
supported by simple calculations showing that if, for instance, the column load is raised at
temperature 250C from 0.3Pt to 0.9Pt (where Pt = failure load = tangent modulus load), the
critical time of creep buckling (Baˇzant and Cedolin 2003, chapters 8 and 9) gets shortened
from 2400 hours to 1 hour (note that, in structural mechanics, the term ‘creep buckling’ or
‘viscoplastic buckling’ represents any time-dependent buckling; on the other hand, in materials
science, the term ‘creep’ is reserved for the time-dependent deformation at stresses < 0.50,
while the time-dependent deformation at stresses near 0 is called the ‘flow’; Frost and Ashby
1982).

[Seymour Butz]

I think they should come over here and gve me a spanking in public as an example to all the other Truth Movement people.



Didn't Heiwa already do that yesterday when he educated you about how it doesn't take "magic" for the upper block to fit inside the lower block if it's tilted? And again when he corrected your absolutely positive belief that the upper columns had to hit squarely on the lower columns?

Are you a masochist?

[Dave Rogers]

You, on the other hand, appear to me to be utterly convinced (or you seem to say you are) of the official 19 grumpy people conspiracy theory with absolutely no scepticism, or doubt in your own opinions, on show whatsoever.

Appearances are, in this case, deceptive. Like everyone else here on the debunker spectrum, I've studied the available evidence critically and painstakingly, and continue to study whatever new evidence the truth movement presents. I've yet to find a pro-inside job argument that, when viewed with a small fraction of the level of skepticism its proponents would claim to bring to the well-understood narrative of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack, doesn't collapse into its own footprint at near-freefall speed.

Dave

[twinstead]

Appearances are, in this case, deceptive. Like everyone else here on the debunker spectrum, I've studied the available evidence critically and painstakingly, and continue to study whatever new evidence the truth movement presents. I've yet to find a pro-inside job argument that, when viewed with a small fraction of the level of skepticism its proponents would claim to bring to the well-understood narrative of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack, doesn't collapse into its own footprint at near-freefall speed.


This is key. So many truthers come on this forum and declare that it is they who are the skeptical ones and we are the sheep. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The body of evidence that supports the "Official Story" is HUGE and compelling, and most of us are able to view it along side the evidence presented by the truth movement it in a rational and objective way.

Knowing this about us, to me there's nothing more irratating than a mindless, irrational ideologue drone who has the cajones to call ME, or people on this forum, a sheep. Yea, I'm SURE we are all just believing what we are told about 911, aren't we? I mean truthers' evidence is SO compelling, and the evidence for the "official story" is so slight, it's the only conceivable reason we could possible disagree with them, right? :boggled:

[Heiwa]

Do you agree with Tony's figure that the lower block must resist a 31G hit in order to halt the collapse? This is what your "bounce" statement is based on, correct?

So to use Tony's model of the 30 legged/100lb table with a FOS of 3, you are saying that the table would be able to take 3100lbs without breaking/buckling the legs.

I guess this is where your belief that if you dropped the upper block from 2 miles up, the lower block would survive comes from, eh?

Also, can you explain to us why you say that the upper block would bounce, and not progress, and yet still claim on your website that entanglement would halt the collapse? Aren't they contradictory models?

A tennis ball weighs 0.058 kg and is served at 55 m/s velocity and thus has energy content 90 J. The opponent hits the ball back at 45 m/s. Fast game!
The total change of velocity of the ball was 100 m/s but how long did it take?
Say the ball was in contact with the racket 0.05 s. The forces applied on ball and racket corresponds to 200G.
And the racket and ball resisted it.
All answers to your questions are on my web site. For tennis there are other sites. But the principles of two objects contacting each other and forces involved are always the same.
Re something dropping from 2 miles on anything - yes, at contact forces are same between something/anything, which was the answer. Something frequently does not survive, though, but anything often remains. Which was not the question/answer.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's current red herring is based on the false premise that the outer columns didn't bow and fail as seen on the video evidence.

As it is based on a false assumption, easily demonstrated as such, it must be discarded as nonsense.



Outer columns fail as seen on video? To initiate drop? Pls provide evidence! Fail = in at least two parts.

[WildCat]

Hmm.... you've "forgotten" about this, already?

syzKBBB_THE

Seems to work pretty well. Just my non-engineers opinion, but I'd guess that the reason that collapse looks remarkably to the WTC collapses is that it was remarkably similar: weakened columns were pulled out of the way, and gravity did the rest. And neither seems to be very similar to a stack of pizza boxes.

Heiwa? Heiwa? Heiwa?

Is this thing working?

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. It is not a bad idea to know why.
Heiwa? What does the video show?

Heiwa?

bill smith?

Any truther?

Bueller?

[Seymour Butz]

The total change of velocity of the ball was 100 m/s but how long did it take?
Say the ball was in contact with the racket 0.05 s. The forces applied on ball and racket corresponds to 200G.
And the racket and ball resisted it.


But the racket/ball are designed for these forces, right? Presumably they have a FOS of >200.

Were the towers designed for 31G? Do they have a FOS of >31?

[tsig]

The disintegration of the psyche is such a fascinating thing to watch.

Dave

Do you think it is an inside job?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa misrepresents Bazant. I have the pdf 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York ' published in the 'Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), May 27, 2007
Revised June 22, December 15, 2007, and March 31, 2008

It's not two days after 9/11.

And Heiwa misrepresents the main thesis of the paper, which clearly states on page 3 'The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom).'

Crush-down AND crush-up. Well established and covered in Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313.

Again, not two days after 9/11, as Heiwa insists. By my reckoning, 2007 and 2008 are some 6 and 7 years after the event.

And Heiwa still is at a loss to account for the video offered in post 485 by WildCat.

Heiwa, you're busted bad, dude! Your theories are epic fails contradicted by the most basic evidence from 9/11.

Stop flogging this dead horse already. You've lost.

??? Bazant was out very early 2001! e.g.

‘‘Why did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple analysis’’ handed in 9/2001 to ASCE and published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics,

Bazant, Z. P. 2001 ‘‘Why did theWorld Trade Center collapse?’’ SIAM News, 34(8)!, 1, 3.

Etc. Very quick job!

[Seymour Butz]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF



I have a question about this-

In figure D, you rightly have the upper part at an angle, although I would give it a greater angle. You also say that these core columns would"rub" against each other. I agree.

But as your illustration shows, these core columns are now unbraced. Wouldn't these "rubbing" columns break at the welds and/or buckle due to their increased unbraced length and drop?

And when these welds break, wouldn't the floor ends attached to them also drop?

Therefore rendering your "arrest from friction" argument invalid, since the floors are now dropping at the same rate as the columns?

Didn't you already argue that core columns from both the descending block AND the lower block would break off?

You've invalidated your own argument yet again, senor....

[Heiwa]

But the racket/ball are designed for these forces, right? Presumably they have a FOS of >200.

Were the towers designed for 31G? Do they have a FOS of >31?

You do not design steel tower structures for impacts loads. Just static (weight) and dynamic (eg wind) loads. Impacts you have to study separately. But evidently a steel element can resist >200G. You agree a steel element is stronger than a tennis racket/ball? That's why I mentioned tennis rackets. Can resist big forces. But just for 0.05 seconds. Same for the hand holding the racket ... and the elbow furher away.
Thus, WTC 1 lower part A should easily resist upper part C dropping on it = bounce. It is all described at my web site. Impact speed was just 5.82 m/s.

[Heiwa]

I have a question about this-

In figure D, you rightly have the upper part at an angle, although I would give it a greater angle. You also say that these core columns would"rub" against each other. I agree.

But as your illustration shows, these core columns are now unbraced. Wouldn't these "rubbing" columns break at the welds and/or buckle due to their increased unbraced length and drop?



Load is reduced in columns. Nothing can break them. And they are still braced by damaged floors. They are the strongest elements in the structure.

[Seymour Butz]

You do not design steel tower structures for impacts loads.

So why did you use a tennis ball/racket?

But evidently a steel element can resist >200G.

Who cares if a piece of steel can resist 200G. In this case, you must prove that the lower parts/assembly can resist 31G.

Thus, WTC 1 lower part A should easily resist upper part C dropping on it = bounce. It is all described at my web site. Impact speed was just 5.82 m/s.

Ok, so now you've got the beginnings of proving your theory. Now prove it with maths. What would be the loads seen by the lower columns? Given a FOS of 3, are they strong enough to resist buckling?

[tsig]

Full blown case of ASDES and endless repetition of bad ideas....that's Heiwa in a nutshell.

It's 2009, time to move on and let those people R.I.P.

Time to find another claim to fame buddy. Your nonsense is helping no one.

He seems to be under the delusion that if you post something often enough on the internet it becomes true.

It's becoming more and more common. I think it is the result of to much time at the computer til what you see on the screen becomes reality.

Or it's just arrogance+ignorance=woo(tsig's formula)

[Seymour Butz]

Load is reduced in columns. Nothing can break them.

Forget load. Why wouldn't the welds break from side impacts?


And they are still braced by damaged floors. .

Braced how exactly? The floor beams in the core ares are gone. How can they brace the core columns if they're gone?

[WildCat]

Isn't it fascinating how all the resident truthers (especially Heiwa) manage to avoid commenting on this video:

syzKBBB_THE

I'll be sure to post it in every thread Heiwa pops his head in. On every page. Because it shows exactly what Heiwa claims is impossible.

[Heiwa]

Ok, so now you've got the beginnings of proving your theory. Now prove it with maths. What would be the loads seen by the lower columns? Given a FOS of 3, are they strong enough to resist buckling?

Loads seen? Read paper on my website where lower part A columns with FOS 3 do not buckle, if you drop part C on them. If anything breaks, it is weaker elements in upper part C! And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

See figure above.

[Seymour Butz]

Loads seen? Read paper on my website where lower part A columns with FOS 3 do not buckle, if you drop part C on them. If anything breaks, it is weaker elements in upper part C! And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

See figure above.

So why are you arguing that they will bounce if the columns don't "meet"?

Isn't it contradictory to argue that they will "bounce" AND miss?

You need to pick a scenario.

You can't argue both.

BTW, you also just rendered Tony's paper moot. Congratulations.

[Heiwa]

So why are you arguing that they will bounce if the columns don't "meet"?

Isn't it contradictory to argue that they will "bounce" AND miss?

You need to pick a scenario.

You can't argue both.

BTW, you also just rendered Tony's paper moot. Congratulations.

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

[Seymour Butz]

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

Good.

Now I can show just how contradictory your statements are without having you reply with the usual rubbish.

Notice what Heiwa is claiming-

That it will bounce, but not off the lower columns since they will miss. That means that they will bounce off the floors, which he in another thread - and critical to his entanglement/friction argument - said that they would fail.

How can that be?

How can the upper block bounce off the lower floors when they also fail at impact?

The answer is - only those without knowledge think this.

[tsig]

Sometimes the tennis ball contacts the racket frame and goes off in a non-winning direction. But there is always a bounce. Sorry,now I put you on ignore.

So a tennis racket swatted the towers down?

[bill smith]

Didn't Heiwa already do that yesterday when he educated you about how it doesn't take "magic" for the upper block to fit inside the lower block if it's tilted? And again when he corrected your absolutely positive belief that the upper columns had to hit squarely on the lower columns?

Are you a masochist?

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me. I will not get both lower corners of one into he other without distorting the shapes. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong. Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

[Seymour Butz]

Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol

I guess you missed this on the top of the page.

Heiwa's post #521

And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

Yep, you're a masochist.

[beachnut]

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me. I will not get both lower corners of one into he other without distorting the shapes. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong. Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
The columns buckled. Oops, there goes Heiwa's pizza box kids bouncing on beds engineering voodoo.

no explosives no thermite. impact, fire, gravity

[bill smith]

I guess you missed this on the top of the page.

Heiwa's post #521

And nothing ever drops by gravity on the tops of the lower part A columns. They are too small = little cross area!! Any forces just misses them.

Yep, you're a masochist.

If the two pieces remained perfectly aligned they WOULD strike. And they looked like they stayed perfectly aligned.

If hey were not perfectly aligned then the columns would miss each other in most cases. So it would depend on whether the pieces ever really seperated which is open to dispute.

[bardamu]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse. Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?

[Seymour Butz]

the towers were allegedly hit by planes

Uh oh, no-planer alert.

[Seymour Butz]

If the two pieces remained perfectly aligned they WOULD strike.



This is true, Bill.

But even someone as wrong-headed as Heiwa recognizes that this is impossible.

Are you saying that you have doubts?

Are you admitting to being even more wrong than Senor Heiwa?

[ozeco41]

As I see it I have two same-size square box units in front of me. Good start.I will not get both lower corners of one into [t]he other without distorting the shapes. CorrectFeel free to show me where I'm wrong.You are not wrong . so keep going - PUSH! Then see what happens. Better still try two ways.

1) First Fit the upper box inside the lower one first THEN push. What happens?

2) Second Fit the lower box inside the upper one first THEN push. What happens?

If , both times you start with only two corners inside the other box AND a slight "Tilt", what happens?

bill this is now another example where you ask the right question(s), start down a track which could lead to understanding, then you STOP.

You displayed the video clip which clearly shows that the top block falls inside the lower block. Then, after I pointed that key fact out for everyone to see, Heiwa posted some blurry pictures to "repair the damage "you had done to your "sides" case.

You did not object to Heiwa's "cover up" showing that your loyalty to the cause will win even though yo start to see the truth.

Now your boxes do not have the same balance of strengths that WTC had. So make it OR imagine it as two plywood sided boxes joined at the corners by thin nails - panel pins - or thin staples.

What happens when you push? THe nails or staples will pull out and the outside box will spread.

And, if you do it properly with the top box slightly tilted the first example - top box inside lower box - the two tilted ends will fit inside because the tilted dimension is already less than the untilted lower box AND it readily slips inside even without any "wedging".

Do that and you are well on the way towards modeling what happened with both towers - only the tilt differed.

(And, if your co-Truthers realise you are once again starting to see what really happened and again seek to confuse your clear thinking..... why follow them?)

At the next stage we can put some timber cross pieces into both halves of the box each fixed by one nail or one staple through the plywood side of the box and into the end of the cross member.

Lo and behold we have "Floor Joists" and their "connections to the outer walls" will fail by the wedging alone - in basic English the nails or staples will pull out. And that could be before any "falling load" acts on those "floors.

Don't take that model any further. It proves the start of the collapse.

Use two square pieces of paper to try. Did Heiwa correct me about the column-on-column theory ? Or are you tryng the old 'divide and rule' caper ? lol...see how you lost the advantage by this drift off the path. ;) :)

So "Well Done" so far - keep going.

[3bodyproblem]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse.

No planer? What do you mean by allegedly?

[twinstead]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse.

Actually, most of the engineers both here and in the real world think so.


Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?

Bin Laden is an engineer. I'm sure he was familiar with how the buildings were constructed and the possibility of collapse, but who knows? He has said he hoped they would collapse, IIRC.

[bill smith]

This is true, Bill.

But even someone as wrong-headed as Heiwa recognizes that this is impossible.

Are you saying that you have doubts?

Are you admitting to being even more wrong than Senor Heiwa?
Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

[ozeco41]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable after the towers were allegedly hit by planes or at least after iniciation of collapse.... It is true and has been shown numerous times that the collapse once started would inevitably run to completion. That is why you see such a variety of "truther tactics" to evade clear discussion of that simple fact. Even Jones and his thermate is a distraction which stops people forcing him to explain what his thermate was supposed to do - which bits did it "cut". It wasn't needed in the "Global Collapse" .... Do you think the terrorists were aware of that and the destruction of the towers was intentional, or do you think they only planned to fly planes into the towers and the collapses were unintended icing on the cake?...as close to 100% certain that nobody foresaw the collapse. It was months after the fall before even the better engineers commenting started to get the explanations "right". And that is true of both sides of the debate - there are still many and from both sides who do not understand "how" the global collapse worked.

[alienentity]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
The columns buckled. Oops, there goes Heiwa's pizza box kids bouncing on beds engineering voodoo.

no explosives no thermite. impact, fire, gravity

Thanks for posting that. I have been away at rehearsal.

Yes indeed. The problem with Heiwa's irrelevant musings and Tony S.' missing jolt is that they require the exclusion of several easily-verifiable pieces of info, such as the one your picture presents.

The obvious and unmistakable bending of the perimeter columns leading to failure, without a single explosion seen renders both Heiwa's and Tony's self-aggrandizing efforts null and void.
Since it is a fact the columns failed thru increased distortion, since it is a fact that there were no observed explosions to initiate the collapse, the theories are in direct conflict with the best evidence.
They are worse than useless - they are anti-knowledge, disinformation. They do not illuminate, they obfuscate. They do not inform, they indoctrinate.

They are against good science, good judgment, and the evidence.

There can be no happy outcome from the success of such efforts, since they both
a) attempt to remove the focus on the actual perpetrators of the mass murder, in other words AIDING the terrorists who are attacking the US and other nations
b) attempt to find some kind of scapegoat within American society to pin the blame on. This is extremely dangerous, since CD didn't happen at the WTC (there's no good evidence to support that idea) that means there are NO perpetrators to seek out.
So ergo, anybody who becomes a target of this modern witch hunt is then unjustly attacked for something they couldn't have done.

No amount of Heiwa's mangled logic, of truther-inspired investigation, will ever uncover the origin and organization of the alleged conspiracy if it never existed.

This is the kind of thing anti-knowledge will bring to the USA if it persists. It is an unfounded and paranoid attack on fellow citizens and will only succeed in causing misery and harm. There can be no justice in such an enterprise - that is certain.

However Heiwa may choose to dress up this awful scheme, it still fundamentally relies on a paranoid belief in a giant conspiracy to murder American citizens. Dress it up with a few equations to give it the superficial feel of a rational scientific inquiry, it don't matter. We all know where these guys are headed - the next modern witch hunt in America.

Send these idiots back to the dark ages from whence they came.

[ozeco41]

Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.
Utter rubbish bill. And you know your claim is untrue - unless you have been posting blind. You have responded to others on this forum.

Bazant is not the only pro government.

AND your opposition is not the government claims - it is the "No Demolition" claims.

At the very least you have my claims against you and I am one who have done my own thinking. And there are others here who have also "worked it out for themselves" would rapidly add their names to the list plus the many who have supported the work of other members.

[Seymour Butz]

Not at all.

Not at all... what? Are you convinced that the columns couldn't meet or not? Simple question.

For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does.

Are you saying that the upper block didn't drop? Are they still there or is the "drop" accepted as true?Or do you theorize that the upper block should have "eased" down? I ask cuz I've seen this before. Here's why it won't ease.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall ~indeed, the energy
dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2p3
the yield moment of columns, 3 the number of columns, which is
found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy
release if the columns were cold....


In layman's terms, what that means is that once they fail, they do so all of a sudden.


Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

I don't think so.

Here's a link to prolly a hundred or so papers from authors other than Bazant that agree with NIST's overall findings. Go learn something.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

[beachnut]

Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.
False - WTC towers prove the Heiwa axiom failed and a delusion only you believe.

Please prove Bazant's work wrong; many have tried they all failed.

FALSE - Bazant is independent study; nothing to withe the government. Why are you so bad at research. There are many studies on 911 and they all came to the same conclusion and it was the gravity collapse after impacts and fires. You need to stop posting lies.

There is no evidence on the steel of blast effects from explosives or thermite. You have proved with your own delusion thermite would be discovered the day it happen but you may of missed how your delusion exposes thermite as a failed idea.

NIST found the WTC fell due to the impacts and fires. It was a gravity collapse of 674,000,000,000 joules, over 160 TONS of TNT energy realized in each tower (I even used the weights of a dolt 911Truth believer, irony). Why do you fail to present your numbers and figures to prove your delusional CD ideas on 911? Got physics?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
here it is! Please submit your paper to refute this paper! You can't. There are hundreds of studies on the WTC that make your delusion evaporate into dust if you would gain the knowledge to find them, comprehend them, and understand them. You instead regurgitate the failed ideas of other people and present no support to back up your ideas or the ideas you post. If Heiwa was a real structural engineer he could refute Bazant's paper if it was wrong but he can't; can you?

[alienentity]

Not at all. Heiwa is busy with proving that one piece of a structure cannot crush another larger piece of an identical structure by gravity alone. For that you have to theorise a drop as Bazant does. Remember that for the government Bazant is the only game in town. Without Bazant there is only controlled demolition.

Yes, Heiwa is trying to fool you (successfully it seems) that the impossible happened - that nonexistent explosives did the deed, placed there by nonexistent perps in a nonexistent conspiracy.

Bazant has offered some math, which can be scrutinized by anyone, and has the amazing quality that it ACTUALLY supports the evidence.

Heiwa can work 7 days a week churning out fantasy rubbish, it can never change the simple truth that the columns bowed and failed, right on camera, killing many innocent people.

You guys prefer to point the finger of blame at your own fellow citizens, and let the terrorists off the hook.

Actually, I have a lecture with Steven Jones, that great martyr of 9/11 truth sainthood, where he apologizes for and excuses Osama Bin Laden. Jones spends quite a bit of time painstakingly dissembling about a Bin Laden video where he confesses that Al Qaeda was responsible for the crime - Jones (he got some of his students to analyze the video) tries to show that it wasn't OBL, but is fake footage.
Nice work Stevie! If you guys had your way Larry Silverstein would have been executed by now, along with his family probably.

It makes the skin crawl the way these creeps operate.

Bill Smith, you're a cheerleader for these guys,dude. Wake up.

[bill smith]

Not at all... what? Are you convinced that the columns couldn't meet or not? Simple question.



Are you saying that the upper block didn't drop? Are they still there or is the "drop" accepted as true?Or do you theorize that the upper block should have "eased" down? I ask cuz I've seen this before. Here's why it won't ease.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic
deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper
part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to
move through distance h almost in a free fall ~indeed, the energy
dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2p3
the yield moment of columns, 3 the number of columns, which is
found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy
release if the columns were cold....


In layman's terms, what that means is that once they fail, they do so all of a sudden.




I don't think so.

Here's a link to prolly a hundred or so papers from authors other than Bazant that agree with NIST's overall findings. Go learn something.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

But don't you agree that the upper portion had 250 or more core and dperimeter columns still holding it up ? Above 85% of the priginal total before the plane destroyed about 15% of them ? Did you notice that the piece of text you reproduced kind of ignores that and suggests freefall ? Clearly that is not possible and therefore the text is deliberately misleading. Can you coment on that ?

You see what a dangerous territory this is for the government ?

[Seymour Butz]

But don't you agree that the upper portion had 250 or more core and dperimeter columns still holding it up ? Above 85% of the priginal total before the plane destroyed about 15% of hem ? Did you notice that the piece of text you reproduced kind of ignores that and suggests freefall ? Clearly that is not possible and therefore the text is deliberately misleading. Can you coment on that ?

You see what a dangerous territory this is for the government ?

I've replied to your questions directly, now it's your turn.

Then you can ask questions of me, and I will reply.

[3bodyproblem]

Bill Smith, you're a cheerleader for these guys,dude. Wake up.

Hence the avatar. :rolleyes:

[alienentity]

It's also interesting that Heiwa continues to misrepresent Bazant's position as something from 2 days after 9/11.

In actual fact, Bazant has participated in 2 more recent publications, in peer-reviewed journals that have NO CONNECTION to 9/11, one way or the other.......try that Tony S or Heiwa!! Good luck with that...

2006
'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center
and Building Demolitions
Zdenek P. Baˇzant and Mathieu Verdure

2008
'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York '


So of course Heiwa can only refer to the original publication in Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002, and pretend that there is no mature study by Bazant.

While on the subject of Heiwa and his fabrications, is he still claiming to have 1 million dollars to hand out? Has he shown any documentation to prove he has the money or is he just lying through his teeth to get more attention?

Please give me the link to show where the money is held in trust and I will accept that, no problem. If it's a lie, then he gets what he deserves, which is no repect.

[bill smith]

Hence the avatar. :rolleyes:

It's been some years since my cheerleading days I will admit.

[alienentity]

Here's a recent picture of the Bin Laden and friends cheerleading squad, at a 9/11 truth luncheon.
The men shout in unison 'It was the Joos'. Quite hilarious and beautiful at the same time.:cheerleader4

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049e8eb3f4ab80.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16064)

[alienentity]

It's been some years since my cheerleading days I will admit.

Hey Bill, you know where this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing eventually leads, don't you? The whole NWO idea that you are playing into... it's going back to blaming the Joos for all the world's problems.

Remember how successful Hitler was at that hysterical hatred game? You guys are bringing a new version back, one step at a time, buddy.

Way to go. I give a little Nazi salute and a brownshirt cheer for your efforts. And I mean it sincerely - you people are real pieces of work. :cheerleader4

[Seymour Butz]

It's been some years since my cheerleading days I will admit.

1- do you believe that it's possible that the columns could "meet"?

2- do you believe that the upper block should have "eased" down?

[beachnut]

Some of the engineers here seem to believe that global crush-down was inevitable ...



... allegedly hit by planes ... And you think what? Were the tower doomed by the impacts, fire and gravity? The correct answer is yes and the chief structural engineer of the WTC agrees with that.


Allegedly? Flight 11 and Flight 175 hit the WTC towers; it is a fact. Your allegedly make you look ignorant on 911 issues.

The towers were designed to withstand and survive aircraft impacts at 1/7 to 1/11 of the kinetic energy delivered on 911. That doomed the fire systems and destroyed the insulation. Insulation is needed to give people time to evacuate the buildings before collapse.

For terrorist killing an extra 2000 to 3000 people is icing on the cake. How cool are you joining 911Truth in apologizing for terrorists and jumping into their pit of anti-intellectual claptrap? Another hit and run posting. ?

Do you support Heiwa, or you know he idea is failed? Or do you support the failed physics of Balsamo and his pack of paranoid pilots spewing dumber ideas than Heiwa?

[GlennB]

But don't you agree that the upper portion had 250 or more core and dperimeter columns still holding it up ? Above 85% of the priginal total before the plane destroyed about 15% of them ? Did you notice that the piece of text you reproduced kind of ignores that and suggests freefall ? Clearly that is not possible and therefore the text is deliberately misleading. Can you coment on that ?

You see what a dangerous territory this is for the government ?

I actually don't believe you are this stupid Bill. So, your trolling has passed its sell-by date. Give it up.

[Seymour Butz]

But don't you agree that the upper portion had 250 or more core and dperimeter columns still holding it up ? Above 85% of the priginal total before the plane destroyed about 15% of them ?

yes

Did you notice that the piece of text you reproduced kind of ignores that and suggests freefall ? Clearly that is not possible and therefore the text is deliberately misleading. Can you coment on that ?



He explains why it couldn't "ease" down in that piece, and why he excluded the energy as insignificant.


Now:

1- do you believe the columns could meet?

2- do you think the upper block could ease down?

[Seymour Butz]

I actually don't believe you are this stupid Bill. So, your trolling has passed its sell-by date. Give it up.

No kiddin'.

Like Oz says, he asks the right questions, gets the answers, gets schooled by a dolt like Heiwa, then ignores them to ask new ones.....

[alienentity]

Here's a comment from a youtube video on the WTC7 collapse with that famous 'pull it' statement by Silverstein. I post it here to support my claim that you dissemblers are helping to build momentum in the anti-Jew witch hunt brewing in the 9/11 'truth' movement.

I quote: (ggstorms )
'Put Jew Silverstein on trial for his involvement in mass murder and crimes against humanity that occured on 9/11/01. The WTC buildings were full of asbestos and needed renovations anyway...I guess Larry thought it would be easier just to "pull it" with the added bonus of a 4 billion insurance policy specifically for terror attacks that he added 2 weeks before 9/11 happened.'

'We need to hang Larry from a lightpole and "pull" his head off his shoulders '

Pure hate speech. Would have made the Nazis really proud, I'd say.

Nice work, truthers. This is going to be your legacy. Think about it. You're feeding this monster, and if it gets big enough and strong enough, it WILL kill on your behalf, whether you ask it to or not.

A scapegoat HAS to exist for the 9/11 movement. The Jews are already one of the prime targets. The rest, as they say, is history.....

[alienentity]

Oh, if you want a link to the video, so you can witness the 9/11 truth -inspired rebirth of the Nazi dream, just click on the link..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

[FineWine]

Heiwa says that you cannot deop a small piece of something onto another larger piece of exactly the same construction and expect the smaller piece to crush the larger piece down to the ground using only gravity. This is exactly the oficial position on how the Towers collapsed.

Heiwa is so certain of his axiom hat he has offered one million dollars to anybody who can make an accurate model of this happening or provide a verifiable example in the history of the world of a comparable event taking place.

There are no takers Beachnut. Only talkers. Does that tell you nothing at all ?


Heiwa has offered a million dollars that he doesn't have. He refuses to tell us what happens when the collapsing floors, gathering weight and momentum, hit the ceiling of the next floor. Something stops them, but what could it be?

[FineWine]

Originally Posted by AndrewIlluminatus
Alternatively, hypothetically speaking, they may not be witting collaborators or conspirators in anything, but simply mind-control victims hypnotised to believe the "authorities" (media, politicians, teachers, parents, peers etc.) and to be good little patriots, nationalists and lovers of the great and infallible US of A. What any "US Regime Sponsored Conspiracy Theory Sceptics" like us are suggesting is literally inconceivable for them to accept. Google: "The Ultimate Revolution" lecture by Aldous Huxley at Berkley back in 1962 and you will see that this particular stage of human social development was fully predictable way back then. People who are suffering from having their minds hypnotically programmed for them by more "dominant alpha" types literally do appear to perceive what we might call "extrinsic reality" in a very odd manner. Watch any stage hypnotist at work or watch the literally ecstatic expressions and emotions shown on the faces of the German population in the brilliant propaganda movie "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl.



Yes of course, we may be wrong. It may just be a very simple case of 19 grumpy people who hated freedom (and life) hijacking 4 aircraft and getting very lucky indeed to cause so much damage with just 3. I rather doubt it, especially after looking into the life of Mr Atta and his behaviour over the car hire etc. which tends to indicate to me that he did not expect or intend to go dead on 9/11. What sceptics of the "19 grumpy men conspiracy theory" have on their side though is that they are often sceptics of everything, not just the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even my own theories, which is why I usually only voice my subjective suspicions and I do not talk of absolute "truth" or "facts". On the other hand anybody who has ever "served" in any military, been a member of a religious cult like Christianity or a "brotherhood", or believed (on faith) teachers, politicians, parents, the media etc. is a mind control victim. Anybody who has ever been a nationalist or patriot or has ever made a pledge of allegiance to anything is, by definition, a mind control victim, and is a brainwashed sheep, a member of the economically farmed, domesticated, tamed, mind-controlled animals, down on "Animal Farm". Those kinds of domesticated people lose a lot of credibility with feral-minded sceptics like us, because the tamed sheep have demonstrated a long history of being hoaxed all their lives, with their silly beliefs in invisible gods and patriotism etc., because they are not feral-minded sceptics.

You are not a skeptic. You believe nonsense.

[FineWine]

Topic is Why a one-way Crush down is not possible! Controlled demolition experts know this very well and thus uses other methods to demolish structures.


The collapsing floors hit the ceiling of the next floor. What stops thems them from crashing through? How many times will you ignore my question?

[bardamu]

...as close to 100% certain that nobody foresaw the collapse. It was months after the fall before even the better engineers commenting started to get the explanations "right". And that is true of both sides of the debate - there are still many and from both sides who do not understand "how" the global collapse worked.

When I described the situation as the global crush-down of the towers, I was understating the actual result of the attack. It wasn't just the two towers, but the entire WTC complex, consisting of seven large buildings, that was completely destroyed.

If the terrorists had PLANNED the total destruction of the WTC complex, using only two hijacked aircraft, is there any way they could have achieved it more efficiently?

What are the odds against two plane crashes resulting in such a perfect outcome for the terrorist by sheer chance? It sounds like something that could only happen to the accident-prone Inspector Clouseau!


Uh oh, no-planer alert.

No planer? What do you mean by allegedly?

Off topic.

[alienentity]

Specifically, people like Heiwa and Tony S. are helping to sow doubt about the truth of the hijacker/airplane narrative of 9/11.
On some of the many anti-semitic youtube channels which blame 9/11 on 'Zionists' etc... you will find comments like this:

'There are no, and never had been any muslim terrorists. Don't believe all the ******** crap FOX tells you. '

'911 is a mossade, cia INSIDE JOB. zioniNazis. all the proofs and evidence are there to view.
It is not that difficult to understand who benefited after 911.
still americans refuse to bring this to their media attention, they are satisfied with lies.
brainwashed with lies and hatred towards muslims and arabs,.
fascist world. '

'9/11 = Jew Job'

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk

So the more you truthers undermine the evidence that the planes/fires brought down the towers, the more support you give to the alternative narrative that a Jewish cabal was responsible.

I'm not making this up; there is NO other consistently identified racial/ethnic/religious group except Jews who are being targeted by your comrades. You're feeding this monster, and it WILL kill again if it is given the chance. Or do you not recognize that at all?

[3bodyproblem]

What are the odds against two plane crashes resulting in such a perfect outcome for the terrorist by sheer chance?

0. The destruction is a certainty given the sample population and observed outcomes. It's not like flipping a coin.





Off topic.

It's on topic, it will determine if you are even worthy of discussing things in an "intelligent and lively manner" or to simply put you on ignore. No planers tend to be ignorant trolls with a chip on their shoulder an no intentions of discussing anything. The probability you are a no planer with an intelligence level capable of discussing anything related to what actually happened is 0. I don't even want to see what some ignorant no planer has to say.

This forum should be closed to no planers AFAIC. It's about time the forum mangement put an end to this level of stupidity.

[bardamu]

Specifically, people like Heiwa and Tony S. are helping to sow doubt about the truth of the hijacker/airplane narrative of 9/11.
On some of the many anti-semitic youtube channels which blame 9/11 on 'Zionists' etc... you will find comments like this:

'There are no, and never had been any muslim terrorists. Don't believe all the ******** crap FOX tells you. '

'911 is a mossade, cia INSIDE JOB. zioniNazis. all the proofs and evidence are there to view.
It is not that difficult to understand who benefited after 911.
still americans refuse to bring this to their media attention, they are satisfied with lies.
brainwashed with lies and hatred towards muslims and arabs,.
fascist world. '

'9/11 = Jew Job'

So the more you truthers undermine the evidence that the planes/fires brought down the towers, the more support you give to the alternative narrative that a Jewish cabal was responsible.

I'm not making this up; there is NO other consistently identified racial/ethnic/religious group except Jews who are being targeted by your comrades. You're feeding this monster, and it WILL kill again if it is given the chance. Or do you not recognize that at all?

What does this have to do with a one-way crush down? :confused:

[alienentity]

What does this have to do with a one-way crush down? :confused:

Heiwa disinformation is feeding the hunt for scapegoats. Since controlled demolition is at best a remote implausibility given the abundant evidence against it, the only purpose served by attention-seekers like Heiwa is to obfuscate, not to seek truth.

If Heiwa won't move on, we should. It's the decent thing to do.

We need to stop entertaining his ideas as presentable and sincere - they are not. The idea of crush-down presented by Heiwa is yet another sad attempt to fool people into doubting that fires and planes caused the collapse of the towers.

If it's ok for truthers to constantly say that CD is a fact, ergo a vast conspiracy is a fact, then it is equally relevant to say what we're saying: that this is nonsense which feeds an irrational, antisemitic movement, and serves no other real purpose.

Conclusion:
If Heiwa's theories are clearly not leading toward anything but 'no 19 hijackers, no Bin Laden' then they are leading towards 'Jews did it'.
That's how the game works. 'Blame the Jews' is the main alternative narrative out there.

Do you see the linkage now? Good. Now weep quietly as you continue to see Heiwa smear every decent scientist by default, and to defile the memory of the victims of 9/11 with persistent disinformation.

[alienentity]

Bardamu - again, read the first line of that post 'Specifically, people like Heiwa and Tony S. are helping to sow doubt about the truth of the hijacker/airplane narrative of 9/11.'

It is implicit in every step of their inquiry, since they have already concluded CD must be real, and therefore SOMEONE (mainly Jews) in the US must be responsible.

Is that clear enough for you? Don't feed these trolls, kick 'em in the pills.

[alienentity]

9/11 truth = 'Jews did it'
Therefore Crush down not possible = Vast Conspiracy TM = 'Jews did it'

For 9/11 truth, all roads lead to the same destination. Remember? Conclusion first (NWO/Jews), fact mining second.

The modern witch hunt wrapped in pseudo-science. Watch it and weep.

[bill smith]

9/11 truth = 'Jews did it'
Therefore Crush down not possible = Vast Conspiracy TM = 'Jews did it'

For 9/11 truth, all roads lead to the same destination. Remember? Conclusion first (NWO/Jews), fact mining second.

The modern witch hunt wrapped in pseudo-science. Watch it and weep.

If there are witches then let there be a witch hunt. It's not inappropriate. It's an interesting parallel that a collective name for a group of government supporters on the issue of 9/11 is a ' Coven of Shills '.

[Slayhamlet]

If there are witches then let there be a witch hunt. It's not inappropriate. It's an intersting parallel that a collective name for a group of government supporters on the issue of 9/11 is 'a Coven of Shills'.

Since you just made that up, WTF could you possibly mean by "interesting parallel"? Are all your posts this incoherent? Oh wait, this is "Bill Smith", I forgot.

[bill smith]

Since you just made that up, WTF could you possibly mean by "interesting parallel"? Are all your posts this incoherent? Oh wait, this is "Bill Smith", I forgot.

No I've read it elsewhere actually.

[Slayhamlet]

Nope, you made it up (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22coven+of+shills%22&btnG=Search).

[bill smith]

Nope, you made it up (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22coven+of+shills%22&btnG=Search).

lol....good research, but I did read it elsewhere before that.

[bardamu]

Bardamu - again, read the first line of that post 'Specifically, people like Heiwa and Tony S. are helping to sow doubt about the truth of the hijacker/airplane narrative of 9/11.'

It is implicit in every step of their inquiry, since they have already concluded CD must be real, and therefore SOMEONE (mainly Jews) in the US must be responsible.

Is that clear enough for you? Don't feed these trolls, kick 'em in the pills.

Why don't you start a thread on this subject instead of disrupting this one?

[3bodyproblem]

When I described the situation as the global crush-down of the towers, I was understating the actual result of the attack. It wasn't just the two towers, but the entire WTC complex, consisting of seven large buildings, that was completely destroyed.

If the terrorists had PLANNED the total destruction of the WTC complex, using only two hijacked aircraft, is there any way they could have achieved it more efficiently?

What are the odds against two plane crashes resulting in such a perfect outcome for the terrorist by sheer chance? It sounds like something that could only happen to the accident-prone Inspector Clouseau!



What does this tripe have to do with one way crush down? Why don't you start a thread if you wish to discuss the existence of planes, or probabilities?

Quit trying to hide your trolling by blaming others of being off topic when you haven't had an on topic post yet.

[bardamu]

What does this tripe have to do with one way crush down? Why don't you start a thread if you wish to discuss the existence of planes, or probabilities?

Quit trying to hide your trolling by blaming others of being off topic when you haven't had an on topic post yet.

The POSSIBILITY of a one-way crush down is related to the PROBABILITY of a one-way crush down. In fact, a one-way crush down could be described as being infinitely improbable.

[tsig]

The POSSIBILITY of a one-way crush down is related to the PROBABILITY of a one-way crush down. In fact, a one-way crush down could be described as being infinitely improbable.

If it was infinitely improbable then it would be a logical certainty.

[3bodyproblem]

The POSSIBILITY of a one-way crush down is related to the PROBABILITY of a one-way crush down. In fact, a one-way crush down could be described as being infinitely improbable.

lol, OK. Please show me a calculation of said probabilities. You do know what probabilities are right? There not things you make up in your head to suit your fantasies. There's two outcomes, the buildigns fall or they don't. They did. The probability they didn't is 0. You're working with a very small sampling population (do you know what that means?) with only one observed outcome.

You don't know what you are talking about. All you have done is assigned a fake probability to you incredulity. Why would you come to a skeptical forum and make up statistics that can't be supported by any evidence and not expect to be called on it? Do you really think you will find people here that are going to suddenly bend their understanding of mathematics to suit your fancy? You may think this works in other forums, but seriously, it's not going to fly here. You are being called out as a liar, show how you arrived at your "probabilities" or admit you made them up.

[3bodyproblem]

If it was infinitely improbable then it would be a logical certainty.

I love when people make up probabilities. It's not like they even try. At least make some stuff up, provide some calculations. Give us something. This "Things that I find unusual have been assigned a probablility of 0.00000009% because, well, I don't believe them to be probable" is just stupid.

[Tony Szamboti]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for the reply. I was just trying to determine whether you had a basic grasp of the facts. You seem to be fairly close, although the video evidence on the N tower seems to contradict your assumption that 'acceleration was consistent for the remainder of the fall,' resulting in an 11 second collapse time. It appears more like 17 seconds or more. Slightly less for the S. Tower. Just look at the frames for yourself and you can see at 11 seconds the building is still visible....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

Generally truthers tend to underestimate the collapse times, for the towers and for WTC7. I hope you agree that building 7 required at least 14 seconds to collapse, based on the visual evidence.

Moving to Leslie Robertson, yes, I was referring to him. You correctly pointed out that he did not bother calculating the expected collapse time for the towers, but you skipped over the fact he DID calculate, or 'carried it far enough along' to determine that once the upper block began to move, nothing could have prevented the building from collapsing down essentially to the foundation.

He didn't see the necessity to calculate something which was already inevitable. The question whether the towers collapsed from structural failure due to impacts and fires was never a serious question for him, nor should it be for others who attempt to credibly study the collapses.

Unfortunately for those such as yourself, you are in a position of contradicting someone whose knowledge and expertise on the matter far exceeds your own.
The correct response is to abandon your incorrect approach and adopt the obviously superior one.

It is disappointing you haven't done that. That is the precise reason why the 9/11 truth movement is a failed concept - it refuses to learn from those who possess the greater knowledge and expertise. In fact it is hostile to that same knowledge. A fatal flaw if there ever was one.

Even a 17 second time would still not be possible in a natural collapse of the North Tower due to conservation of momentum, so it still presents problems for the current official explanation.

However, the collapse times are not the only problems here. Without a large impulse (jolt) there is no chance that the North Tower collapsed due to natural causes and the 2.25 second or 8 story freefall of WTC 7 can only be indicative of all structural support over the full plan of the building being removed simultaneously. There is only one way that can happen and it isn't natural.

As for Leslie Robertson, he was obviously only taking a WAG at things concerning whether or not the building should collapse once it started. I doubt that he knew there is no evidence of impact, like Bazant when he wrote his papers, and thus can be forgiven for that. However, we now know there was no impulse and thus no mechanism to naturally continue the collapse. Maybe you can ask Leslie if he knows there was no discernable impulse in the fall of the upper block of the North Tower, and see what he says then.

I would very much like to not have to think that there were other forces at work in the collapses of those buildings, besides the aircraft impacts and fires. However, the above problems will not allow me to do that honestly.

[tsig]

I love when people make up probabilities. It's not like they even try. At least make some stuff up, provide some calculations. Give us something. This "Things that I find unusual have been assigned a probablility of 0.00000009% because, well, I don't believe them to be probable" is just stupid.

There's a 90% chance that those who use probabilities in an argument just made them up. I know this because I have sampled 0% of the samples and we all know that 1/0=infinity therefore I am right 100% of the time.

[Tony Szamboti]

Specifically, people like Heiwa and Tony S. are helping to sow doubt about the truth of the hijacker/airplane narrative of 9/11.
On some of the many anti-semitic youtube channels which blame 9/11 on 'Zionists' etc... you will find comments like this:

'There are no, and never had been any muslim terrorists. Don't believe all the ******** crap FOX tells you. '

'911 is a mossade, cia INSIDE JOB. zioniNazis. all the proofs and evidence are there to view.
It is not that difficult to understand who benefited after 911.
still americans refuse to bring this to their media attention, they are satisfied with lies.
brainwashed with lies and hatred towards muslims and arabs,.
fascist world. '

'9/11 = Jew Job'

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk

So the more you truthers undermine the evidence that the planes/fires brought down the towers, the more support you give to the alternative narrative that a Jewish cabal was responsible.

I'm not making this up; there is NO other consistently identified racial/ethnic/religious group except Jews who are being targeted by your comrades. You're feeding this monster, and it WILL kill again if it is given the chance. Or do you not recognize that at all?

No one has ever heard me blame any ethnic group for perpetrating the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. All I have ever said is that there needs to be an open and transparent investigation, which we have not yet had. For starters I would like those who made the decisions to scrap over 99.5% of the steel from the towers and 100% of it from WTC 7, before the NIST could do a forensic analysis on it, to testify publicly.

It is just as ignorant and ridiculous to blame those of us, who are showing the very serious problems with the current official explanation, for enflaming things concerning any specific group, as it is for anyone to blame a specific group without evidence for it. Even if those who perpetrated the events of 911 were overwhelmingly of a specific nationality it would not mean anything about others of that nationality. Italian members of the mafia have never represented others of Italian heritage. Those who commit crimes do so as individuals not nationalities. Americans in general are not guilty of endorsing the Bush administration's now known torture policy.

[3bodyproblem]

There's a 90% chance that those who use probabilities in an argument just made them up. I know this because I have sampled 0% of the samples and we all know that 1/0=infinity therefore I am right 100% of the time.

You know, I've even been guilty of that. And probably 10% of the time. But at least I can support them when challenged.

lol, and probably one of the reasons I did so poorly in stats is because I just felt they were right. What are the chances of picking a pair of blue socks out of a drawer of socks containing 37 blue and 53 black? 0, i'll grab two socks and put them on no matter what colour they are. What are my chances of winning the lottery? 0. I don't play.

[alienentity]

No one has ever heard me blame any ethnic group for perpetrating the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. All I have ever said is that there needs to be an open and transparent investigation, which we have not yet had. For starters I would like those who made the decisions to scrap over 99.5% of the steel from the towers and 100% of it from WTC 7, before the NIST could do a forensic analysis on it, to testify publicly.

It is just as ignorant and ridiculous to blame those of us, who are showing the very serious problems with the current official explanation, for enflaming things concerning any specific group, as it is for anyone to blame a specific group without evidence for it. Even if those who perpetrated the events of 911 were overwhelmingly of a specific nationality it would not mean anything about others of that nationality. Italian members of the mafia have never represented others of Italian heritage. Those who commit crimes do so as individuals not nationalities. Americans in general are not guilty of endorsing the Bush administration's now known torture policy.

Tony, I appreciate your reply. I have only time for a very short comment, which is that you are contributing to disinformation in the following way:
Instead of leaving gaps in understanding as question marks or blanks, you guys are filling it all in with a doctrine of Controlled Demolition, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
'We don't know' is perfectly fine. 'Vast conspiracy' is not. It's irresponsible, as you are now aware (if you weren't before) because the scapegoats have now been identified and they are Jews.

At best you are irresponsible to make accusations without proper evidence. Thus far, as a person who doesn't have extensive training in the area you are involved in, and without the proper consulting with truly qualified structural engineers to guide you, you are taking amateurish potshots at unknown targets - you are bound to hit innocents as collateral damage if you continue to be so careless.

Don't like how it feels to be characterized? Imagine how it feels to have an angry mob who believes you destroyed your own building for insurance claims, and participated in murdering 3000 people.

Be careful. At least run your work by a qualified person before you publish. People are going to get hurt by this demonization, this NWO hysteria you guys are feeding.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, I appreciate your reply. I have only time for a very short comment, which is that you are contributing to disinformation in the following way:
Instead of leaving gaps in understanding as question marks or blanks, you guys are filling it all in with a doctrine of Controlled Demolition, which is a totally different kettle of fish.
'We don't know' is perfectly fine. 'Vast conspiracy' is not. It's irresponsible, as you are now aware (if you weren't before) because the scapegoats have now been identified and they are Jews.

At best you are irresponsible to make accusations without proper evidence. Thus far, as a person who doesn't have extensive training in the area you are involved in, and without the proper consulting with truly qualified structural engineers to guide you, you are taking amateurish potshots at unknown targets - you are bound to hit innocents as collateral damage if you continue to be so careless.

Don't like how it feels to be characterized? Imagine how it feels to have an angry mob who believes you destroyed your own building for insurance claims, and participated in murdering 3000 people.

Be careful. At least run your work by a qualified person before you publish. People are going to get hurt by this demonization, this NWO hysteria you guys are feeding.

I am a 52 year old mechanical engineer who does structural design work in the Aerospace industry. I would also hope you are aware that mechanical and civil engineers have exactly the same training when it comes to structural design. I also have extensive experience in dynamic environments. So I am not out of my area of expertise when discussing these collapses.

However, any papers I have done have been reviewed by people qualified to comment, including a retired civil engineering professor.

What is really irresponsible is to not initiate a new investigation, given the huge number of problems with the present official explanation for the collapses of those three buildings. In addition to getting to the bottom of things and identifying the actual perpetrators, a new legitimate investigation would quell any scapegoating of innocent parties. If anyone is adding to the hysteria it is those insisting we don't need a new investigation. The gig is up and it is time to come clean and prevent potential innocents from being hurt by hysteria.

Personally, I don't think it was a "Vast" Conspiracy and believe the actual number of perpetrators to be quite small but powerful enough to have had control over any investigations.

[Grizzly Bear]

With all do respect as far as I'm concerned the authority within a particular field is patently irrelevant when the material the individual is providing or advocating doesn't reflect the knowledge that accompanies it...

[ozeco41]

With all do respect as far as I'm concerned the authority within a particular field is patently irrelevant when the material the individual is providing or advocating is patently inaccurate or false

Spot on GB - the "authority" of the posting member/claimant only serves as an indication that he/she is likely to know what they are talking about. When they get it wrong the result does not automatically self adjust to comply with their "authority".

They get it wrong. It stays wrong till they correct it. It usually takes another uninvolved part to spot the error. Well known phenomenon, once you write something you tend to read what you intended to write not what you did right. Similarly once you start off from a wrong premise you tend to check the detail on re-reading but never go back to the premises. And, if you do, you still tend to track the same error of discernment/judgement/analysis or whatever you did wrong the first time.

Done it myself many times in all sorts of situations.

So, in my experience working with and managing fellow engineers one of the commonest errors is to start off with wrong premises or assumptions.

From there all the detailed calculations can be accurate to the umpteenth decimal. It can even occur that the answer comes out looking reasonable. BUT....

Any number of commentators on 9/11 including engineers prominent in commenting on the topic make the same false assumption.

It is the false assumption that underpins Heiwa's false claims.

That is the assumption that when the top blocks of the towers fell the two parts of the tower met as if they were homogeneous single entities OR the equivalent that they met column to columns floor to floor with all the like parts aligned.

Reality was totally different. The two parts met "component element on component element" "beam on beam" "column on column" in different combinations. A lot of those in quick succession. Some coinciding, some overlapping, some with time between them. But never "one block" meeting "one block".

So it was one little single piece contacting another BUT with potentially the whole weight of the top block behind the impact (first order - yes the elasticities and time overlaps make it less that 100% so there are second order issues)

- my premise is different it matches what really happened because my aim is to explain what really happened. And the key features of what really happened include:

The outer columns played only a minor part before they were peeled off to fall uncrushed in axial load.

The core, already damaged, could not support its design load NOR fall with column on column alignment. So, at the most it offered little more than a token resistance.

And the floors took most of the "Jolt" (TM Szamboti, T 2009) before they were sheared off the core and outer tube columns.

Sadly the "Check Design" process in practical usage AND the "peer review" process in academic are not a 100% guarantee of correctness. Errors do still get through. So they are simply another layer of "more likely to be right".

And Tony's error in his latest effort as with the one I looked at nearly two years back both make the same type of error. They start from a wrong premise which does not fit WTC 9/11 events. From there the plethora of detailed calculations may be accurate to many decimals. They lead to precise results.


Which are wrong.

[Tony Szamboti]

There's a 90% chance that those who use probabilities in an argument just made them up. I know this because I have sampled 0% of the samples and we all know that 1/0=infinity therefore I am right 100% of the time.

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

[boloboffin]

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

No one really knows why the chicken crossed the road, either. People should stop mindreading poultry.

[Heiwa]

It is the false assumption that underpins Heiwa's false claims.

That is the assumption that when the top blocks of the towers fell the two parts of the tower met as if they were homogeneous single entities OR the equivalent that they met column to columns floor to floor with all the like parts aligned.

Reality was totally different. The two parts met "component element on component element" "beam on beam" "column on column" in different combinations. A lot of those in quick succession. Some coinciding, some overlapping, some with time between them. But never "one block" meeting "one block".

So it was one little single piece contacting another BUT with potentially the whole weight of the top block behind the impact (first order - yes the elasticities and time overlaps make it less that 100% so there are second order issues)



Top blocks? Homogeneous single entities? Parts aligned? Sorry, not my type of language.
A single piece contacting another with potentially the whole weight of the top block (?) behind the impact?

What kind of hammer block is that?

The vertical collision of WTC1 upper section C and lower section A is just like a horizontal ship or for that matter any vehicle (car) collision; both sections get damaged, stronger elements damage weaker elements in both sections due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements) and ... arrest of destruction soon follows, when all applied energy is absorbed as deformation, failures and heat in both sections or transmitted to the environment. You see, you cannot one-way crush down with gravity a structure A with a part C of it, where C<1/10A!
No such structures exist (I am glad to conclude). And that's the answer Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!
Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

[tsig]

1/0 is undefined not equal to infinity.

I see you've never studied transfinite math. It starts where finite math stops.

1/0 = infinity and -1/0 = minus infinity so as we move the number line from 1 to -1 we we also move thru the full range of possible numbers.

[alienentity]

I am a 52 year old mechanical engineer who does structural design work in the Aerospace industry....etc..
Personally, I don't think it was a "Vast" Conspiracy and believe the actual number of perpetrators to be quite small but powerful enough to have had control over any investigations.

Tony, I read thru your paper a couple of times. I have no problem if you wish to criticize the exact mechanics of Bazant's papers.

Again, what I object to is your illogical leap into the realm of woo, which is to assign the 'We don't know' to 'Controlled Demolition'. Controlled Demolition doesn't fit the collapses for a number of reasons, which you are ignoring.

I propose that you accept your understanding, and/or Bazant's might be incomplete or incorrect, and that the imposition of CD doctrine doesn't help your problem solving.

The core columns cannot have been destroyed by giant explosive charges, since that would have been detected in seismic recordings, and probably recorded on video as well.
The perimeter columns WERE the outer surface of the towers. There is zero probability that they were destroyed by explosives, as it would have been easy to see. That didn't happen.

The thermite option is a pathetically wild guess, and because it would have been slow, it wouldn't make any difference to the observed collapse, so it is redundant.

A number of assumptions in your paper could be wrong, but the biggest is the rush to commit to the controlled demolition mantra - your biggest mistake.

That's where your inquiry is irresponsible. It is not neutral. It is clearly driven by a doctrinal belief in CD. The fact that you are clinging to your colleagues at the Journal, which is in NO WAY neutral to CD theory, NO WAY impartial to the doctrine, is further evidence that you are not exposing your ideas to independent, impartial people of the necessary qualifications.

I simply suggest you identify the top experts in the areas you are covering (as far removed from the 9/11 truth movement as possible to avoid conflict of interest) and consult with them, before committing further grave miscalculations.

I have obtained a list of some of the peers who have been reviewing for JONES. Too many of them are far too closely tied with the 9/11 movement itself. Get some distance from this clique and you might be doing some good science.

That's just a start. As for your other comments I will return to them later.

I have to strongly disagree with the idea that you guys are interested in a new, open investigation. That's a fascinating topic, and virtually guaranteed to be a futile pursuit, given the intractable position the 9/11 truth movement is taking regarding controlled demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 as well as the various insane no plane theories.

The 9/11 truth movement isn't ready for the truth yet, whatever it is, and not ready for another investigation. It is far too hysterical, ideologically driven and irrational to be a responsible partner in such a pursuit, IMHO.

[tsig]

Actually people who believe in mind-programmed hoax rubbish like patriotism and invisible gods literally do believe in nonsense, because their beliefs are not based on empirical data but nonsensical data.

Can you give us examples of empirical data versus nonsensical data?

[Tony Szamboti]

I see you've never studied transfinite math. It starts where finite math stops.

1/0 = infinity and -1/0 = minus infinity so as we move the number line from 1 to -1 we we also move thru the full range of possible numbers.

I think you are we weing here a little. But it's okay if this transfinite math does something for you.

[Tony Szamboti]

The core columns cannot have been destroyed by giant explosive charges, since that would have been detected in seismic recordings, and probably recorded on video as well.

The thermite option is a pathetically wild guess, and because it would have been slow, it wouldn't make any difference to the observed collapse, so it is redundant.

A number of assumptions in your paper could be wrong, but the biggest is the rush to commit to the controlled demolition mantra - your biggest mistake.

Why would explosive charges on core columns have to be so big that they would be picked up by seismic recordings? I have shown that just 2 lbs. of RDX could take out most of the core column sizes in the twin towers. No seismic instrument would pick that up and since the charges would be well inside the building, and hidden by the perimeter wall, they would not be picked up by video either.

The perimeter columns would only need to be weakened at their corners and they would then be pushed outward by the collapsing debris. Thermite could certainly be used there and we seem to have some evidence for it at a corner on video, with the molten metal pouring out of the damaged corner of WTC 2 just before it collapsed.

You don't seem to be able to identify any assumptions as being wrong in the paper. It seems to me you just have a hard time swallowing the fact that devices were used in those buildings to cause them to collapse. I didn't rush to embrace controlled demolition as a cause for the collapses. I believed Dr. Bazant's theory for five years until I started looking into it more deeply myself. Unfortunately, controlled demolition is the only hypothesis that I have found to adequately explain the details and observations.

I simply suggest you identify the top experts in the areas you are covering (as far removed from the 9/11 truth movement as possible to avoid conflict of interest) and consult with them, before committing further grave miscalculations.

For the Missing Jolt paper I did this with two Ph.D dynamicists at work. They didn't want to believe it at first but took an objective look at the details and they both wound up agreeing with what I was saying. What is said in that paper is not just a potshot. It has a legitimate basis and it shows that the Bazant hypothesis has none in explaining what actually occurred, and by extension that the NIST report on the twin towers is also baseless since they depend on Bazant for the continuation of the collapse.

I have to strongly disagree with the idea that you guys are interested in a new, open investigation. That's a fascinating topic, and virtually guaranteed to be a futile pursuit, given the intractable position the 9/11 truth movement is taking regarding controlled demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 as well as the various insane no plane theories.

There are very very few people who subscribe to the ridiculous notion that no planes hit the twin towers. I know of no scientist or engineer who is questioning the present official explanation for the collapses of the NYC high rises who advocates a position that no planes hit the towers. This argument is a strawman when used to try and discredit the 911 truth movement in general.

The 9/11 truth movement isn't ready for the truth yet, whatever it is, and not ready for another investigation. It is far too hysterical, ideologically driven and irrational to be a responsible partner in such a pursuit, IMHO.

You provide no basis for what you say here but you do say it is just your opinion. My opinion is that it isn't just the 911 Truth movement but the American people as a whole who are ready for and can handle the truth. I would venture to say it is only those who committed the 911 atrocities and those involved in it's cover-up who might not want it.

[Dave Rogers]

Even a 17 second time would still not be possible in a natural collapse of the North Tower due to conservation of momentum, so it still presents problems for the current official explanation.

I get 12-13 seconds from conservation of momentum and column deformation. ISTR Frank Greening and Gregory Urich get about the same. Care to show the working that gives you >17 from conservation of momentum alone?

Dave

[ozeco41]

.....The vertical collision of WTC1 upper section C and lower section A is just like a horizontal ship or for that matter any vehicle (car) collision; both sections get damaged, stronger elements damage weaker elements in both sections due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements) and. Not too bad so far Heiwa (I'll let "pressure" slip through.)

But look where you agree with me: "...both sections get damaged ... stronger elements damage weaker elements..." - where the key point is "elements" so you depart from your model and stay true to my explanations of what actually damaged what at WTC on 9/11; "...due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements)..." again correct (begging the small detail of "pressure")
Now here is where you start to depart from WTC9/11 reality: ... arrest of destruction soon follows, when all applied energy is absorbed......so you presume "when all energy is absorbed" which at this stage should be "if" not the presumptive "when"

Because - when all the energy is not absorbed, the WTC 9/11 situation , the destruction process continues.

So there is no basis for your multi quantum leap into fantasy with: ... You see, you cannot one-way crush down with gravity a structure A with a part C of it, where C<1/10A! ... with the presumption of "you see,..." because I actually do see very clearly. The problem you face is that I don't and wont see your false outcomes from false reasoning...

So your next two are baseless wishful thinking that
No such structures exist (I am glad to conclude). And that's the answer Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

However thank you for your final comment: ...Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
MY real target is those who are genuinely interested. It would be pleasing if you learned from these exchanges but I don't expect that.

I would prefer that you bring some new conjectures into play. The oner false premise you constantly re-use has been adequately dealt with unless some new enquirers need it explained once again.

[Dave Rogers]

If the terrorists had PLANNED the total destruction of the WTC complex, using only two hijacked aircraft, is there any way they could have achieved it more efficiently?

What are the odds against two plane crashes resulting in such a perfect outcome for the terrorist by sheer chance? It sounds like something that could only happen to the accident-prone Inspector Clouseau!

That's known as the a priori - a posteriori fallacy, isn't it? We know, in any scenario, that some outcome must have occurred. Claiming that the actual outcome was low-probability is simply a pointless observation, as in a highly complex scenario with a very large range of possible outcomes, every outcome is low-probability. It would only be cause for suspicion if you could demonstrate that that specific outcome had been predicted or intended, and on that you have nothing more than speculation. There's no evidence that - for example - al-Qaeda specifically set out to destroy WTC7, but leave the entire WFC still standing. How do you account for the failure to destroy any of the World Financial Centre, when the clear aim of the attack was the financial centre of the USA? Clearly, the attack could have been more successful than it was.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

I get 12-13 seconds from conservation of momentum and column deformation. ISTR Frank Greening and Gregory Urich get about the same. Care to show the working that gives you >17 from conservation of momentum alone?

Dave

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds. I would think you would know who they are and where to find their discussions on it.

Where can I find your work on this?

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you sure that wasn't the only way they could persuade you to go away, stop bothering them and let them get on with some real work?

Dave

This is quite an assumption you make so I am inclined to believe you are projecting here. With that said you might take that advice and do some real work yourself instead of badgering those who are with your inanities.

[Heiwa]

Not too bad so far Heiwa (I'll let "pressure" slip through.)

But look where you agree with me: "...both sections get damaged ... stronger elements damage weaker elements..." - where the key point is "elements" so you depart from your model and stay true to my explanations of what actually damaged what at WTC on 9/11; "...due to temporary local overload (high pressure between the elements)..." again correct (begging the small detail of "pressure")
Now here is where you start to depart from WTC9/11 reality: ..so you presume "when all energy is absorbed" which at this stage should be "if" not the presumptive "when"

Because - when all the energy is not absorbed, the WTC 9/11 situation , the destruction process continues.



But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex.JPG

So if you apply forces 4F to above structure (it is the lower part A) and it deforms d, I hope you agree that energy E stored in the structure is E = 4 F d?

OK. This is the process that Tony Szamboti connects with the famous jolt that cannot be spotted. Compression/damping takes time and whatever applies the 4F (the moving upper part C - not shown - in this case) must slow down.

Now if more force/energy is applied - destruction process starts, what element fails first in above structure?

And how are the forces applied after this first failure?

And how does the structure deform then? How does the destruction process continue? What element fails then?

[bill smith]

But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex.JPG

So if you apply forces 4F to above structure (it is the lower part A) and it deforms d, I hope you agree that energy E stored in the structure is E = 4 F d?

OK. This is the process that Tony Szamboti connects with the famous jolt that cannot be spotted. Compression/damping takes time and whatever applies the 4F (the moving upper part C - not shown - in this case) must slow down.

Now if more force/energy is applied - destruction process starts, what element fails first in above structure?

And how are the forces applied after this first failure?

And how does the structure deform then? How does the destruction process continue? What element fails then?

The floors of C and A. There is no question of the upright columns failing at this point so C must become impaled on A like a cocktail sausage on a stick.

[bill smith]

I agree. The implications were psychologically uncomfortable for me too. The avoidance of thinking stuff that causes fairly severe psychological discomfort may account for some people simply refusing to think certain things. It is not easy, psychologically speaking, mentally to process such an awe-inspiring depth of evil. It may be far easier metaphorically to grasp at straws and to conduct frantic doggy paddles to try to stay afloat in a sea of denial.

I clearly remember the day i realised what had happened. i had the distinct sensation of having to force my mind open far enough to take it all in.

[beachnut]

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds. I would think you would know who they are and where to find their discussions on it.

Where can I find your work on this? Where can we find your work checking this failed value?

You checked the numbers you post? Do you think 17 is correct? The 17 seconds is in error. Who would repeat it without checking it? Would an engineer miss an error like this? Who gave you the faulty numbers?
When you finally check the numbers and do the work it should be close to 12.08 seconds. You can check with other engineers...
I think you should check the numbers and ideas you post instead of misleading people with wrong information; like the claims of controlled demolition; total poppycock to pass on lies like controlled demolition when there is no evidence, wrong numbers and faulty analysis.
You spew controlled demolition when 19 terrorists killed 8 pilots, and flew planes into buildings. Why do you make up lies?

... 0.00087 percent of all engineers are a fringe few who have delusions on 911, no coherent scenario; just failed papers, faulty calculations, delusions and dirt dumb conclusions based on hearsay, lies, and failed opinions. Not a chance to earn a Pulitzer Prize and total loss of respect in the engineering community.
As Chairman of the CTBUH I am well connected to most of the leading practitioners of tall building design. The Council represents organizations with well more than 100,000 employees. I do not know anyone or organization in the Council that supports the controlled demolition theory. The ASCE has an engineering membership of 120,000 and they participated in the production of the NIST report. NIST itself employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel and hosts about 2,600 associates.

The controlled demolition theory is an embarrassing failure for 7 years. That poor fool who tried to refute Bazant's work? He was roasted in a real journal. Do you have some junk science to save Heiwa from failed pizza box engineering? Do you share the no-plane stuff of Heiwa? Does anyone in 911Truth have a scenario to go with their delusions and failed ideas on 911? When will you present support in the form of real evidence or calculations for Heiwa’s OP?

[Heiwa]

The floors of C and A. There is no question of the upright columns failing at this point so C must become impaled on A like a cocktail sausage on a stick.

Note that there are no masses in the structure (so it is not really WTC 1 lower part) and that the forces F are applied on the continuous vertical elements that have constant properties from top to bottom = uniform stress in them. These vertical elements are connected to horizontal elements - also with constant properties via joints that can only transmit forces (and no moments). So the forces F compresses the vertical elements and they deflect vertically and laterally and some forces develop in the horizontal elements fitted between the vertical elements that will affect them and the joints. Note that the inner vertical elements are connected to two horizontal elements at each level, while the (wall) vertical elements are only connected to one.

[ozeco41]

But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex.JPG

That is not what happened at WTC 9/11

The falling top block (your "C") did not land on the rows of columns as you persist in wrongly claiming.

Draw the diagram of what actually happened then I may be able to comment.

Remember I have already corrected one of your diagrams which showed the wrong mechanism. Your turn to do the corrections this time.

[bill smith]

Note that there are no masses in the structure (so it is not really WTC 1 lower part) and that the forces F are applied on the continuous vertical elements that have constant properties from top to bottom = uniform stress in them. These vertical elements are connected to horizontal elements - also with constant properties via joints that can only transmit forces (and no moments). So the forces F compresses the vertical elements and they deflect vertically and laterally and some forces develop in the horizontal elements fitted between the vertical elements that will affect them and the joints. Note that the inner vertical elements are connected to two horizontal elements at each level, while the (wall) vertical elements are only connected to one.

Is it true to say that the vertical columns at first impact are still perfectly braced. The collapse of C is perfectly straight down with no sidewards force.

So So C impacts A. The vertical columns of C crunch through the floor of A and strip away some of the lateral supports of A's vertical columns. Menwhile A is doing exactly the same to C. If this continues for three or four floors in each block then the vertical columns of A are sheathed in the body of he falling C block and vice versa. What happens then ?

[Heiwa]

That is not what happened at WTC 9/11

The falling top block (your "C") did not land on the rows of columns as you persist in wrongly claiming.

Draw the diagram of what actually happened then I may be able to comment.

Remember I have already corrected one of your diagrams which showed the wrong mechanism. Your turn to do the corrections this time.

This is just a test to see if you understand simple structures at all. You can apply the forces F on the horizontal top elements (and in air outside), if you like, and they will deform in bending and the force F will be transmitted to adjacent vertical elements (as long as the horizontal element does not break) and we are back to starting point again.

Now, if a force F is applied on a horizontal top element and breaks it, where does force F go? And do you agree that the two parts of the broken element will still hang on the vertical elements?

[ozeco41]

This is just a test to see if you understand simple structures at all. You can apply the forces F on the horizontal top elements (and in air outside), if you like, and they will deform in bending and the force F will be transmitted to adjacent vertical elements (as long as the horizontal element does not break) and we are back to starting point again.

Now, if a force F is applied on a horizontal top element and breaks it, where does force F go? And do you agree that the two parts of the broken element will still hang on the vertical elements?

There is something quaint about your "testing" my understanding Heiwa. :D

Is part of the test to see if I can pick the fundamental error(s) in your post?

Let me "cut to the chase". There is no force "F" >> did that get your attention? :)

The only force is the resisting force from the structure below. Not the maximum force that could be applied if the lower structure was capable of exerting it. Fundamental error #1

When the point of contact is the floor and not the outer tube column the only resistance has a maximum of the shear failure of the floor joist to outer column connection.

Now if a force is applied to a floor joist as the horizontal beam it will either fail in shear at the ends or in bending at the middle. And visual evidence all the failed joists seen on pictures show shear failure at the end NOT bending failure in the middle.

The issue is of more general application. In a race condition when a rapidly falling load impacts on a beam such as the WTC floor joists the "shear failure" will always win the race against "bending moment failure".

Now Mr Engineer who wants to test my understanding, if you are interested critique that statement. No clue as to whether It is true or false or somewhere between dependent on circumstances. You may care to cover each of the three in your critique. Here. In the thread. For all readers to see. :D

BUT remember it matters not which failure occurred for the rest of my explanation. :)

[ozeco41]

You're right, Ozeco41. Heiwa claims to be some sort of shipbuilding engineer. God save us if we ever end up peering over the boughs of a craft he's had a hand in.

Bananaman (The Scared).
Sadly there are many engineers like him in that they can get lost on the wrong premise or wrong paradigm. Perfectly competent in routine applications. But, if ever they "lose the plot" they cannot self correct and many of them cannot even apply the corrections when pointed to the error.

Many times in my later senior engineering career the two successive CEO's used me to "paradigm bust" when the engineering hierarchy was "lost and locked" on a wrong path. Sewage sludge strategy, sewer infiltration strategy, asset maintenance financial and physical strategies (somehow the accountants had the former and the engineers the latter and the two clubs rarely talk to each other). All for the Water and Sewerage Authority for Sydney, NSW Australia. Its too lengthy a scene setting to post here to show the analogies to the WTC situation which is "lost and locked" on wrong solution by at least two prominent members posting here. And aspects of Greening, Bazant et al.

So I stick with explanations for those in less exalted positions or those who are prepared to listen and I usually avoid taking sides on NIST or "Official" positions. Except to comment when I think they are right on technical issues of significance. I cannot recall any where they are wrong on significant issues.

[phunk]

But before failures occur, something else must happen: elastic compression and applied energy is transformed into compression.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex.JPG

So if you apply forces 4F to above structure (it is the lower part A) and it deforms d, I hope you agree that energy E stored in the structure is E = 4 F d?

OK. This is the process that Tony Szamboti connects with the famous jolt that cannot be spotted. Compression/damping takes time and whatever applies the 4F (the moving upper part C - not shown - in this case) must slow down.

Now if more force/energy is applied - destruction process starts, what element fails first in above structure?

And how are the forces applied after this first failure?

And how does the structure deform then? How does the destruction process continue? What element fails then?

What happens when you remove the top floor and tilt those arrows slightly away from vertical?

[Heiwa]

What happens when you remove the top floor and tilt those arrows slightly away from vertical?

That's a good question. Remove the upper, three horizontal elements (your top floor), so that the vertical elements have no lateral support there. The first lateral support is at next horizontal element level!

Those arrows (vectors) are the forces 4 F acting on the tops of the vertical elements.

Instead of tilting them, it is easier just to add forces 4 Fh that act laterally on the top of each vertical element. They are balanced by forces -4 Fh at ground level. The combination F and Fh is a tilted arrow, so to say. What happens?

Well, F continues to compress the structure vertically exactly as before and Fh will displace(shear)/bend the vertical elements sideways around the joints below, i.e. the whole structure will displace transversly. The latter also requires energy.

If you know a little about beam analysis you can easily calculate the displacements of joints and deformations of elements in the whole structure and see how forces 4 F and 4 Fh go through all elements from top to ground. There is equilibrium everywhere.

It seems NIST is not capable of doing simple beam analysis.

PS. I wonder what Bin Laden's mountain fortress is doing in this thread?

[tsig]

I think you are we weing here a little. But it's okay if this transfinite math does something for you.

Tony I'm not surprised you scoff so far all the University math profs laugh but I know they are in the pockets of the math textbook makers so I take thier criticism as confirmation.

Einstein, Newton, Aristotle et. al got it wrong 'cause they didn't have TM.

The proper application of TM makes the 911 problem simple at best and trivial in most cases.

[alienentity]

Note to Tony S. regarding the missing jolt paper.

Tony, I have a very hard time following your logic. On p. 10 you state 'Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the
upper stories, would have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. [17]' (17. Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 3.)

You use this 31g figure as the basis to calculate your estimate for the kinetic energy losses, hence the 'jolt'. However, when you actually read p 3 of 'Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?' it is clearly stated that 'The solution P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049ea0170c7928.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16078)

where Po=mg=design load capacity.

So all it does is give a calculation for the overload ratio vs the design load capacity. It demonstrates with calculations that the acceleration of the upper block far exceeds the strength of the impacted floor below.

There is no valid reason that there should be massive deceleration. As stated in the 2006 paper 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions ' Bazant and Verdure; 'the kinetic energy of
the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. ' The kinetic energy of the top part of tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 × larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing would be taken into account (p3)

They then provide very comprehensive Crush-down/Crush-up calculations to show in detail how much energy was involved. The summary of these findings is published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York'.

It is very clear from their calculations that the buildings were not in freefall, as your analysis also finds. This of course immediately argues against explosive demolition, and we don't need to bother with it further at this point. But also it is clear that the loss of kinetic energy amounts to a fairly small percent, and certainly there is no agreement with your assertion that there would be an enormous deceleration.

Tony, your jolt theory paper is of course nowhere near as comprehensive an analysis as either of the Bazant papers, nor was your paper published in an engineering journal. But even so, you have completely ignored the loss of perimeter column capacity due to bowing, where Bazant et al have not. So the context for your analysis lacks the appropriate parameters to be meaninful in the first place; the bowing of columns cannot be handwaved out of existence, it is central to the mechanism for the collapse of the towers.

Further, the bowing, without a doubt caused by the high-speed plane impacts and subsequent fires, cannot plausibly be the result of some mythical pyrotechnic devices planted there by unspecified Men In Black (not Jewish, of course). That is a ludicrous and pathetic hypothesis, not based in science at all. In my view it is a cop out, an abandonment of serious inquiry.

So comparing the 3 Bazant papers with your paper's claims, not only does your main claim NOT fit with the statements in the Bazant papers, making for a rather poor refutation to begin with, but you haven't even BEGUN to formulate good math counter to the Bazant Crush-Down/Crush-up equations. You don't even bother, instead focusing on what appears to be a misrepresentation of Bazant's work, and an attempt at misdirection to justify your argument to incredulity.

If you're going to continue making wild claims about explosives, you ought to at least consult with leading experts in demolitions to look at the feasibility. I think if you were really serious about this inquiry, you'd have done so long ago, and probably would've modified your approach to EXCLUDE controlled demolition, as it just doesn't fit.

I also noticed you mentioned the '2.25s close to freefall' in the WTC7 collapse, the Holy Grail of truther 'CD in the gaps' conspiracy theories. I will address that another time, this is enough for today. I'm going canoeing now.

This obsession you guys have with CD is making fools out of you. Seriously.

[Seymour Butz]

Is it true to say that the vertical columns at first impact are still perfectly braced.

Probably so for the first 3-4meters.

The collapse of C is perfectly straight down with no sidewards force.

Despite your claim of what you see in that video, this is wrong. If you want to clim this, then Heiwa needs to change his scenario, cuz he clearly states that columns "rub" against each other. Plus, his diagram shows C tilting. So you're wrong, or Heiwa's wrong. Pick one.

So So C impacts A. The vertical columns of C crunch through the floor of A and strip away some of the lateral supports of A's vertical columns. Menwhile A is doing exactly the same to C. If this continues for three or four floors in each block then the vertical columns of A are sheathed in the body of he falling C block and vice versa. What happens then ?

Since it's descending at an angle, and you realize that the core lateral supports have been lost, both sets of core columns will have lateral impacts. The core columns most likely then break at the welds, since they were the weakest link. The A columns descend now too. The C columns are freed to add to the descending mass.

The ext floors that may still be connected to these columns follow along with the columns, and may break off and add to the descending mass.

Contrary to Heiwa's claims, there can be no "entanglement" or "arrest to friction" , since the descending floors/columns are moving along with the collapse front now.

Collapse continues.

[bill smith]

Probably so for the first 3-4meters.



Despite your claim of what you see in that video, this is wrong. If you want to clim this, then Heiwa needs to change his scenario, cuz he clearly states that columns "rub" against each other. Plus, his diagram shows C tilting. So you're wrong, or Heiwa's wrong. Pick one.



Since it's descending at an angle, and you realize that the core lateral supports have been lost, both sets of core columns will have lateral impacts. The core columns most likely then break at the welds, since they were the weakest link. The A columns descend now too. The C columns are freed to add to the descending mass.

The ext floors that may still be connected to these columns follow along with the columns, and may break off and add to the descending mass.

Contrary to Heiwa's claims, there can be no "entanglement" or "arrest to friction" , since the descending floors/columns are moving along with the collapse front now.

Collapse continues.

Yesterday you and I agreed that the top 10% was still supported by 250-odd columns (85% of the original amount)

For this argument we have to forget about that and theorise a freefall drop.
So looking at it in slow motion C lands flat on A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Do you agree from the video ?

[Seymour Butz]

Yesterday you and I agreed that the top 10% was still supported by 250-odd columns (85% of the original amount)

For this argument we have to forget about that and theorise a freefall drop.
So looking at it in slow motion C lands flat on A.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Do you agree from the video ?


No. This is 2. It didn't fall "straight down".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0&feature=related

[Heiwa]

It demonstrates with calculations that the acceleration of the upper block far exceeds the strength of the impacted floor below.

Seriously.

Seriously, please do not compare an acceleration of anything and not ... an upper block (???) to the strength of a floor below.

You are just making a fool of yourself!

[Heiwa]

They then provide very comprehensive Crush-down/Crush-up calculations to show in detail how much energy was involved.

Seriously.

Seriously? In detail? :)

[bill smith]

No. This is 2. It didn't fall "straight down".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0&feature=related

That's WTC2 not WTC1.

[Seymour Butz]

That's WTC2 not WTC1.

The answer's still no.

Even troofers wonder about the antenna tilt. That's 1.

You fail.

It didn't collapse straight down.

[Seymour Butz]

Link, pls!

Try every one of your posts where you fail to explain how you can hold BOTH the "bounce" scenario and "entanglement" scenario to be true, for starters.

Picking one or the other would be a first step in building some credibility.

But you won't, will you?

[bill smith]

The answer's still no.

Even troofers wonder about the antenna tilt. That's 1.

You fail.

It didn't collapse straight down.

Please yourself then.lol

[Seymour Butz]

So what about 2 then?

Do you agree that the analysis fails?

[bill smith]

So what about 2 then?

Do you agree that the analysis fails?

WTC1 and WTC2 were very diffent collpses, Or should have been. Actually they were remarkably similar in most ways even thogh they had much different collapse dynamics.

[phunk]

That's a good question. Remove the upper, three horizontal elements (your top floor), so that the vertical elements have no lateral support there. The first lateral support is at next horizontal element level!

Those arrows (vectors) are the forces 4 F acting on the tops of the vertical elements.

Instead of tilting them, it is easier just to add forces 4 Fh that act laterally on the top of each vertical element. They are balanced by forces -4 Fh at ground level. The combination F and Fh is a tilted arrow, so to say. What happens?


What happens is that the columns up top are subject to forces they weren't designed to handle, and the joint between them and the columns below easily snaps. Then your 'C' falls another 3.7M or so and hits the next floor with even more mass and velocity.

[bardamu]

lol, OK. Please show me a calculation of said probabilities. You do know what probabilities are right? There not things you make up in your head to suit your fantasies. There's two outcomes, the buildigns fall or they don't. They did. The probability they didn't is 0. You're working with a very small sampling population (do you know what that means?) with only one observed outcome.

You don't know what you are talking about. All you have done is assigned a fake probability to you incredulity. Why would you come to a skeptical forum and make up statistics that can't be supported by any evidence and not expect to be called on it? Do you really think you will find people here that are going to suddenly bend their understanding of mathematics to suit your fancy? You may think this works in other forums, but seriously, it's not going to fly here. You are being called out as a liar, show how you arrived at your "probabilities" or admit you made them up.

Have you ever read Candide, ou l'Optimisme by Voltaire? It's very much like the official 9/11 story - everything that could possibly go wrong does go wrong. The series of catastrophies that unfolds in Candide is obviously improbable in real life, although possible in theory. Some of the events of 9/11, on the other hand, appear to be impossible. Even if they were possible, the story would still be as absurdly improbable as Voltaire's masterpiece. The fact that you'd ask somebody to put a number on this kind of probablility just shows how desperate you are to put people off asking valid questions.


That's known as the a priori - a posteriori fallacy, isn't it? We know, in any scenario, that some outcome must have occurred. Claiming that the actual outcome was low-probability is simply a pointless observation, as in a highly complex scenario with a very large range of possible outcomes, every outcome is low-probability. It would only be cause for suspicion if you could demonstrate that that specific outcome had been predicted or intended, and on that you have nothing more than speculation.


Let's imagine a team of demolition experts had been given the job of razing the WTC complex to the ground, using only two Boeing 767's which could be flown by remote control to target any two of the seven buildings. Public health is not an issue, but they are asked to minimize damage to the surrounding area as far as possible.

Could the demolition team have done a better job with the benefit of careful planning than the terrorists did by sheer chance? Could the demolition team even guarantee they'd do an equally good job as the terrorists? My common-sense understanding of probablity tells me they probably couldn't. It tells me that the official story of what happened at the WTC is so far fetched that it's absolutely unbelievable for anybody with an everyday knowledge of how things work.



There's no evidence that - for example - al-Qaeda specifically set out to destroy WTC7, but leave the entire WFC still standing. How do you account for the failure to destroy any of the World Financial Centre, when the clear aim of the attack was the financial centre of the USA? Clearly, the attack could have been more successful than it was.


These questions are pointless, since 'al Qaeda' probably didn't play any part in the attacks .

[alienentity]

Seriously, please do not compare an acceleration of anything and not ... an upper block (???) to the strength of a floor below.

You are just making a fool of yourself!

To be more precise, it is the kinetic energy from acceleration. A simple clarification that even you can understand.

Now if you care to address the actual topic, be my guest.

[tsig]

Try every one of your posts where you fail to explain how you can hold BOTH the "bounce" scenario and "entanglement" scenario to be true, for starters.

Picking one or the other would be a first step in building some credibility.

But you won't, will you?

I like the "bounce scenario" the mental image of the top bouncing up and then bouncing down the street is right out of the cartoons.

[alienentity]

Seriously? In detail? :)

Yup, calculations in detail. 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions' pp 3 to 10.
Published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 3, March 2007.

How many engineering journals have you published your 'bounce' theory in Heiwa? Throw us a link to them.

[alienentity]

I'm reposting this with a slight correction for wording. It apparently threw Heiwa off the deep end, so in an effort not to confuse him further, the repost;

Note to Tony S. regarding the missing jolt paper.

Tony, I have a very hard time following your logic. On p. 10 you state 'Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the
upper stories, would have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. [17]' (17. Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 3.)

You use this 31g figure as the basis to calculate your estimate for the kinetic energy losses, hence the 'jolt'. However, when you actually read p 3 of 'Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?' it is clearly stated that 'The solution P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part:

where Po=mg=design load capacity.

So all it does is give a calculation for the overload ratio vs the design load capacity. It demonstrates with calculations that the kinetic energy of the upper block far exceeds the strength of the impacted floor below.

There is no valid reason that there should be massive deceleration. As stated in the 2006 paper 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions ' Bazant and Verdure; 'the kinetic energy of
the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. ' The kinetic energy of the top part of tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 × larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing would be taken into account (p3)

They then provide very comprehensive Crush-down/Crush-up calculations to show in detail how much energy was involved. The summary of these findings is published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York'.

It is very clear from their calculations that the buildings were not in freefall, as your analysis also finds. This of course immediately argues against explosive demolition, and we don't need to bother with it further at this point. But also it is clear that the loss of kinetic energy amounts to a fairly small percent, and certainly there is no agreement with your assertion that there would be an enormous deceleration.

Tony, your jolt theory paper is of course nowhere near as comprehensive an analysis as either of the Bazant papers, nor was your paper published in an engineering journal. But even so, you have completely ignored the loss of perimeter column capacity due to bowing, where Bazant et al have not. So the context for your analysis lacks the appropriate parameters to be meaninful in the first place; the bowing of columns cannot be handwaved out of existence, it is central to the mechanism for the collapse of the towers.

Further, the bowing, without a doubt caused by the high-speed plane impacts and subsequent fires, cannot plausibly be the result of some mythical pyrotechnic devices planted there by unspecified Men In Black (not Jewish, of course). That is a ludicrous and pathetic hypothesis, not based in science at all. In my view it is a cop out, an abandonment of serious inquiry.

So comparing the 3 Bazant papers with your paper's claims, not only does your main claim NOT fit with the statements in the Bazant papers, making for a rather poor refutation to begin with, but you haven't even BEGUN to formulate good math counter to the Bazant Crush-Down/Crush-up equations. You don't even bother, instead focusing on what appears to be a misrepresentation of Bazant's work, and an attempt at misdirection to justify your argument to incredulity.

If you're going to continue making wild claims about explosives, you ought to at least consult with leading experts in demolitions to look at the feasibility. I think if you were really serious about this inquiry, you'd have done so long ago, and probably would've modified your approach to EXCLUDE controlled demolition, as it just doesn't fit.

I also noticed you mentioned the '2.25s close to freefall' in the WTC7 collapse, the Holy Grail of truther 'CD in the gaps' conspiracy theories. I will address that another time, this is enough for today. I'm going canoeing now.

This obsession you guys have with CD is making fools out of you. Seriously.

[FineWine]

The floors of C and A. There is no question of the upright columns failing at this point so C must become impaled on A like a cocktail sausage on a stick.


Heiwa refuses to answer my question. You are his disciple, so give it a try.

Several floors of the building have collapsed and gather weight and momentum as they fall. They hit the ceiling of the next floor. What is supposed to stop them?

[FineWine]

Yes, jackals just feed on the corpses. No brains, whatsoever. Look out for snakes, though.

All the floors that have collapsed fall on top of the ceiling of the next floor. You claim that something stops them. What is supposed to stop them? It is obvious to almost everyone else that the collapsing floors crash through.

[bill smith]

Lest we forget the anacdotal evidnce...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[FineWine]

Lest we forget the anacdotal evidnce...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw



Just tell us what stops the falling floors from crashing through the next floor.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It really is amazing how something that happened three times in one day can't be scaled. Not even a computer model can look like anything close that was witnessed that day.

Keep apologizing. Maybe if you do it will eventually work and you won't need to check into this crutch mental facility of a sub-forum any longer.

But I doubt it.

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm reposting this with a slight correction for wording. It apparently threw Heiwa off the deep end, so in an effort not to confuse him further, the repost;

Note to Tony S. regarding the missing jolt paper.

Tony, I have a very hard time following your logic. On p. 10 you state 'Bazant claims that a minimum force amplification of 31g, or 31 times the static weight of the
upper stories, would have occurred in a collision between the upper and lower blocks of the Twin Towers after a fall of one story. [17]' (17. Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 3.)

You use this 31g figure as the basis to calculate your estimate for the kinetic energy losses, hence the 'jolt'. However, when you actually read p 3 of 'Why did the World Trade Center Collapse?' it is clearly stated that 'The solution P = Pdyn yields the following elastically calculated overload ratio due to impact of the upper part:

where Po=mg=design load capacity.

So all it does is give a calculation for the overload ratio vs the design load capacity. It demonstrates with calculations that the kinetic energy of the upper block far exceeds the strength of the impacted floor below.

We don't use the 31g as a basis to calculate the energy losses. The energy losses are a function of the strength of the columns at the top of the lower block and at the bottom of the upper block or on the 97th and 99th floors which are assumed to elastically and plastically deform and then buckle.

Dr. Bazant actually has an error in terms here as Po is the actual design load not the load capacity which would have been at least three times greater due to the factors of safety used in the column design.

There is no valid reason that there should be massive deceleration. As stated in the 2006 paper 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions ' Bazant and Verdure; 'the kinetic energy of
the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. ' The kinetic energy of the top part of tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4 × larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing would be taken into account (p3)

There is plenty of valid reason for a massive jolt. How do you think the kinetic energy gets transferred? Why do you think Bazant said there had to be a powerful jolt?

They then provide very comprehensive Crush-down/Crush-up calculations to show in detail how much energy was involved. The summary of these findings is published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York'.

It is very clear from their calculations that the buildings were not in freefall, as your analysis also finds. This of course immediately argues against explosive demolition, and we don't need to bother with it further at this point. But also it is clear that the loss of kinetic energy amounts to a fairly small percent, and certainly there is no agreement with your assertion that there would be an enormous deceleration.

The lack of freefall does not argue against controlled demolition. All it says is that there was some residual resistance remaining. I used an example here the other day where you have a 100 lb. weight supported by 30 columns which can each support 10 lbs. and you then remove 27 of the columns. What happens? The 100 lb. weight fall at 0.7g, not freefall. All that needs to be done is to remove enough columns so that the load above cannot be supported to create the fall.

Tony, your jolt theory paper is of course nowhere near as comprehensive an analysis as either of the Bazant papers, nor was your paper published in an engineering journal. But even so, you have completely ignored the loss of perimeter column capacity due to bowing, where Bazant et al have not. So the context for your analysis lacks the appropriate parameters to be meaninful in the first place; the bowing of columns cannot be handwaved out of existence, it is central to the mechanism for the collapse of the towers.

Further, the bowing, without a doubt caused by the high-speed plane impacts and subsequent fires, cannot plausibly be the result of some mythical pyrotechnic devices planted there by unspecified Men In Black (not Jewish, of course). That is a ludicrous and pathetic hypothesis, not based in science at all. In my view it is a cop out, an abandonment of serious inquiry.

Please show how the bowing has any import to the continuation of the collapse once it was initiated. It is the continuation of the collapse that the jolt is necessary for, and what the paper addresses.

So comparing the 3 Bazant papers with your paper's claims, not only does your main claim NOT fit with the statements in the Bazant papers, making for a rather poor refutation to begin with, but you haven't even BEGUN to formulate good math counter to the Bazant Crush-Down/Crush-up equations. You don't even bother, instead focusing on what appears to be a misrepresentation of Bazant's work, and an attempt at misdirection to justify your argument to incredulity.

If you have actually read "The Missing Jolt" paper you would have noticed that we found a significant error in Bazant and Zhou's calculation of the axial stiffness of the columns. They calculate 71 GN/m when it is actually 7.1 GN/m. So they were off by a factor of ten, probably the result of a misplaced decimal point. Using the correct stiffness (C) of 7.1 GN/m in Bazant's equation for overload ratio, gives an 11g Pdyn/Po ratio. In addition to that, I showed you the design load vs. design capacity term error above made by them also, which is somewhat misleading. The columns actually had a capacity of at least 3 times their actual load so now the overload is down to about 367%, not the 3100% Bazant and Zhou show. So much for your credits of mathematical superiority to the Bazant papers over the one I was involved in.

Admittedly, a 367% overload ratio is more than sufficient but how do you transmit it to the lower structure? The answer is that there must be an impulse with it's requisite deceleration to transfer the kinetic energy. If there is no deceleration there is no 367% overload. Bazant knew this and that is why he felt there must have been a very powerful jolt. He just never measured for it. When someone finally measured for it it turned out that there was no deceleration of the upper block and thus no transfer of this kinetic energy could have been accomplished. The problem for Bazant's papers is that his core requirement of a jolt isn't there, so his hypothesis is rendered meaningless as far as it's being able to explain the collapse of the North Tower.

If you're going to continue making wild claims about explosives, you ought to at least consult with leading experts in demolitions to look at the feasibility. I think if you were really serious about this inquiry, you'd have done so long ago, and probably would've modified your approach to EXCLUDE controlled demolition, as it just doesn't fit.

This obsession you guys have with CD is making fools out of you. Seriously.

I don't know what you do for a living but from what you say above it appears you are not qualified to comment on these matters, and it is thus incredibly indulgent of you to suggest I seek out leading experts as though I have no expertise of my own and haven't already sought comment from other professionals qualified in this area.

I see no need to continue this discussion as with this reply I think I have laid out everything you would need to come to an informed decision.

[3bodyproblem]

Have you ever read Candide, ou l'Optimisme by Voltaire? It's very much like the official 9/11 story - everything that could possibly go wrong does go wrong. The series of catastrophies that unfolds in Candide is obviously improbable in real life, although possible in theory. Some of the events of 9/11, on the other hand, appear to be impossible. Even if they were possible, the story would still be as absurdly improbable as Voltaire's masterpiece. The fact that you'd ask somebody to put a number on this kind of probablility just shows how desperate you are to put people off asking valid questions.


Blah Blah Blah, wine wine, blah Voltaire,blah blah...

I'm not putting off people asking valid questions, I'm pointing out idiotic statements made by ignorant people.

You're arguing from incredulity. Just admit it and move on. The fact is all the 110 story buildings that have been hit by planes have collpased. Given the number of events and known outcomes there is no probability, just a known certainty.

[Grizzly Bear]

There is plenty of valid reason for a massive jolt. How do you think the kinetic energy gets transferred? Why do you think Bazant said there had to be a powerful jolt?
Floors which function to provide the lateral bracing to the building and not the vertical loads from the weight of the building itself generally won't succeed in offering any appreciably visible "jolt." I find that given their survival of the main collapse, the core structures of both towers weren't as much a mechanism in the collapse progression as the failure of the floor connections and the perimeter columns. You'll have top forgive me if for lack of better wording I describe your contention that there should have been one massive visible jolt a bit bizarre


The lack of freefall does not argue against controlled demolition. All it says is that there was some residual resistance remaining.
Never cared for the freefall argument... the only thing controlled demolitions and progressive collapse have in common is that they both involve some form of structural failure.

All that needs to be done is to remove enough columns so that the load above cannot be supported to create the fall.
I do hate to nit pick at this but the moment a demolition is made into some haphazard application, it's not really controlled anymore. The core columns in both towers didn't collapse until after everything else had already failed, so unless you're arguing that the charges must have been applied in the impact zone (which based on my reading doesn't appear to be the case)... I'm baffled as to how this was even necessary for the continuation of the collapse when clearly their failure wasn't necessary to facilitate the progressive nature of the collapse.

As for your paper... I haven't had a shot at reading it in it's entirety... since I'm bored I suppose I'll put my tin foil hat on and take the time to read it... I'll get back to you once I finish....

[alienentity]

Re Tony S. last reply, he admits that EVEN accounting for the quibbles with Bazant's math, you still have plenty of kinetic energy to destroy the floors below.

In fact in Tony's words 'Admittedly, the 367% overload ratio is more than sufficient' OK, basically it's game over for the necessity of explosives, as if we didn't already know this. Tony then asks' but how do you transmit it to the lower structure?' Tony doesn't know, or doesn't care to elaborate, past insisting on a visible jolt or explosives.

It's a false dichotomy. Tony doesn't know, so he simply defaults to the truther axiom 'must be controlled demolition'. Even though it obviously CAN'T be CD based on the ACTUAL events and collapses.

As I said Tony, go ahead and publish this paper in a respected mechanical engineering journal, as opposed to the bogus Journal of 9/11 studies, and get back to us. I very much doubt your idea will last very long outside of the twoofersphere.

You've conveniently handwaved the bowed columns into nothing, merely and irrelevant detail for you to ignore. But unfortunately it poisons your entire premise, because it provides the necessary motion to initiate collapse, just not the way you want to see it.

That's just too bad. No explosive squibs, no visible detonations, no controlled demolition. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

You're making fools out of yourselves. Be my guest. I won't stop you.

[Tony Szamboti]

Floors which function to provide the lateral bracing to the building and not the vertical loads from the weight of the building itself generally won't succeed in offering any appreciably visible "jolt." I find that given their survival of the main collapse, the core structures of both towers weren't as much a mechanism in the collapse progression as the failure of the floor connections and the perimeter columns. You'll have top forgive me if for lack of better wording I describe your contention that there should have been one massive visible jolt a bit bizarre



Never cared for the freefall argument... the only thing controlled demolitions and progressive collapse have in common is that they both involve some form of structural failure.


I do hate to nit pick at this but the moment a demolition is made into some haphazard application, it's not really controlled anymore. The core columns in both towers didn't collapse until after everything else had already failed, so unless you're arguing that the charges must have been applied in the impact zone (which based on my reading doesn't appear to be the case)... I'm baffled as to how this was even necessary for the continuation of the collapse when clearly their failure wasn't necessary to facilitate the progressive nature of the collapse.

The 50 to 60 stories of core columns remaining after the collapse front passed by were only interior core columns. All of the outer core columns, which were the largest columns in the buildings, went down with the collapse front. I don't know how many people realize this.

If the outer core columns were taken out every three stories it explains the floors collapsing and the perimeter columns coming down and also the lower interior columns remaining. The interior columns could survive temporarily once the columns were strong enough to withstand their connections being broken from the outer core columns pulling on them. Hence the lower interior columns remained standing for a time. Once the collapse front was completely on the ground the remaining interior columns were too tall and slender to support their own weight and buckled as a group and fell to the ground.

[Tony Szamboti]

Re Tony S. last reply, he admits that EVEN accounting for the quibbles with Bazant's math, you still have plenty of kinetic energy to destroy the floors below.

In fact in Tony's words 'Admittedly, the 367% overload ratio is more than sufficient' OK, basically it's game over for the necessity of explosives, as if we didn't already know this. Tony then asks' but how do you transmit it to the lower structure?' Tony doesn't know, or doesn't care to elaborate, past insisting on a visible jolt or explosives.

It's a false dichotomy. Tony doesn't know, so he simply defaults to the truther axiom 'must be controlled demolition'. Even though it obviously CAN'T be CD based on the ACTUAL events and collapses.

As I said Tony, go ahead and publish this paper in a respected mechanical engineering journal, as opposed to the bogus Journal of 9/11 studies, and get back to us. I very much doubt your idea will last very long outside of the twoofersphere.

You've conveniently handwaved the bowed columns into nothing, merely and irrelevant detail for you to ignore. But unfortunately it poisons your entire premise, because it provides the necessary motion to initiate collapse, just not the way you want to see it.

That's just too bad. No explosive squibs, no visible detonations, no controlled demolition. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

You're making fools out of yourselves. Be my guest. I won't stop you.

Alright, you made me respond. You sir are twisting words here in an indescribable way and causing me to be suspicious of your motives.

I completely explained that while the energy was there to cause the next lower stories to collapse that the energy needs to be delivered by an impulse. An impulse requires deceleration and we find none in the collapse of the upper block of the North Tower. If there is no deceleration there is NO natural mechanism for natural collapse. This is what the Missing Jolt paper discusses. Unfortunately, it has either gone over your head or you are intentionally trying to manipulate for an ulterior motive you have.

[AZCat]

An impulse requires deceleration

It does? I think you're forgetting that the top portion was under a constant acceleration already. Imparting force onto another object would only require that the top portion accelerate at a slower rate, rather than decelerate.

[alienentity]

Grizzly, you wrote 'so unless you're arguing that the charges must have been applied in the impact zone' yes, he is. Absolutely.
What else do you expect from this kind of inquiry?

I read very carefully through all three Bazant papers to see where Tony's claim that Bazant calls for a big 31g 'jolt' is, and I didn't find it. Bazant et al DO give a ratio equal to that number for the amount of energy vs the design load capacity.

'The kinetic energy of the top part of tower impacting the floor below was found to be
about 8.4 × larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing would be taken into account (Baˇzant and Zhou 2002)'

Nowhere do they indicate a massive deceleration or 'jolt'. Instead, they argue that the energy lost would be a small percentage of that available, which is what we expect and what appears to have happened, based on the video evidence.

In their words it's 'the relative smallness of energy absorption capability compared to the kinetic energy' (p3 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions ' Bazant and Verdure.

Please note this paper WAS published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2007.

Tony has his knickers in a twist because he's basically nitpicking Bazant's work, (not doing his own original theorizing, please note) and having raised some good questions, immediately leaps to the standard twoofer dogma, throwing his brains out the window as he does so.

He likes to give the impression that he is fully qualified to examine this subject, but gives up immediately because he's apparently let down by Bazant. This intellectual laziness is not good science; it's more troofer dogma dressed in a few equations.

I'd like to see this stuff get published in a respected journal. I doubt it ever will be. Whatever. If this is the best stuff they've got, it's pathetic.

[Grizzly Bear]

You've conveniently handwaved the bowed columns into nothing, merely and irrelevant detail for you to ignore. But unfortunately it poisons your entire premise, because it provides the necessary motion to initiate collapse, just not the way you want to see it.

That's just too bad. No explosive squibs, no visible detonations, no controlled demolition. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

The bowing of the exterior columns were more an indication that the structural integrity of that area was substantially reduced... I agree it's an indication that had I been there, I would have been very worried about whether that structure was stable or not, but as far as I understand it wasn't the mechanism for progression... Assuming I've got what you're referring to correctly...

The problem I find with Tony's jolt argument is not that he argues there was NO jolt, rather the jolt he's asserting should have been blatantly visible on video camera is a mis-characterization of the collapse.

Bazant's model as I understand simplifies the collapse for the purpose of biasing against collapse progression, meaning he has the upper section fall onto the lower section square-on negating axial loads that were inevitably part of the collapses... The collapse wasn't so perfect, and floor systems that were designed for lateral bracing were forced to take on the load of an entire section of the building while it was moving no less... If the floors are the primary obstacles against the collapse... I don't see how Tony's jolt assertion would apply, at least when it concerns the magnitude he states it should have been visible...



The 50 to 60 stories of core columns remaining after the collapse front passed by were only interior core columns. All of the outer core columns, which were the largest columns in the buildings, went down with the collapse front. I don't know how many people realize this.
I've heard about this, but I really don't believe it changes that if the floors were impacted with loads they were very clearly not intended to carry the first components to fail would be the connections that hold them to the core structure. You can argue that parts of the core could have been taken out to facilitate it, but based on my understanding of the tower's construction taking them out would have been wholly unnecessary.

I'm not sure I need to comment on the rest I left out... since I'd be wasting air trying to tell you about some details which you genuinely know... (namely the issue dealing with slenderness ratio and the like with the free standing core)

[alienentity]

Tony, I apologize for being hard on you, but you seem unaware that you've fallen into an intellectual trap.

Just because you can't find an explanation yourself (no big deal) you are essentially accusing your government of mass murder. I don't think you understand how terribly irresponsible you are.
You have absolutely NO conclusive proof at all to base your accusation on. Just a misunderstanding of the mechanics of the collapse. Eventually you may see this for yourself.

You already have admitted, in writing, that the energy necessary to destroy the lower floors was available based on gravitational collapse. You've then imposed a phony condition (seeing the jolt on video) to justify and end to any intelligent inquiry (which you're obviously capable of) and a default to the impossible: controlled demolition.

You don't seem to give a rat's behind that it is impossible that the perimeter columns were blown out every 3 floors without us being able to clearly identify that process from video evidence. It didn't happen.
That's how far you've been corrupted by the ideology of CD.

I'm not interested in anything but the truth. Your excuses will not be sufficient to discourage me.

[3bodyproblem]

The 50 to 60 stories of core columns remaining after the collapse front passed by were only interior core columns. All of the outer core columns, which were the largest columns in the buildings, went down with the collapse front. I don't know how many people realize this.


Do you have a source for this? It makes sense but I've never seen an analysis of the free standing core.

[tsig]

We don't use the 31g as a basis to calculate the energy losses. The energy losses are a function of the strength of the columns at the top of the lower block and at the bottom of the upper block or on the 97th and 99th floors which are assumed to elastically and plastically deform and then buckle.

Dr. Bazant actually has an error in terms here as Po is the actual design load not the load capacity which would have been at least three times greater due to the factors of safety used in the column design.



There is plenty of valid reason for a massive jolt. How do you think the kinetic energy gets transferred? Why do you think Bazant said there had to be a powerful jolt?



The lack of freefall does not argue against controlled demolition. All it says is that there was some residual resistance remaining. I used an example here the other day where you have a 100 lb. weight supported by 30 columns which can each support 10 lbs. and you then remove 27 of the columns. What happens? The 100 lb. weight fall at 0.7g, not freefall. All that needs to be done is to remove enough columns so that the load above cannot be supported to create the fall.



Please show how the bowing has any import to the continuation of the collapse once it was initiated. It is the continuation of the collapse that the jolt is necessary for, and what the paper addresses.



If you have actually read "The Missing Jolt" paper you would have noticed that we found a significant error in Bazant and Zhou's calculation of the axial stiffness of the columns. They calculate 71 GN/m when it is actually 7.1 GN/m. So they were off by a factor of ten, probably the result of a misplaced decimal point. Using the correct stiffness (C) of 7.1 GN/m in Bazant's equation for overload ratio, gives an 11g Pdyn/Po ratio. In addition to that, I showed you the design load vs. design capacity term error above made by them also, which is somewhat misleading. The columns actually had a capacity of at least 3 times their actual load so now the overload is down to about 367%, not the 3100% Bazant and Zhou show. So much for your credits of mathematical superiority to the Bazant papers over the one I was involved in.

Admittedly, a 367% overload ratio is more than sufficient but how do you transmit it to the lower structure? The answer is that there must be an impulse with it's requisite deceleration to transfer the kinetic energy. If there is no deceleration there is no 367% overload. Bazant knew this and that is why he felt there must have been a very powerful jolt. He just never measured for it. When someone finally measured for it it turned out that there was no deceleration of the upper block and thus no transfer of this kinetic energy could have been accomplished. The problem for Bazant's papers is that his core requirement of a jolt isn't there, so his hypothesis is rendered meaningless as far as it's being able to explain the collapse of the North Tower.



I don't know what you do for a living but from what you say above it appears you are not qualified to comment on these matters, and it is thus incredibly indulgent of you to suggest I seek out leading experts as though I have no expertise of my own and haven't already sought comment from other professionals qualified in this area.

I see no need to continue this discussion as with this reply I think I have laid out everything you would need to come to an informed decision.

You really should look up elastic and inelastic collisions.

[boloboffin]

Relevant section from the addendum:

What If the Aircraft Impacted a Higher Floor?

Eq. (1) (Bazant and Zhou 2000) gives the dynamic overload ratio µ0 = Pdyn/P0 of the lower part of tower caused by the vertical impact of the upper part after it falls down through the height of the critically heated floor. The value µ0≈31 results when the impact occurs approximately 20 floors below the top, i.e., around the 90th floor. If the aircraft impacts a higher floor, say, the nth floor, the axial stiffness C of the lower part of tower gets reduced roughly in the ratio 90/n, and the impacting mass m of the upper part of tower gets reduced roughly in the ratio (110-2n)/20 where 110 = total number of floors in the tower. Considering that the critically heated floor (probably the same as the floor impacted by the aircraft) is, for instance, the fourth floor below the top, i.e., 110-n=3, one gets from Eq. (1) a surprisingly large overload, µ0=29, which would be fatal. But is it not strange that an aircraft impact so close to the top should destroy the whole tower? It is, and the explanation is two-fold:
• First, note that, in Eq. (1), P0 was defined as the design load capacity for the self-weight only, excluding the additional design axial load P1 caused in the columns by wind and dynamic loads (P0=mg). At 20 floors below the top, P0 may be roughly as large as P1 , i.e., P1 /P0≈1, which means that the total overload ratio, defined as µ=Pdyn /(P0+P1), is µ≈15. But on approach to the building top, the cross sections of columns are not reduced in proportion to its weight that they carry but are kept approximately constant, because of various stiffness, dynamic and architectural requirements, as well efficiency of fabrication. So, for n=3, P1 /P0≫1. Therefore, µ≪15, and thus a tolerable overload ratio, approximately µ≤2, may well apply in this case, depending on the precise structural dimensions and loads (not available at the moment of writing).

• Second, note that the analysis that led to Eq. (1) implies the hypothesis that the impacting upper part of the tower behaves essentially as a rigid body. This is undoubtedly reasonable if the upper part has the height of 20 stories, in which case the ratio of its horizontal and vertical dimensions is about 52.8/20×3.7≈0.7. But if the upper part had the height of only 3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.
In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper part or weakening it by some ‘‘smart-structure’’ system so as to make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body.

[Seymour Butz]

However, it doesn't matter as there was no jolt and Bazant's papers are worthless when it comes to explaining the collapse of the North Tower.




He has no hypothesis about the collapse in that paper. It is just an exercise in energy in/out. You're attacking a strawman.

And what about the south tower?

It's undeniably true that it fell crooked.

[FineWine]

We don't use the 31g as a basis to calculate the energy losses. The energy losses are a function of the strength of the columns at the top of the lower block and at the bottom of the upper block or on the 97th and 99th floors which are assumed to elastically and plastically deform and then buckle.

Dr. Bazant actually has an error in terms here as Po is the actual design load not the load capacity which would have been at least three times greater due to the factors of safety used in the column design.



There is plenty of valid reason for a massive jolt. How do you think the kinetic energy gets transferred? Why do you think Bazant said there had to be a powerful jolt?



The lack of freefall does not argue against controlled demolition. All it says is that there was some residual resistance remaining. I used an example here the other day where you have a 100 lb. weight supported by 30 columns which can each support 10 lbs. and you then remove 27 of the columns. What happens? The 100 lb. weight fall at 0.7g, not freefall. All that needs to be done is to remove enough columns so that the load above cannot be supported to create the fall.



Please show how the bowing has any import to the continuation of the collapse once it was initiated. It is the continuation of the collapse that the jolt is necessary for, and what the paper addresses.



If you have actually read "The Missing Jolt" paper you would have noticed that we found a significant error in Bazant and Zhou's calculation of the axial stiffness of the columns. They calculate 71 GN/m when it is actually 7.1 GN/m. So they were off by a factor of ten, probably the result of a misplaced decimal point. Using the correct stiffness (C) of 7.1 GN/m in Bazant's equation for overload ratio, gives an 11g Pdyn/Po ratio. In addition to that, I showed you the design load vs. design capacity term error above made by them also, which is somewhat misleading. The columns actually had a capacity of at least 3 times their actual load so now the overload is down to about 367%, not the 3100% Bazant and Zhou show. So much for your credits of mathematical superiority to the Bazant papers over the one I was involved in.

Admittedly, a 367% overload ratio is more than sufficient but how do you transmit it to the lower structure? The answer is that there must be an impulse with it's requisite deceleration to transfer the kinetic energy. If there is no deceleration there is no 367% overload. Bazant knew this and that is why he felt there must have been a very powerful jolt. He just never measured for it. When someone finally measured for it it turned out that there was no deceleration of the upper block and thus no transfer of this kinetic energy could have been accomplished. The problem for Bazant's papers is that his core requirement of a jolt isn't there, so his hypothesis is rendered meaningless as far as it's being able to explain the collapse of the North Tower.



I don't know what you do for a living but from what you say above it appears you are not qualified to comment on these matters, and it is thus incredibly indulgent of you to suggest I seek out leading experts as though I have no expertise of my own and haven't already sought comment from other professionals qualified in this area.

I see no need to continue this discussion as with this reply I think I have laid out everything you would need to come to an informed decision.


What demolition experts have you consulted with?

[alienentity]

Relevant section from the addendum:

Thanks for posting this. To me this is much ado bout nothing. The term 'jolt' is just a way of describing the overwhelming impact of the upper block on the lower floor. And after pages and pages of material, the term is used only once....

I see no implication that resistance to this impact should be great enough to be visible as a sharp deceleration.
1) It certainly wasn't symetrical, making this effect less pronounced.
2)Without special hi-speed film you'd probably have no chance at getting the necessary resolution to see this anyway. You could map data points all day long, but that wouldn't help you.
3) There was weakened structure for several floors around the impact zone, which would tend to absorb energy in a more linear fashion.

There are a number of perfectly reasonable, plausible arguments that can be made why you wouldn't see this artifact. And worse, because the Bazant model is not the only one possible, finding fault with it proves absolutely nothing in terms of controlled demolition.

I found it amazingly ironic that Tony discounted the slower-than-freefall collapse as irrelevant to whether there was controlled demolition. How convenient, when he had earlier pointed to the 2.25s near freefall of WTC7 as some kind of proof of CD. That's just ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.
And STeven Jones goes on and on about freefall speed, or the phrase 'very rapidly' to support his crazy thermite hypothesis.
I mean, freefall speed is THE slogan of the 9/11 truth crowd. But it didn't happen with the WTC towers....oh well, it's still proof of controlled demolition anyway.... (groan)

On page 3 of Tony's paper they ask 'Why
not simply check for this deceleration?'
Perhaps the answer is that it is not expected. Tony seems to have confirmed that hypothesis while trying to prove his own.

[Heiwa]

Will you explain what stops the falling floors from crashing through each successive floor? Heiwa won't.

There are about 600 bolted floor truss connections/joints to walls per floor. The floor is actually square with a rectangulat hole in it and consist of different sections/panels as per:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loadDistribution.jpg

The "floor" is inside outer walls and outside the outer core columns indicated in the sketch that just show how much load is carried by outer core columns.

Evidently a floor cannot fall on another floor. For that 600 connections/joints must fail and then the floor must slide down inside the outer walls and the around the core.
What can fall is the upper part C on the lower part A, if you remove all columns in between. Then the lowest floor of C will contact the top floor of A, say floor #98 contacts floor #97 in WTC 1. And when that happens the destruction is arrested.
It has been explained many times.

[Heiwa]

Yup, calculations in detail. 'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions' pp 3 to 10.
Published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 3, March 2007.

How many engineering journals have you published your 'bounce' theory in Heiwa? Throw us a link to them.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ! The paper is being peer reviewed by ASCE since 3 February 2009.

[boloboffin]

Check these out:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/arguments/tony/WTC_bal.html

That's Tony Szamboti's comparison of the WTC 1 velocity and acceleration to the Balzac-Vitry building.

What gets me is that the B-V building does go into deceleration (negative acceleration), but only at the end of the graph. To my admittedly untrained eyes, it seems to me that the B-V building is going through Bazant's two stages. First, a crush-down, in which the upper section does dip in acceleration rates, but stays accelerating overall, and then the crush-up, in which the upper section does indeed experience negative numbers.

And look at those crazy curves in the WTC 1 acceleration graph - up and down and up and down and up and down. And yet Szamboti doesn't see anything peculiar about that simply because the numbers don't go negative! It's cracking me up.

[alienentity]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ! The paper is being peer reviewed by ASCE since 3 February 2009.

Good luck with the paper. Sincerely.

[Heiwa]

To be more precise, it is the kinetic energy from acceleration. A simple clarification that even you can understand.

Now if you care to address the actual topic, be my guest.

As explained many times (topic) the energy applied to the structure A by dropping structure C is transformed into dynamic forces F at contact areas. These forces first compresses the structures A and C and a lot of energy is consumed that way. Then the forces may destroy elements and/or joints in the structures A and C and further energy is lost. When an element is broken no force can be applied on it. When a joint is broken no force F can be transmitted through it. So you have to check where the forces F are then applied. Evidently no floor elements in structure C can suddenly become loose and drop on the top floor of structure A, &c. This is the old pan cake theory that nobody adheres to today.
As explained many times, when a dynamic contact force develops between a strong element (eg column) and weak element (eg floor) the weak element fails first (if any element fail). When damaged elements rub against each other and friction develops a lot of energy is transformed into heat.

This is the reason why structure C cannot destroy structure A (C<1/6A).

Actually very little energy is applied when structure C contacts structure A in the WTC 1 case! It can only compress the structures and produce minor local failures to elements. I have explained it in my papers. See link above.

[leftysergeant]

It is now obvious that you are a manipulator. However, the joke is on you mister smarty pants. The jolt Bazant speaks of is in the Addendum to Bazant and Zhou on page 369. It is reference 10 in the Missing Jolt paper. I guess when you are trying to jerk other people around you don't have time to do your own homework on the real issue. I am also sure that where you said you read Bazant's papers probably means browse. Your actual technical knowledge is lacking in that you don't seem to understand that Bazant's overload ratio can NEVER happen and the kinetic energy, no matter how much it is, cannot be transferred, without a significant deceleration. You wouldn't know that though as you probably didn't read the Missing Jolt and browsing won't do for a non-technical person like yourself to fully understand it.

You are also committing an Appeal to Authority fallacy by citing the Journal of Engineering Mechanics when there is a good bit of controversy over Bazant's papers.

I am not nitpicking anything. Bazant's hypothesis does not work at all if there is no massive jolt. He knows that.

Bazant is also wrong about the amount of kinetic energy as opposed to the energy of absorption. It isn't 8.4 times. We calculated that and the collapse would nearly arrest at the first story just with deformation and buckling of the columns above and below the impact. We provide those calculations and Bazant doesn't but some simple minded people just quote Bazant on this. The reality is that when considering other energy losses due to vibration of the building, heat, and sound, the collapse would most probably arrest after a fall of one story or 3.7 meters.

What would arrest it? The perimeter columns? They were not even involved. Look closely. The floors are breaking out. Nothin holdin up ther perimeter columns. How are the perimeter columns going to push back? They are not offering any resistance to compresion because they are not being compressd.

That leaves on the floor slabs as actors in this whole mess.

Bazant may have been wrong on some points, but you are more so.

[bill smith]

Relevant section from the addendum:

'In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper part or weakening it by some ‘‘smart-structure’’ system so as to make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body'.

If you accept- as you must that the top block was of an identical sconstruction with the bottom block you will realse that you cannot say that the top was an 'almost rigid blody' witout accepting that the lower 90% was an even more rigid body being rooted in the ground.

'Impacting the lower part at one instant ' Was that the same instant that the lower part reciprocated in full measure whateever downwards force was applied ?

[bill smith]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ! The paper is being peer reviewed by ASCE since 3 February 2009.

If they don't publish it Heiwa, will they tell you why giving the reasons ? That would seem to be the fairest because otherwise it could be rejected on political considerations.

[KreeL]

Heiwa happens to be ultra-correct here, bananaman. 15% of anything cannot possibly crush 85% of itself on planet earth.

Take a bite of a candy bar. Spit it out. Catch it. Hold it up above the remaining candy bar in your hand and drop it right where you bit it off. What happens? Does the candy bar implode in your hand?

Use common sense. It helps.

[ozeco41]

There are about 600 bolted floor truss connections/joints to walls per floor. The floor is actually square with a rectangular hole in it and consist of different sections/panels as per:
which at least confirms that Heiwa is talking about the same building.

It is a pity he has me on ignore - but that means I can explain simple facts of the WTC 9/11 collapses for the benefit of other readers.

So try this bit of Heiwa:
The "floor" is inside outer walls and outside the outer core columns indicated in the sketch that just show how much load is carried by outer core columns. ..good and simple stuff.

Evidently a floor cannot fall on another floor. For that 600 connections/joints must fail .. yes 600 connections which individually and in sum total are the weakest part of the lower structure in the way of the falling Top Block.

Anyone with common sense knows that in any chain the weakest link fails. How anyone claiming to be an engineer can claim that the weakest link did not fail AND that the strongest link had to fail and therefore needed explosives ...well it is beyond me how they even keep a straight face saying it.

So the weakest link failed.
...facing and then the floor must slide down inside the outer walls and the around the core. which can be seen from any of thge global collapse videos. David S Chandler even modified one video to make that fact clearer.

Sorry - I will correct that. Davis S Chandler corrected the video to show some claims he makes. It does not support those claims - it is at best ambiguous. The irony is that it does support the true situation. The floors fell, inside the tube, leaving the outer columns standing, unbraced, to fall freely a short time later.

So, once again having got tantalisingly close to the truth Heiwa again takes a quantum leap into fantasy to get off the dangerous track for his fantasy of "no demolition".
What can fall is the upper part C on the lower part A, if you remove all columns in between. Then the lowest floor of C will contact the top floor of A, say floor #98 contacts floor #97 in WTC 1. And when that happens the destruction is arrested.... no comment needed - another spin of the same rubbish.
...It has been explained many times.
It certainly has. Many times by me. Also by others. And it was so self evident NIST didn't even bother to go there in its original scope.

BUT it has never been explained with any credibility by Heiwa

[KreeL]

Sounds simple enough to model it, ozeco. However, it fails. The concrete floors are supported as well as the concrete floors above. It's the same construction. The collapse would be arrested.

NIST tried that angle already. They failed also. Go figure.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

A US stealth fighter apparently dropped a 500lb fin stabilised GPS guided lump of concrete on the roof, from 20,000ft altitude and the "9/11 physics crush down kinetic energy explosiveness theory" meant that the whole cave complex and entire mountain imploded in 6.66 seconds. Which is why this particular imaginary cave complex and evil bogeyman Osama was never found and why 9/11 kinetic energy physics is so very interesting.

What color is the sky in your world? I'm curious since apparently your physics analogies seem to equate buildings with mountains... truly a strange realm you delve into...

Well if the clearly hoax and non-existent honeycombed hollowed out mountain, bogeyman Osama Cave complex, genuinely exists in a hypothetical parallel universe, with strange physical properties like 9/11 physics, it could be pink sky with green clouds for all I would be able to tell you. Concrete and steel in the 9/11 universe is amazingly explosive, so why not mountains when hit by a quickly moving block of magically explosive American concrete?

Of course 9/11 physics introduced us 9/11 physics sceptics to a kind of Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to an "Improbability Theory" for how concrete floors and steel frame buildings might conceivably behave in your US Regime narrative "true believer" kind of universe. We were told that a single "final-straw" truss connection, to either the core or perimeter columns, heated up, or a single truss heated up and this caused it "to sag" like plastic. It must have been a single truss because the fire heating to the underside of the initially failing floor was asymmetrical, so necessarily the fire heating effect was localised. This theoretical single sagging truss pulled away from the rigid floor pan above it, under its own weight alone, pulling the truss cross bracing with it, that was deliberately left out of the implausible animations that we were all shown. How did that happen? Who the hell knows!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/images/coll_truss.gif
So, having sagged implausibly, there was a failure of the connections at one end of this initial sagging truss. Well OK, they said that the initial single "final straw" failure was at the perimeter columns rather than at the core, in the weird animation, which is clearly just a guess as a variable in the implausibility theory. This then meant that the weight of the square donut floor pan, with a rectangular hole in the centre, was suddenly supported, within the building, by just one too few trusses to carry that weight of just one floor. Well, something very odd happens next in the bizarre 9/11 physics universe.

Up to this point we were presented with steel behaving in a very ductile and indeed plastic manner, ostensibly because it became too hot. Some say that a "chimney effect" (that the building was designed specifically to avoid) caused localised heating to 1000C of the initial failing steel truss, that had unfortunately had the fireproof coating ripped off by the aircraft impact. Had the fireproof coating remained, the building would not have disintegrated. This localised heat also apparently caused the observed eutectic phenomena that required 1000C and some kind of forced, hurricane speed, air-input "chimney effect" to raise the temperature of the fire that high. Of course the dark black smoke actually indicated rather lower, oxygen starved, temperatures, than anything like 1000C.

So what happens when the final straw connection on the final straw, plastically sagging, truss breaks? Well all the steelwork connections, welds and bolts, suddenly stop being made out of ductile steel that is immensely strong in compression and tension. It suddenly becomes immensely brittle steelwork, as though it had just been super-cooled to absolute zero or something. Because all the other remaining steelwork truss connections to the core and perimeter columns, beneath this initial failing floor, simultaneously shattered within a fraction of one second! How did that happen? Who the hell knows! Just believe the authoritative magician hypnotist weaving his magical hypnotic spell over your mind!

Well, OK, we might let that pass as well, anyway, next step in the implausibility theory. The initial failing donut floor is now presumably, suddenly, symmetrically hanging unsupported in space, rather like a cartoon character that just ran off the edge of a cliff. Oops! Nowhere left to go but downwards, under the acceleration of gravity at 9.8m/s/s or 32ft/s/s. How far does the initial concrete floor pan have to fall before it hits the floor below? Only about 12 feet! But remember that even if all the truss connections to the perimeter and core columns suddenly failed in an impossibly brittle manner, the still rigid concrete floor pan would still experience friction. Serious friction as it slid down around the core columns and downwards inside the perimeter columns, so the acceleration of the initial floor pan downwards could not be friction free. Even forgetting the crushing and cushioning of the remaining un-burnt office material in the initial inter-floor pancake sandwich.

Sigh, my scepticism has been stretched well past breaking point already, but let us proceed with the pancake theory. As the initial floor impacts the floor below, not particularly swiftly because it did not have far to go (12ft) even if it fell in an implausible resistance free manner, it suddenly creates an unexpected kinetic energy explosion. Huh? Yes, the concrete floor pan poured onto a corrugated steel surface, reinforced by internal reinforcing steel bars and supported underneath by the both apparently brittle and ductile (simultaneously) steel truss and cross brace system, suddenly becomes kinetically explosive. As all of the potential energy in the weight of the initial floor pan is converted to kinetic energy explosiveness, from this first mutually annihilating impact, between these first two floors, with the floor above not moving downwards very quickly anyway. Wow, how did that happen? Who the hell knows! Perhaps they originally mixed mercury fulminate instead of concrete by mistake! So just believe the terrorist magician, weaving his magical hypnotic spell over your mind! Like the cheating husband caught in bed with his mistress, by his wife, "are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?" Believe in the magic of 9/11 physics, you know it makes sense, because so many authoritative people have told your mind that it makes sense, and they gave you the maths variables to use and the maths works out just fine.

OK, so these first two floors slapped each other, not very quickly, and kinetically exploded in a mutually annihilating event. Whatever! This initial gravity fed "kinetic energy" blow out explosion, that we all witnessed, blows and breaks the perimeter columns out, at that level alone, and perhaps explosively blows some of the core columns inwards. This then leaves the remaining core columns suddenly overloaded. How do they react? Well in the case of WTC2 the north to south orientation of the core network of columns seems to encourage a tip eastwards, as though the rectangular core network was failing in an expected ductile rather than brittle manner. OK so far, but then the tipping over top suddenly explosively disintegrates upwards, faster than it can fall downwards, so that within 2 seconds or so, the tipped over top is nothing but a broiling mass of junk! Some of the exploding top shoots steelwork upwards and outwards, against the tendency for gravity to pull things downwards. Amazing, so much additional over-abundance of energy from gravity was available it seems we might be able to exploit this kind of phenomenon as a new energy source. This sudden loss of the top load does not seem to discourage the continuing mutually annihilating exploding pancake floor phenomena that rushes down the building, ripple-down explosive demolition, faster than the now disintegrated top load components can initially fall out of the sky, so faster than 32ft/s/s acceleration. Very odd indeed, but later the rate of ripple-down destruction slows a little so that the exploded falling top material can "catch up" to form a discrete curtain around the building, so hiding the final stages of the ripple-down low-resistance gravity-fed kinetic-energy explosive "collapse process".
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.jpg
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.wmv

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." G.W.B.

"Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It!" - Joseph Goebbels

[beachnut]

"Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It!" - Joseph Goebbels



YES Goebbels, a dirt dumb NAZI, and 911Truth both like to spew lies until the weakminded fall for them! AI is repeating the lies of 911Truth like an open fire hydrant.

Why do 911Truth believers quote NAZIs idiots, the biggest losers in the world?

Why does 911Truth quote NAZIs when they need Einstein!?

Einstein depicts what most of the typical filled with failed ideas 911Truth believer use to figure out 911. "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

One picture debunks AI and Heiwa!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg

[Bananaman]

Hurrah for that photo, beachnut.

It debunks more or less anything nonsense-sellers have to say about 9/11.

Collapse from the impact sites and whole storeys buckling and crashing, one after another. End of story.

Bananaman

[Heiwa]

One picture debunks AI and Heiwa!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg

How does photo refute Why a one-way Crush down is not possible? Pls do not spam thread with off topic matter. Pls explain why you consider one-way crush downs are possible!

[beachnut]

Relevant section from the addendum:
Interesting; explosive may have stopped the gravity collapse. That debunks AI and Heiwa too.

[Bananaman]

Hiewa:
How does photo refute Why a one-way Crush down is not possible?

Because it shows what was actually happening, you numpty, rather than your haphazard, upside down A,B abd C guff.

It shows several storeys buckling from the impacts and fires before giving way.

Have a problem with that?

Bananaman.

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for posting this. To me this is much ado bout nothing. The term 'jolt' is just a way of describing the overwhelming impact of the upper block on the lower floor. And after pages and pages of material, the term is used only once....

I see no implication that resistance to this impact should be great enough to be visible as a sharp deceleration.
1) It certainly wasn't symetrical, making this effect less pronounced.
2)Without special hi-speed film you'd probably have no chance at getting the necessary resolution to see this anyway. You could map data points all day long, but that wouldn't help you.
3) There was weakened structure for several floors around the impact zone, which would tend to absorb energy in a more linear fashion.

There are a number of perfectly reasonable, plausible arguments that can be made why you wouldn't see this artifact. And worse, because the Bazant model is not the only one possible, finding fault with it proves absolutely nothing in terms of controlled demolition.

I found it amazingly ironic that Tony discounted the slower-than-freefall collapse as irrelevant to whether there was controlled demolition. How convenient, when he had earlier pointed to the 2.25s near freefall of WTC7 as some kind of proof of CD. That's just ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.
And STeven Jones goes on and on about freefall speed, or the phrase 'very rapidly' to support his crazy thermite hypothesis.
I mean, freefall speed is THE slogan of the 9/11 truth crowd. But it didn't happen with the WTC towers....oh well, it's still proof of controlled demolition anyway.... (groan)

On page 3 of Tony's paper they ask 'Why
not simply check for this deceleration?'
Perhaps the answer is that it is not expected. Tony seems to have confirmed that hypothesis while trying to prove his own.

The 1.0g acceleration of WTC 7's upper block initial movement and the 0.7g acceleration of the North Tower's upper block are not contradictory in any sense. An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition. It has never happened any other way and never will. On the other hand a 0.7g acceleration is not too slow for a controlled demolition to occur. It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall. A controlled demolition does not need to take out every column to be successful and that would be especially true when a high momentum doesn't need to be developed since columns on lower floors are being removed also, which is what was done in the twin towers. The collapse of the North Tower was done via continuous column removal. WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition where the momentum gained by the upper block, through causing it to freefall for 100 feet, was used to then crush the lower block and itself.

I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible. If you have now read that Addendum to Bazant and Zhou, they admit that smaller jolts would not be fatal. They also say these smaller jolts could only occur if the upper block were flexible, which it could only be if it was a small number of stories in height. However, it is highly likely that even these smaller jolts would be visible.

The Balzac-Vitry building's upper block was six stories and measurement of it's fall shows a very significant jolt at it's roof when it collides with the lower block. Yes, it decelerates only after it has an actual impact. There were no impacts of these magnitudes in the North tower and that could only be due to it's columns being removed artificially all the way through at least the first nine stories of the measureable fall.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Andrew, in 10,000 words or more, can you give Heiwa your view on crush down?

Not required. One way crush down not possible and did not happen anyway because the buildings blew up and the top load was explosively disassembled early on so was never a coherent contiguous falling hammer load in the first place. (40 words)

[T.A.M.]

Not required. One way crush down not possible and did not happen anyway because the buildings blew up and the top load was explosively disassembled early on so was never a coherent contiguous falling hammer load in the first place. (40 words)

If that is your 40 word explanation, then might I suggest you go for the 10,000 word version, as this one makes no sense, and has not a shred of proof to back it up.

TAM:)

[Swing Dangler]

Tony:
You've had the reason explained to you in simple one syllable words in other threads. Apparently that was too complicated for you.
You have NO evidence. Now you're grasping at a 'jolt'! Don't you see how desperately hopeless that makes you loook.
I hate watching people skate in small circles on thin ice until they've cut out a hole to drown in, so do yourself a favour and don't do it.
Otherwise you'll just get demolished again and again and again, and you'll have learned nothing.
Bananaman

Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence?
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800 °C (1,290–1,470 °F). http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/images/WTC_apndxC_img_1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/images/WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg


The evidence is there. FEMA has/had it. NIST ignored it. I emailed them and the email was posted in the public comments section about this steel. If they tested it or what their conclusions were regarding this evidence. They ignored my email like they ignored the evidence, just like you are ignoring the evidence!
Of course for the official collapse theory to stand, a lot of things have to be ignored. After all its the debunker's favorite tactic: Fallacy of Omission. And by omitting the evidence that has presented by Hewia, Tony, Dr. Jones, and many others, you allow yourself to believe the official theory: a pseudo-politico-faith based science more akin to religion than true science.

[boloboffin]

Szamboti, someone who looks at the sharp declines in acceleration in WTC1, who measures movement of a huge structure from the rear of the descent rather than the leading edge, who looks at the Balzac-Vitry and doesn't understand that deceleration is only happening during the crush-up phase, who then puts all of his idiocy into a whitepaper and publishes it in a online 9/11 science journal and calls it peer reviewed...

This person should be careful throwing the adjective "pathetic" around.

[ozeco41]

Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence? If you could let us know what it is evidence of, some of us could possibly respond.

So what do you claim it supports?

[bill smith]

This eyewitnes was on the 86th floor of WTC1 and reports live that part of the core at his location is 'blown out'. Eleven or so floors BELOW the impact zone. Ain't that interesting ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2F%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D14700&feature=player_embedded

[boloboffin]

If you accept- as you must that the top block was of an identical sconstruction with the bottom block you will realse that you cannot say that the top was an 'almost rigid blody' witout accepting that the lower 90% was an even more rigid body being rooted in the ground.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/ae911toppic.gif

[bill smith]

Nice clear new footage of the WTC on 9/11.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413

[T.A.M.]

bill:

that has been linked here many times, and is FAR FROM NEW. The date of the film is September 11th, 2006!!!

TAM:)

[bill smith]

bill:

that has been linked here many times, and is FAR FROM NEW. The date of the film is September 11th, 2006!!!

TAM:)

New to me anyway....and it is confirmtion of the smoke generaator at 08:46 - 08;47.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413

Did you see the smoke machine caught in crystal clear at the beginning of this recent relese ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/

[tsig]

New to me anyway....and it is confirmtion of the smoke generaator at 08:46 - 08;47.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413

Did you see the smoke machine caught in crystal clear at the beginning of this recent relese ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/

You might want to wait a little longer to reintroduce smoke generators.

[parky76]

so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??

[tsig]

so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??

The most amazing thing is that in order to know all this they would have to have been in on the planning sessions. How else do you get the kind of detailed knowledge of what went on in the plotters' minds that they seem to have?

[Heiwa]

so let me guess this straight:

a complete top down crush is impossible....therefore it was done by explosives by the NWO. why did they do this? to minimize damage to neighboring structures?

so the evil NWO, who wanted to make as big a tragedy as possible, let 35,000 people escape the WTC, and then made sure the collapse would leave as many neghboring structures intact as possible?

is the NWO evil...or not? are you guys now arguing that they have a conscionse? they wanted a tragedy..but not such a big one??

This thread is only about "Why a one-way Crush down is not possible".
Let's discuss that in a friendly and lively way. I have given some ideas why a one-way crush down is not possible. If you think a one-way crush down is possible, pls explain. I am interested.

How and by whom the destruction seen was done is off topic.

[Tricky]

As a number of you have probably noticed, a whopping great swath has been cut through this thread here, sending over fifty posts to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140295). When such major weed-cutting occurs, I cannot be certain that I haven't cut down a few crops too, so if you feel one of your posts was moved in error, all I can say is "I'm sorry".

Please try to keep this thread away from bickering, personal insults and off-topic posts. There is some legitimate discussion in here. Let's not lose that, eh?

[alienentity]

The 1.0g acceleration of WTC 7's upper block initial movement and the 0.7g acceleration of the North Tower's upper block are not contradictory in any sense.

Tony, first, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the sequence of the WTC7 collapse. Either way, when you characterize the 'upper block initial movment' as 1.0g accleration this is just plain false.
1) The initial movement was the internal collapse on the East side of building 7, FOLLOWED by the observed collapse of the E Penthouse and subsequent broken windows down a substantial portion of the NE facade - as far as we are able to view.
2) There was a period of several seconds (close to 7s) as the INTERNAL collapse continued, while the facade still stood.
3)Finally, the W PH begins to collapse visibly, and (almost undetectable at first) the parapet wall directly below it begins to fall, resulting in noticeable compression and distortion of the E portion of the facade.
However, as you can easily determine from my various WTC7 videos, or by carefully examining the footage yourself, the NW corner of the building doesn't descend simultaneously.
My analysis (frame by frame in Final Cut Pro) shows a delay from the W PH collapse initiation to the initiation of descent of the NW corner of approx. 1sec 26frames. For argument's sake be stingy and call it 1.5 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw

Inferring, as we must, that the collapse progressed over a measurable time from E to W as I just described in point (3), it was sometime AFTER this that the entire facade went thru a brief period very close to freefall. As you correctly pointed out this distance translates into roughly 7 or 8 floors, give or take - but at a point WELL into a complex collapse.

To infer from this evidence that somehow silent, undetectable explosives were detonated along 8 floors of the building simultaneously to produce this effect is Tony, frankly, glaringly incompetent for someone of your training and abilities. (btw, I don't think the term 'silent, undetectable' is a strawman at all, because those would be necessary qualities of the alleged explosives if they were to fit with the observed collapse. And Prof. Jones' thermite can't bail you guys out here, either, since (A) explosive nanothermite would make a nice big bang, just like any other high explosive and (B) regular thermite couldn't conceivably remove 8 floors of support simultaneously. That's a pure fantasy)

Sure, I can understand some uneducated paranoid fantasist falling for such obvious nonsense, but I expect more from someone like you.

An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition.
I hope I demonstrated sufficiently to you that this statement is a useless oversimplification and doesn't describe the WTC7 collapse properly.

On the other hand a 0.7g acceleration is not too slow for a controlled demolition to occur. It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall. A controlled demolition does not need to take out every column to be successful and that would be especially true when a high momentum doesn't need to be developed since columns on lower floors are being removed also, which is what was done in the twin towers.

This statement is unsupported by evidence on a number of levels, and contains some misleading components.
a) 0.7g accel. may not be too slow for CD, but it's also not too fast for a plain gravitational collapse either. It is ambiguous taken by itself.
b) 'It just means some insignificant minor resistance to the fall was left which was not nearly enough to stop the fall' exactly. So you agree with the basic observations, but then attach the CD label without proper justification.
c) 'since columns on lower floors are being removed also,' no evidence for this at all. This is pure speculation. 'which is what was done in the twin towers' Tony, you're way, way ahead of good science when you make that kind of statement. Sorry. If you'd at least preface that with 'I believe' or 'In my opinion', so we don't get the impression you think it's a fact, and not just a guess, it would be more respectable.



The collapse of the North Tower was done via continuous column removal. A theory with no proper science to back it up.

WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition How can you expect to be taken seriously with this kind of ignorant statement? WTC7 looks very little like any other CD I've looked at.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg

I have to leave, but I'll try to address your question about the jolt later, to the best of my ability.

[Grizzly Bear]

15% of anything cannot possibly crush 85% of itself on planet earth.

Take a bite of a candy bar. Spit it out. Catch it. Hold it up above the remaining candy bar in your hand and drop it right where you bit it off. What happens? Does the candy bar implode in your hand?

Your chocolate comment makes me hungry 8D

To Tony's credit at least he doesn't think chocolates are viable comparisons to buildings (well I hope that's the case anyway).


An 8 story freefall of a steel framed structure the size of WTC 7 is almost by definition only possible through controlled demolition. It has never happened any other way and never will.
You appear to be speaking from incredulity in this one... as an engineer you should be well aware that the way any structure fails will depend on everything from its design, materiality, failure mode, and location of the failure. You're failure to account for these factors isn't helping.

I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible. If you have now read that Addendum to Bazant and Zhou, they admit that smaller jolts would not be fatal. They also say these smaller jolts could only occur if the upper block were flexible, which it could only be if it was a small number of stories in height. However, it is highly likely that even ]these smaller jolts would be visible.

I'm a little curious if a gigantic jolt would be as obvious as you claim it to be if the surface being impacted fails long before it can offer the necessary resistance. I'd go as far to say that your acknowledgment of the resistance of the floors during the collapse progression illustrates my point quite clearly.


Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence?

I honestly don't know what gets people in a tight knot over corroded metal... The environment was more than conducive to it...

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you have a source for this? It makes sense but I've never seen an analysis of the free standing core.

Gordon Ross has information on his site about it. Google "How the Towers were demolished" to find his site.

The determination of what columns were left standing and how it is known that they were interior core columns was done by sombody other than Gordon but he put the information on his site.

[leftysergeant]

Sounds simple enough to model it, ozeco. However, it fails. The concrete floors are supported as well as the concrete floors above. It's the same construction. The collapse would be arrested.

NIST tried that angle already. They failed also. Go figure.

Put some science in that or stop it. Any construction worker can tell you that when you over-load a floor, it can break. The floors above the impact zone were failing and over-loading lower floors before the structure started to move. When they moved, more floors had to break. It is just in the nature of concrete to breeak. It becomes a compact mass on the next floor, with a bit of kinetic energy behind it.

Now identify the arresting mechanism that you think is there to stop the floors from breaking lose, once one is sufficiently over-loaded as to break free and, in company with the mass that broke it, is slammed into another floor. Bear in mind that it just follows as a natural law that each floor will have an increasing load placed on it by falling mass.

[leftysergeant]

You can't just laugh it off like that, Heiwa. You either prove that the floor-to perimeter brackets could withstand having other floors dropped on them or you wear raw runny egg all over your face.

The ability of the columns to resist vertical compression is irrelevant.

The only other way that the towers could have collapsed than from the severing of the floor-to-perimeter joints is for the columns to have been blown at their joints. The photos of perimeter columns with bent bolts just pulled out of their holes argues against that BS.

Nearly every photo I see of a floor-to perimeter column joint shows the brackets pulled inward and downward. They were clearly over-loaded.

Now, if you can come up with some examples of joints that were clearly cu by explosives, you might have some chance of proving your theories less than the laughing stock of the engineering profession.

[bardamu]

Do you have a source for this? It makes sense but I've never seen an analysis of the free standing core.

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but if you google the following sentence, you should find the article at sharpprintinginc.com where they work out which columns make up the spire.

"What was that part of the building standing over 60 stories tall when the rest of the building fell?"

[3bodyproblem]

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but if you google the following sentence, you should find the article at sharpprintinginc.com where they work out which columns make up the spire.

"What was that part of the building standing over 60 stories tall when the rest of the building fell?"

nada.

[3bodyproblem]

Gordon Ross has information on his site about it. Google "How the Towers were demolished" to find his site.

The determination of what columns were left standing and how it is known that they were interior core columns was done by sombody other than Gordon but he put the information on his site.


Yah, it's on GR's site. I'm not as convinced as GR that it's a "knock out blow". If anything it makes a worse case for CD. The fact that the free standing core was not square, but tapered means its destrcution was gradual, as would be suspected given the increasing plate thickness.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is pure speculation. 'which is what was done in the twin towers' Tony, you're way, way ahead of good science when you make that kind of statement. Sorry. If you'd at least preface that with 'I believe' or 'In my opinion', so we don't get the impression you think it's a fact, and not just a guess, it would be more respectable.

I think the things mentioned in the post you replied to have enough of a circumstantial evidence base to have more than just an opinion or belief expressed about what actually occurred. In these cases, I usually do preface my comments, with "it appears that" or 'it is likely that".

[Tony Szamboti]

Yah, it's on GR's site. I'm not as convinced as GR that it's a "knock out blow". If anything it makes a worse case for CD. The fact that the free standing core was not square, but tapered means its destrcution was gradual, as would be suspected given the increasing plate thickness.

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

[Tony Szamboti]

I honestly don't know what gets people in a tight knot over corroded metal... The environment was more than conducive to it...

Isn't it a shame that none of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers was scrapped and smelted before it could be analyzed to determine if it was just "corrosion"?

[boloboffin]

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

The ones connected to the floor trusses vs. the ones which weren't?

[FineWine]

There are about 600 bolted floor truss connections/joints to walls per floor. The floor is actually square with a rectangulat hole in it and consist of different sections/panels as per:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loadDistribution.jpg

The "floor" is inside outer walls and outside the outer core columns indicated in the sketch that just show how much load is carried by outer core columns.

Evidently a floor cannot fall on another floor. For that 600 connections/joints must fail and then the floor must slide down inside the outer walls and the around the core.
What can fall is the upper part C on the lower part A, if you remove all columns in between. Then the lowest floor of C will contact the top floor of A, say floor #98 contacts floor #97 in WTC 1. And when that happens the destruction is arrested.
It has been explained many times.


You explain it wrong each time. It is hard to believe that you are an engineer. As the impact floors give way, the floors above them collapse. The entire mass falls on the next floor and the floor after that. As they fall, they gain weight and momentum. Obviously, nothing can stop them from crashing through each and every floor until the entire building is gone. You are playing some sort of dumb trick when you say that the collapse is "arrested." What arrests it? Magic?

[ozeco41]

You can't just laugh it off like that, Heiwa. You either prove that the floor-to perimeter brackets could withstand having other floors dropped on them or you wear raw runny egg all over your face.

The ability of the columns to resist vertical compression is irrelevant.

The only other way that the towers could have collapsed than from the severing of the floor-to-perimeter joints is for the columns to have been blown at their joints. The photos of perimeter columns with bent bolts just pulled out of their holes argues against that BS.

Nearly every photo I see of a floor-to perimeter column joint shows the brackets pulled inward and downward. They were clearly over-loaded.

Now, if you can come up with some examples of joints that were clearly cu by explosives, you might have some chance of proving your theories less than the laughing stock of the engineering profession.
Clearly and concisely stated leftysergeant

So let me show how this leads to two key points that "truthers" dare not admit.

First Point:

The falling Top Block fell wedged inside the outer wall tube of the lower section.


There can be no serious doubt that the floor joist to column connections at the outer ends were sheared by a large overload. The visual evidence is so clear for so many that most were. And even if there were a few which failed differently it does not change that overall situation.

The next step is to work out how the inner ends failed and there must be a strong initial presupposition that it was by a similar mechanism. So to test that hypothesis we need to look for structural factors which would count against it.

The failure of the outer ends occurred because the top block, in falling, fell inside the outer wall tube. There are many videos from truthers which show just that point when correctly interpreted including the classic David S Chandler video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

This means that outer floors and columns of top block are falling on outer floors but not columns of lower block. That much is obvious once the top block falls inside lower section outer tube is recognised.

So did the inner ends fail similarly?

What was there to stop it? This leads us to:

Second Point:

The falling core of the Top Block was an open bottom wire cage with far more space than steel. It fell onto an equivalent open cage of steel. And it could not fall with the columns aligned on columns and capable of transferring any more than a small fraction of the original strength in axial compression.

The Top Block core is falling more or less in the same place as the lower block core. It does not meet any more than token resistance. The only way that the inner ends of the Top Block floors could be prevented from striking the inner ends of the lower floors was if the core was to hold up the top block and leave the outer columns and floor sections "hanging" off the core of the Top Block suspended by the hat truss.

Since the core did not fall solid object on solid object there was no arresting support of the Top Block core and therefore no support holding up the floors of the top block.

So they struck the first in line lower section floors - (with whatever intervening weight of debris from impact zone damage - details not important)

And therefore the inner floor joist connectors failed.

And the core was "taken down" by the mix of bending, glancing blows, possibly some end connections striking already bowed/buckled columns and buckling further. And some missed entirely and left behind at that stage of collapse.

[3bodyproblem]

What is your thinking on how all of the outer core columns came down to the ground but none of the inner core columns?

All the outer and none of the inner? I think you are grasping here. The spire was tapered, meaning both the outer and inner were stripped and probably in relation to their strengths (by height). There is one small section shown on GR's website (the lower most part was obstructed from view by camera angle and debris) that appears to have the outer columns stripped away. The camera angle and distance makes it hard to determine how much of the outer was stripped. I know for sure the spire was tapered, it's clearly visible in the video at any angle. My only conclusion is the the outer columns suffered more damage than the inner ones at any given height (which is to be expected, i'm not sure how much debris if any would have been funelled down the core to the floor levels of the spire, I would say the outer at that point served to protect the inner from damage, there is simply more mass outside the core trying to get in than inside trying to get out)

Simply put, if you are going to attribute the observed damage to the outer core columns to thermite or cutting charges etc. you have to explain the taper as being a result of these same charges. The notion that these charges were placed in such a manner, well below the impact zone, and of no real consequence to the collapse is patently absurd.

[3bodyproblem]

The ones connected to the floor trusses vs. the ones which weren't?

I mulled this over and based on the connections being sheared they probably contributed very little to the deformation of the core, less and less so as the collapsed progressed to the lower levels. My guess is that by that point in the collapse where the spire appears to have survived (50-60th floor) most of the damage to the core columns would have been loose debris "blasting" the core. The nature of the spire suggests an errosive action. That's my best guess.

[Grizzly Bear]

<snipped for brevity>

Sigh, my scepticism has been stretched well past breaking point already, but let us proceed with the pancake theory.
The pancake theory which had originally been hypothesized in the context of collapse initiation was brought up in 2001-2002 by FEMA if I recall correctly... this is not the basis of NIST's conclusion for the initiation. I believe we're quite well past those years. The pancaking of the floors was the mechanism for the collapse progression, not initiation.

This initial gravity fed "kinetic energy" blow out explosion,
What "blow out explosion"?

Some of the exploding top [B]shoots steelwork upwards and outwards, against the tendency for gravity to pull things downwards.
You've been staring at them still pics a bit too long thar buddy... Gravity did a rather fine job at what it generally does best,

Amazing, so much additional over-abundance of energy from gravity was available it seems we might be able to exploit this kind of phenomenon as a new energy source.
The kinetic energy used in the collapse was always there... as potential energy. Nothing "new" was required for the collapse to continue.

This sudden loss of the top load does not seem to discourage the continuing mutually annihilating exploding pancake floor phenomena that rushes down the building, ripple-down explosive demolition,
What "loss" of the top load? Does mass magically disappear all because the upper section is no longer an intact section of building?

faster than the now disintegrated top load components can initially fall out of the sky, so faster than 32ft/s/s acceleration.
Hushabooms eh? It still seems to be popular I see...

Very odd indeed, but later the rate of ripple-down destruction slows a little so that the exploded falling top material can "catch up" to form a discrete curtain around the building, so hiding the final stages of the ripple-down low-resistance gravity-fed kinetic-energy explosive "collapse process".
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.jpg
[B]http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_collapse_pops.wmv
You're not particularly good at this are you? I'm sorry, I know you invested a considerable amount of time on your response but the content doesn't demonstrate any experience in this subject. And using whatreallyhappened as a source ain't helping you...

[Grizzly Bear]

Isn't it a shame that none of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers was scrapped and smelted before it could be analyzed to determine if it was just "corrosion"?

Fresh Kills... where the vast majority was examined after removal from ground zero. The samples shown above display no characteristics I find surprising at all... and fairly benign processes are well within viability. We can go back to this some other time... I don't feel like derailing any further, particularly against half-truths.

[AZCat]

Isn't it a shame that none of the steel from WTC 7 and over 99.5% of it from the towers was scrapped and smelted before it could be analyzed to determine if it was just "corrosion"?

I'm not sure where you're headed here. You do realize that the NIST report on the towers covered this?

[Tony Szamboti]

Fresh Kills... where the vast majority was examined after removal from ground zero. The samples shown above display no characteristics I find surprising at all... and fairly benign processes are well within viability. We can go back to this some other time... I don't feel like derailing any further, particularly against half-truths.

There was no testing done at Freshkills. What was done there was simply visual and does not qualify as a forensic analysis. There was also no attempt to identify where the pieces came from in the buildings and piece together a sequence of failure.

[leftysergeant]

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. You probably can't but that is the beauty of posting anonymously with a pseudoname on an Internet forum.

Corrosion looks like corrosion and blast damage looks like blast damage, and just about any fire fighter would know the difference at a glance. Why test for what has left no sign of its presence when there was an observed phenomenon which, to every rational human being, perfectly accounts for every result observed?

[Tony Szamboti]

Corrosion looks like corrosion and blast damage looks like blast damage, and just about any fire fighter would know the difference at a glance. Why test for what has left no sign of its presence when there was an observed phenomenon which, to every rational human being, perfectly accounts for every result observed?

I think the comments were directed towards the possible use of thermite not being investigated concerning the pieces of steel identified as having intergranular melting in FEMA Appendix C.

[boloboffin]

I think the comments were directed towards the possible use of thermite not being investigated concerning the pieces of steel identified as having intergranular melting in FEMA Appendix C.

Wow, old news. That piece of metal is still at Worcester Polytechnic Institute that has had it since the beginning. One of the scientists with access to it was on the BBC Building 7 program. He says it's not because of thermite, but because of conditions under the Pile (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/).

[Newtons Bit]

And you are viewed as a sophist who often provides no basis for what he says and when he does leaves out important details which are obvious to an engineer.

Since you are talking about Gordon Ross here everyone should also get a chance to see what he thinks about you. They can here http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id5.html

Nobody has discredited what I have said or wrote. Just another case of you making baseless claims.

Hit the road toad.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137881 What you just wrote was discredited some time ago.

You were discredited a year ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102813 Remember that? Have you figured out what "sway" means yet?

Edit: Hell, I just looked through the thread on Ross again, YOU POSTED in it. Have you forgotten about it so soon?

[leftysergeant]

I think the comments were directed towards the possible use of thermite not being investigated concerning the pieces of steel identified as having intergranular melting in FEMA Appendix C.
Since when did thermite leave etched, vermicular erosion patterns on steel?

It melts steel. This is not rocket science.

Did you also not read that some of the same steel was etched paper-thin and had started to curl like a scroll?

Thermite does not do that.

Sulphuric acid is quite another matter, and there was one hell of a lot of that present in the steaming pile.

There was also abundant copper in close proximity to the steel in the presence of sulphuric acid. This produces copper sulphate.

Now, go back to your high school chemistry class. What happens when you dip a bright steel nail into a solution of copper sulphate? It deposits metalic copper onto the steel.

I have also seen various acids thin steel in such a way that it curls up along one edge.

You really need to draw from a wider variety of experiences when you try to contradict trained investigators. Some of them, even simple fire fighters with a bit of arson investigations training are going to catch stuff that an over-specialized engineer will miss.

That's why they have teams instead of individuals looking at everything.

[AZCat]

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. You probably can't but that is the beauty of posting anonymously with a pseudoname on an Internet forum.

You might check out NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4 before becoming hostile.

[alienentity]

Tony, you asked earlier 'I would be interesting to hear how you think a jolt(s), of the size and magnitude necessary, could take place without being visible.'

A glib answer to that would be along the lines of 'the jolt would be much more difficult to detect than explosive cutting charges removing 10 stories of perimeter columns'.

The main problems with detecting the jolt are fairly well understood, I believe. They include:
1) resolution limitations of video footage
2) frame-rate limitations of video footage
3) methods of sampling and calculating expected artifacts

There are several areas where errors in your method are possible. That's why, even though you were unable to detect the jolt you were looking for, it is not certain that it didn't happen.

What then? I would suggest you identify more closely the margins of error at each step, in consultation with video analysis experts. It may very well turn out that your method is not capable of detecting a very short deceleration. I don't know that, but I'm skeptical.

One possible way to test the methodology would be to create an animation which could simulate the effect you're looking for very precisely, then subject it to your protocols. You'd have to process the video so it matched the actual video as closely as possible.

However, the Bazant model which you're examining is an approximation that doesn't really attempt to account for all the variables you're interested in - ie the 31g figure is theoretical and not realistically expected because of the asymmetry of the collapse, and the variables of pre-weakened structure of the upper block.

As such, a much more sophisticated model would be necessary if you really wanted to calculate a more precise figure for the jolt. It might very well be that the 'jolt' is different in nature from what you or Bazant have envisioned.
I don't know.

But I'm not making the accusation of explosives, vast conspiracies, and such, based on little or no solid evidence. That's exactly what I think you're doing, as you know. I think you've got a valid idea, I don't think you've met a high enough standard of proof to say that your observations are correct.

I don't think you can blame people like me for expecting a very high standard of proof for the accusations the 9/11 truth movement is making. If you were a NASA engineer, working to send a team to Mars on a multi-year mission, I bet you'd leave no stone unturned to make certain your work was flawless. You'd probably try to recruit the opinions of top experts in every area under your responsibility, and cut no corners.

That's because the lives of a handful of astronauts would depend on your competence.

The responsibility you're attempting to assume, that of creating irrefutable scientific proof to bring down a vast and powerful conspiracy which permeates your entire government, defense industries and god only knows what else - is a monumentally more daunting and demanding one. (I honestly don't think most of you have thought through the implications of what you're attempting)

No offense, but you guys are not up to the task. Who would be? It would be very difficult indeed to find real evidence of something that never happened - which is the most probable scenario. In terms of a scientific approach, you've screwed the pooch by reaching a verdict (controlled demolition) and then looking around for anything that might possibly support it.
IMHO you truthers become so accustomed to ignoring or rationalizing away contrary evidence that it's become an ingrained habit. You've also become systematically hostile to any strong science not supportive of your movement, and thus are not able to benefit from a lot of the knowledge that would otherwise be at your disposal.

Anyway, that's just a few thoughts on the matter.

[WilliamSeger]

Put some science in that or stop it. Any construction worker can tell you that when you over-load a floor, it can break. The floors above the impact zone were failing and over-loading lower floors before the structure started to move. When they moved, more floors had to break. It is just in the nature of concrete to breeak. It becomes a compact mass on the next floor, with a bit of kinetic energy behind it.

One thing that seems to be missing from the "missing jolt" hypothesis is that disintegrated concrete and steel from the floors, as well as broken column sections, could have undergone considerable deceleration jolting when impacting other floors, and none of that jolting would have been visible in the falling roof-line. Since that debris would be free to fall at true g after breaking that floor loose -- not subject to slowing down to buckle columns -- I don't see any reason that that wave of destruction couldn't have preceded the main part of the semi-rigid top block, such that the falling block simply had to buckle and/or push the no-longer-restrained columns out of the way, rather than crush them with the force necessary to buckle a restrained column. If so, the top block could have experienced a relatively smooth fall at less than g, sort of like it was falling through a liquid.

[3bodyproblem]

One thing that seems to be missing from the "missing jolt" hypothesis is that disintegrated concrete and steel from the floors, as well as broken column sections, could have undergone considerable deceleration jolting when impacting other floors, and none of that jolting would have been visible in the falling roof-line. Since that debris would be free to fall at true g after breaking that floor loose -- not subject to slowing down to buckle columns -- I don't see any reason that that wave of destruction couldn't have preceded the main part of the semi-rigid top block, such that the falling block simply had to buckle and/or push the no-longer-restrained columns out of the way, rather than crush them with the force necessary to buckle a restrained column. If so, the top block could have experienced a relatively smooth fall at less than g, sort of like it was falling through a liquid.

I'd say this is pretty spot on. At some point in the collapse the upper section was almost completely destroyed (truss hat?), any mass would have been deflected away from the core, but still contained by the exterior.

It seems simple when you actually apply what you know by way of NIST, and what was observed. It seems the truth movement gets distracted from what is happening in front of their faces looking for things that aren't really there.

[alienentity]

One thing that seems to be missing from the "missing jolt" hypothesis is that disintegrated concrete and steel from the floors, as well as broken column sections, could have undergone considerable deceleration jolting when impacting other floors, and none of that jolting would have been visible in the falling roof-line. Since that debris would be free to fall at true g after breaking that floor loose -- not subject to slowing down to buckle columns -- I don't see any reason that that wave of destruction couldn't have preceded the main part of the semi-rigid top block, such that the falling block simply had to buckle and/or push the no-longer-restrained columns out of the way, rather than crush them with the force necessary to buckle a restrained column. If so, the top block could have experienced a relatively smooth fall at less than g, sort of like it was falling through a liquid.

Exactly as I said to Tony. There were several floors of weakened structure - it wasn't a solid, rigid block, but it still had all the mass and momentum to overcome the strength of the impacted floors below.
That may have created an increased crush-up effect, which would only result in a denser collapse wave.

The Bazant model is only designed to demonstrate that the overall force overcame the design strength of lower floors, if I understand it correctly.

[Heiwa]

You explain it wrong each time. It is hard to believe that you are an engineer. As the impact floors give way, the floors above them collapse. The entire mass falls on the next floor and the floor after that. As they fall, they gain weight and momentum. Obviously, nothing can stop them from crashing through each and every floor until the entire building is gone. You are playing some sort of dumb trick when you say that the collapse is "arrested." What arrests it? Magic?

Sorry, you are just repeating the famous pancake theori, where individual elements (pancakes!) of small mass in on structure C suddenly gets loose (?) and drop on ONE element in structure A and overload that ONE element so its joints (600!) inside the structure A breaks ... and that this is repeated 97 times. Elements gain weight and the building A is gone - LOL! While the columns stand!!
Pls - structures do not behave like that.

[3bodyproblem]

Sorry, you are just repeating the famous pancake theori, where individual elements (pancakes!) of small mass in on structure C suddenly gets loose (?) and drop on ONE element in structure A and overload that ONE element so its joints (600!) inside the structure A breaks ... and that this is repeated 97 times. Elements gain weight and the building A is gone - LOL! While the columns stand!!
Pls - structures do not behave like that.

Yes they do, you're just in denial.

[bill smith]

Sorry, you are just repeating the famous pancake theori, where individual elements (pancakes!) of small mass in on structure C suddenly gets loose (?) and drop on ONE element in structure A and overload that ONE element so its joints (600!) inside the structure A breaks ... and that this is repeated 97 times. Elements gain weight and the building A is gone - LOL! While the columns stand!!
Pls - structures do not behave like that.

Did you see this yesterday Heiwa ? Some of the core columns on the 86th floor in WTC1 were 'blown out' prior to collapse initiation. About 11 floors below the impact zone. Is that not absolute proof that something was happening to the core colmns that had noting to do with he plane ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2F%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D14700&feature=player_embedded Core blown out 86th WTC1

[apathoid]

Did you see this yesterday Heiwa ? Some of the core columns on the 86th floor in WTC1 were 'blown out' prior to collapse initiation. About 11 floors below the impact zone. Is that not absolute proof that something was happening to the core colmns that had noting to do with he plane ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2F%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D14700&feature=player_embedded Core blown out 86th WTC1


ETA: disregard first response. I had to turn my speakers all the way up to hear the audio. Still, this is hardly evidence supermagicnanothermite. I'll ask the same thing to you that I ask the "basement explosions before the impacts" people: If the building would fall more than an hour after these supernanomagicthermite cutter charges were triggered, what role did these particular pyrotechnics play in the demolition of the building?

[Heiwa]

Did you see this yesterday Heiwa ? Some of the core columns on the 86th floor in WTC1 were 'blown out' prior to collapse initiation. About 11 floors below the impact zone. Is that not absolute proof that something was happening to the core colmns that had noting to do with he plane ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSVsid7eKE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpilotsfor911truth%2Eorg%2Fforum% 2F%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D14700&feature=player_embedded Core blown out 86th WTC1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-143_3.png

Very strange - There are three escape stairwells down from 86th floor and he could not reach any - fire doors locked!

The most solid core columns - the outer core corner ones - are here located in what appears to be office space and not public entry halls.

A plane impact 10 floors higher up should have been felt on 86th floor as a sideways displacement 1 m and then back 2 m during say 5 seconds and throwing people and loose furniture into walls, etc.

The unfortunate caller seems quite calm, &c. He is not worried about a one-way crush down of the whole tower and he should not be!

[bill smith]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-143_3.png

Very strange - There are three escape stairwells down from 86th floor and he could not reach any - fire doors locked!

The most solid core columns - the outer core corner ones - are here located in what appears to be office space and not public entry halls.

A plane impact 10 floors higher up should have been felt on 86th floor as a sideways displacement 1 m and then back 2 m during say 5 seconds and throwing people and loose furniture into walls, etc.

The unfortunate caller seems quite calm, &c. He is not worried about a one-way crush down of the whole tower and he should not be!

I was surprised myself that he was using terminology like 'the core' already back on 9/11.

[Heiwa]

I was surprised myself that he was using terminology like 'the core' already back on 9/11.

He mentions core twice. But he is trapped. Cannot reach the emergency escape stairwells 'in the core' or believes there is no real danger so he stays where he is.
The plane impact/explosion does not seem to have caused a lot of motion on floor 86.
Why doesn't he say - I and the other person cannot take the stairs down, &c. Why does he mention core?

[bill smith]

He mentions core twice. But he is trapped. Cannot reach the emergency escape stairwells 'in the core' or believes there is no real danger so he stays where he is.
The plane impact/explosion does not seem to have caused a lot of motion on floor 86.
Why doesn't he say - I and the other person cannot take the stairs down, &c. Why does he mention core?

After I had been studying 9/11 for a few months I was struck by the regular pointers that kept cropping up that indicated a conspiracy. Keystone-Cop style clues even. I started a file called 'big fat clues'. This is a link to a short post i put on another thread about that...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4636130#post4636130

[Dave Rogers]

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds. I would think you would know who they are and where to find their discussions on it.

And yet all I can find is analysis that gives 12-13 seconds. If you're aware of work that disagrees with this, post it. It would take less time than playing stupid games. You claimed 17+ seconds for conservation of momentum alone; you have to back up your claims.

Where can I find your work on this?

I haven't published it, since there were multiple results online giving the same answer. I reproduced the analysis myself to check that it was valid.

Dave

[leftysergeant]

Did you see this yesterday Heiwa ? Some of the core columns on the 86th floor in WTC1 were 'blown out' prior to collapse initiation.

No, they weren't.

Is that not absolute proof that something was happening to the core colmns that had noting to do with he plane ?

No. That you think so is absolute proof that you cannot understand the processes involved in the discombobulation of an aircraft full of fuel in an enclosed space.


Now, stop a minute and think as hard as you can without frying a brain synapse.

The core was covered in heavy sheetrock.

That has a tendancy to blow out when you over-pressurize whatever it encloses.

This is real simple, head-slapping-calling-yourself-dumb-for-not-understanding-it fire science.

Your entire post here can be paraphrased "Oooooh! Ooooh! Shiney thing over there."

Stop dersiling the thread when it stasrts to wrap too tighhtly around Heiwa's neck.

[bill smith]

No, they weren't.



No. That you think so is absolute proof that you cannot understand the processes involved in the discombobulation of an aircraft full of fuel in an enclosed space.


Now, stop a minute and think as hard as you can without frying a brain synapse.

The core was covered in heavy sheetrock.

That has a tendancy to blow out when you over-pressurize whatever it encloses.

This is real simple, head-slapping-calling-yourself-dumb-for-not-understanding-it fire science.

Your entire post here can be paraphrased "Oooooh! Ooooh! Shiney thing over there."

Stop dersiling the thread when it stasrts to wrap too tighhtly around Heiwa's neck.

You don't mean...?.......that SILLY eyewitness....thinking it was he core when you could have told him it was the sheetrock all along....

[leftysergeant]

You don't mean...?.......that SILLY eyewitness....thinking it was he core when you could have told him it was the sheetrock all along....

He said debris was blocking the stairwells.

Had that debris include core columns, that far down, he would not have had time to get on the wireless about it./

[Tony Szamboti]

And yet all I can find is analysis that gives 12-13 seconds. If you're aware of work that disagrees with this, post it. It would take less time than playing stupid games. You claimed 17+ seconds for conservation of momentum alone; you have to back up your claims.



I haven't published it, since there were multiple results online giving the same answer. I reproduced the analysis myself to check that it was valid.

Dave

Dave, you apparently did not read the threads right. I was asked by Alienentity what I thought the collapse times were and told him based on the measured fall of the upper block of WTC 1 having an acceleration of 0.7g for 3seconds and assuming that rate of acceleration was consistent for the entire fall it would put the collapse time at approximately 11 seconds. That was all I said on the matter.

It was then Alienentity who brought up the 17 seconds, to which I responded that even that time violates the law of conservation of momentum for a natural collapse.

As for those who have looked at Conservation of Momentum one is Dr. Kenneth Kuttler whose paper you can find here http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

[phil76]

I think all the truthers' theories about global collapse relies on a huge mistake : the upper part and lower part are taken as "solid objects".

Vertical load is supported by the columns only. If you put this vertical load elsewhere then the only resisting part are floors. I don't know how the WTC's floor were designed, but according to my experience they should not be able to support far more than 400 kg/m² (150 kg/m² for an office floor, 450 kg/m² for a pedestrian bridge). A floor is not designed to support another floor. Here we have several floors and a large plane !

[Heiwa]

So here we have one explanation that the topic of this thread Why a one-way Crush down is not possible is wrong. This is the answer of NIST (actually Sunder/Gross) to an FAQ why structures one-way crush down ... in seconds:

" ...the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in
videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand onthe floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

So, first of all, the structure below (i.e. 97 floors of WTC 1 that I call part A) offers minimal resistance!
That is strange as the structure below, part A, had statically carried the structure above for 30+ years with good resistance.

But now the structure above (which I call part C) was dropped on the structure below - part A! Fair enough. What happens? The structure above - part C - has a mass! OK. I agree. And when this mass, part C, drops it can apply energy (or force) on part A, when contact takes place. And this energy is tremendous! Is it?

Now a problem! Part C has not one mass but several small masses = elements of part C - and these parts actually apply energy/force on one another at impact with part A. There are only a minimal amount of elements in part C that applies energy/force on part A at contact. Most elements in part C apply energy/force on one another and has no idea what's going on.

So a question. What happens to part C? If part A offers little resistance, should not part C offer even less resistance?

If that's the case, part C will collapse immediately at contact with part A ... and that's it. Arrest!

But NIST believes otherwise: "the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass".

Nothing happens up in the falling building mass part C. Its tremendous energy is only applied on the neighbours below - part A.

BUT, now it is only a few elements of part A that provided resistance! The top stories of part A - say three? Out of 97.

But what about the bottom stories of part C. Can they really apply a force to demolish their cousins below?

No, the three cousins below in part A offered no resistance and the result? 94 tenants further below in part A was hit by part C at near free fall.

This answer by NIST (Sunder/Gross) to an FAQ is so stupid that you wonder how anybody at JREF can take NIST seriously!

My kids audience is always producing LOL when I try to one-way crush anything by a part of itself. They know it is not possible.

So a one-way crush down time of a structure by itself is not really possible to clock. It takes at least a million years.

[Dave Rogers]

Even a 17 second time would still not be possible in a natural collapse of the North Tower due to conservation of momentum, so it still presents problems for the current official explanation.

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds.

Dave, you apparently did not read the threads right.

I've quoted all your relevant comments above, so anyone can read them right.

It was then Alienentity who brought up the 17 seconds, to which I responded that even that time violates the law of conservation of momentum for a natural collapse.

So that, plus the other quotes I've included above, add up to you making a claim that (a) conservation of momentum alone requires a collapse time greater than 17 seconds, and (b) several people have shown this.

As for those who have looked at Conservation of Momentum one is Dr. Kenneth Kuttler whose paper you can find here http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf

I'm familiar with Kuttler's error-riddled analysis, possibly rather more so than you are if you think he gets 17+ seconds from conservation of momentum alone. As you'll see from section 1.4.1, his calculation using only conservation of momentum gives 12.18 seconds. He has to make the assumption, since specifically refuted by Steven Jones, that all the concrete in the towers was pulverised to dust, and the further equally unwarranted assumption that all the concrete was also ejected without contributing potential energy to the collapse, before he can arrive at a physically unrealistic collapse time. (Since his collapse mechanism is physically unrealistic, this is hardly a surprising result.)

Can you suggest some other sources that support your claim that:

There have been several people who have shown that due to conservation of momentum alone that natural collapses would have taken much longer than 17 seconds.

I would accept three, in this instance, as "several", but please note that I'll be checking (again) that they actually say what you claim they say. In the meantime, we can add Kuttler to the list of results that show 12-13 seconds from conservation of momentum only.

Dave

[ozeco41]

I think all the truthers' theories about global collapse relies on a huge mistake : the upper part and lower part are taken as "solid objects".

Vertical load is supported by the columns only. If you put this vertical load elsewhere then the only resisting part are floors. I don't know how the WTC's floor were designed, but according to my experience they should not be able to support far more than 400 kg/m² (150 kg/m² for an office floor, 450 kg/m² for a pedestrian bridge). A floor is not designed to support another floor. Here we have several floors and a large plane !

That is the key error that most make. Even some on the "no demolition side".

"They" presume either solid objects contacting OR a form of contact which has velocity impacts yet still manages to have each column contact its other half ANd transfer full strength in axial compression. Well nigh impossible for each column and even more improbable for all the columns.

So Tony Szamboti; Heiwa; David S Chandler all make that error, decline to correct it and avoid rational debate with the engineers who could show the false assumptions. But Greening also makes the same assumption and Bazant appears to.

Reality is the top blocks of WTC 1 & 2 fell inside the outer tube of columns. Missed most if not all of the core columns and landed on the floor. This crude drawing shows one floor joist to outer column and diagrammatically what happened. Whether an integral whole block or eventually broken into components the same weight of top block plus accumulating debris of severed floors landed on the floor joist to column connections.

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/003.jpg

That connection designed for one floor and its loads asked to take ten floors or more of total structure. So 20 times overload even if statically applied. Add momentum and easily in the 50-100 times overload.

So even with say 5 times safety you still have at least 10 times overload and it takes no engineering degree to say that is "overwhelming" and the joint fails.(FEMA drawing, my add ons are the crude bits)

[GlennB]

..... He has to make the assumption, since specifically refuted by Steven Jones, that all the concrete in the towers was pulverised to dust ...

And the link supporting that assumption doesn't work. Why do truthers continue to peddle this "all the concrete was pulverised to dust" nonsense?

[bill smith]

He said debris was blocking the stairwells.

Had that debris include core columns, that far down, he would not have had time to get on the wireless about it./

If he had only known it he was giving us conspiracy people something to talk about.

[Heiwa]

That is the key error that most make. Even some on the "no demolition side".

"They" presume either solid objects contacting OR a form of contact which has velocity impacts yet still manages to have each column contact its other half ANd transfer full strength in axial compression. Well nigh impossible for each column and even more improbable for all the columns.

So Tony Szamboti; Heiwa; David S Chandler all make that error, decline to correct it and avoid rational debate with the engineers who could show the false assumptions.

Here is another little test:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex1.jpg
See the structure left? It consist of horizontal and vertical elements connected to each other. There are 24 levels of horizontal elements all similar supported by 4 rows of vertical elements. The vertical elements supports the horizontal elements.
In structure right we have removed the vertical elements between levels 20/21, so the structure becomes an upper part C and a lower part A.
Let's assume we then drop part C on part A (initiation).
Pls explain how part C can one-way crush down part A after impact/contact and in what order the elements fail, and why.

[ozeco41]

If he had only known it he was giving us conspiracy people something to talk about.

Since when did you need help bill? :)

It isn't all that hard. The basics are:

1) Mustn't fit the evidence; AND

2) Must be totally inconsistent with the last thing claimed.

So "Witness xyz heard the explosions of the thermate and there was residue on rthe dust in 2001 of super thermate which was invented in 2005 and it must have been demolition because it was an inside job....

[TexasJack]

Bananaman, please explain to Tony and the rest of us for that matter, what produced this piece of evidence?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/images/WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg


The evidence is there. FEMA has/had it. NIST ignored it. I emailed them and the email was posted in the public comments section about this steel. If they tested it or what their conclusions were regarding this evidence. They ignored my email like they ignored the evidence, just like you are ignoring the evidence!
Of course for the official collapse theory to stand, a lot of things have to be ignored. After all its the debunker's favorite tactic: Fallacy of Omission. And by omitting the evidence that has presented by Hewia, Tony, Dr. Jones, and many others, you allow yourself to believe the official theory: a pseudo-politico-faith based science more akin to religion than true science.

After doing a simple google search, this school teacher is asking the same question, so maybe he got a response.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/bradReamwtc7comments.pdf

Try asking him, and while your at it, ask him what his scientific question has to do with World Geography.

[boloboffin]

After doing a simple google search, this school teacher is asking the same question, so maybe he got a response.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/bradReamwtc7comments.pdf

Try asking him, and while your at it, ask him what his scientific question has to do with World Geography.

Wow, old news. That piece of metal is still at Worcester Polytechnic Institute that has had it since the beginning. One of the scientists with access to it was on the BBC Building 7 program. He says it's not because of thermite, but because of conditions under the Pile (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/).

TexasJack, I don't think you were aware of this article. It's a dilly. :D Keep up the good work.

[bill smith]

I can't believe Heiwa is managing to waste everyone's time so successfully after several years of being pwned. His favorite tactic on the JREF forums is to sprout a new thread and park there, using a long list of debunked ideas to fuel fake controversy here.

I haven't yet compiled an extensive list of this deceptive and manipulative person's activities, but he has claimed to have 1 million dollars if someone can meet his challenge. As yet, I haven't seen on iota of proof that he actually has access to 1 million dollars, so at this point it appears to be an outright fraudulent claim.
Why is this kind of thing tolerated on the forums? Unless he's retracted the claim, but I can't find a reference to it.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4520696#post4520696

Anders also appears to be a no-planer :


29th July 2007, 12:21 AM

'
10 August, 2007

IMHO this guy is a pure troll, a permanent derail who is trying to exhaust rational thinkers on this forum by an endless game of revolving nonsense. It was only in March that he was fraudulently claiming to have 1 million, the denomination of which he refused to specify to Gravy, and since he has moved on to annoy everyone with new topics.

Why does anyone give him the time of day? I don't get it. If there ever was a good example of a troll, Heiwa's tactics would have to be near the top of the list.

His latest tactic, seen today on this thread, is to try to deny that there was sufficient sway of the towers when planes impacted. There is already plenty of eyewitness testimony which establishes the sway as a fact.

Heiwa is wasting everybody's time....again and again and again.....when is this going to stop?

The best way to get rid of guys like Heiwa is to beat him in his own game. Just get stuck in and wipe the floor with him with solid,honest engineering. Or better yet get Ray Mackey to come and have a final showdown with Heiwa.
That would do the trick. Shall we make a date for the final showdown at the jref corral ? ....Or perhaps not.......lol

[phil76]

Heiwa, simple:

Connections of floor 20 with columns fail, next floor 19, and so on ... Do you know why in a construction a column is never placed in the middle of a not reinforced floor ?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, simple:

Connections of floor 20 with columns fail, next floor 19, and so on ... Do you know why in a construction a column is never placed in the middle of a not reinforced floor ?

Yes, of course! But where do you put a column in a ship that floats in water?

And why don't ships sink - one way crush down collapse - if you drop something on them?

Good! Newton's third law! And Arkimedes.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Reality is the top blocks of WTC 1 & 2 fell inside the outer tube of columns. Missed most if not all of the core columns and landed on the floor.

The reality is that if it was inside it could not be seen so this is not "reality" at all but a theory, a wild guess.


http://conleys.com.au/webjref/003.jpg


When the truss is clearly shown connected to the corrugated steel sheet onto which the steel re-bar reinforced concrete floor slab is poured and the truss is anyway cross-braced in a grid pattern, why would it bend-down from a local, asymmetrical, debris impact in one spot? The hypothetical local impact load would be distributed because the slab would act like a rigid drum surface. The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor. You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, of course! But where do you put a column in a ship that floats in water?
Not really relevant to this thread....

And why don't ships sink -
Buoyancy

Good! Newton's third law! And Arkimedes.
Apparently you haven't seen what methane gas releases are capable of doing to a ship's buoyancy... can somebody remind me why I'm even talking about ships in this damn thread? :rolleyes:


[B]
When the truss is clearly shown connected to the corrugated steel sheet onto which the steel re-bar reinforced concrete floor slab is poured and the truss is anyway cross-braced in a grid pattern, why would it bend-down from a local, asymmetrical, debris impact in one spot?

Probably because in part these floor systems are not only long spanning, but also light weight, and not remotely designed to carry the building.

The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor. You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan...
Are you really treating the floor systems as monolithic entities like you people tend to do with the overall towers?

to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.
Once the floors are compromised they're no longer serving their purpose, which happened to be bracing the core and the perimeter columns together to provide their rigidity. You've entered Heiwa territory with that bizarre friction argument.

[alienentity]

That is the key error that most make. Even some on the "no demolition side".

"They" presume either solid objects contacting OR a form of contact which has velocity impacts yet still manages to have each column contact its other half ANd transfer full strength in axial compression. Well nigh impossible for each column and even more improbable for all the columns.

So Tony Szamboti; Heiwa; David S Chandler all make that error, decline to correct it and avoid rational debate with the engineers who could show the false assumptions. But Greening also makes the same assumption and Bazant appears to.

Reality is the top blocks of WTC 1 & 2 fell inside the outer tube of columns. Missed most if not all of the core columns and landed on the floor. This crude drawing shows one floor joist to outer column and diagrammatically what happened. Whether an integral whole block or eventually broken into components the same weight of top block plus accumulating debris of severed floors landed on the floor joist to column connections.

http://conleys.com.au/webjref/003.jpg

That connection designed for one floor and its loads asked to take ten floors or more of total structure. So 20 times overload even if statically applied. Add momentum and easily in the 50-100 times overload.

So even with say 5 times safety you still have at least 10 times overload and it takes no engineering degree to say that is "overwhelming" and the joint fails.(FEMA drawing, my add ons are the crude bits)

Here's a few pics to accompany your diagram. The evidence is fairly clear, at least to me. This constant bafflegab by Heiwa is just a red herring festival.





http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049ecd9f2a636e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16101)

[alienentity]

Here you can see profound distortion of the structure. No explosives at all. Zero.
http://www.debunking911.com/bowed.jpg
And another view
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg
Beginning of collapse, no explosions cutting perimeter columns. Therefore that CD theory is falsified.
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht3.jpg

Sagging floor truss viewable thru window openings. It's not a theory, it's a fact. That's hard evidence, not pseudoscientific, primitive math equations.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg

[leftysergeant]

That is strange as the structure below, part A, had statically carried the structure above for 30+ years with good resistance.

But now the structure above (which I call part C) was dropped on the structure below - part A! Fair enough. What happens? The structure above - part C - has a mass! OK. I agree. And when this mass, part C, drops it can apply energy (or force) on part A, when contact takes place. And this energy is tremendous! Is it?When is the light going to penetrate the deep fog that keeps you from seeing that it was the COLUMNS, both core and perimeter, that supported all that weight all those years, and that the part that failed, the FLOORS supported nothing vertically besides furniture and people?

The columns, for the most part, did just fine outside of the impact zone.

The floors wimped out at BOO!

Without floors between them, the perimeter columns had no other option but to move away from the core columns.

Have I dumbed this down enough for you to grasp?

[3bodyproblem]

[. The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor. You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.

No, the truss system would not remain firmly stuck to the floor. There's very little other than gravity holding the pans and slab to the floor (you do know the pans were very thin metal, basically used so the concrete wouldn't leak out before it was set).

Once the truss was bowed and detached from the connections is wasn't going to spring back and grab the walls again.

Please consider this, you don't know anything about construction. You couldn't tell 10M from 25M. This is obvious from your above statement. No one expects you to know, but try to listen. Grizzly pointed this out to you, now I'm pointing it out to you. I suspect as well as he does you have this over glorified idea of what construction components are capable of doing in both static and dynamic cases.

[leftysergeant]

The reality is that if it was inside it could not be seen so this is not "reality" at all but a theory, a wild guess.

Pay more attention to the posts that other people make. We have pictures of floor slabs visible through the windows. They sagged.



When the truss is clearly shown connected to the corrugated steel sheet onto which the steel re-bar reinforced concrete floor slab is poured and the truss is anyway cross-braced in a grid pattern, why would it bend-down from a local, asymmetrical, debris impact in one spot? The hypothetical local impact load would be distributed because the slab would act like a rigid drum surface. The truss system would remain firmly stuck to the underside of the floor.

And. like a drumhead every inch is attached to, reinforced by, and dependent on the structural integrity of the rest.

You have to shear off all the connections around the entire internal and external perimeter of the square donut floor pan to get it to try to pancake and it would still experience friction and resistance around the internal/external edges as it slid down.

Bull flops. You break a few slabs loose, over-pressurize the interior with falling debris so that outward pressure is placed on the perimeter columns and the weight of the perimeter columns adds to the energy exerted on the rest and soon you have a cascading effect.

Friction on the outer edges? Why? The perimeter cloumns were forced outward, out of the way, thus unable to impede the fall in any way.

[leftysergeant]

Here is another little test:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCFlex1.jpg
See the structure left? It consist of horizontal and vertical elements connected to each other. There are 24 levels of horizontal elements all similar supported by 4 rows of vertical elements. The vertical elements supports the horizontal elements.


Cool. You can produce two-dimensional models of stuff.

Care to try it again with a model that, in some even laughably remote way resembles the towers?

[Heiwa]

Cool. You can produce two-dimensional models of stuff.

Care to try it again with a model that, in some even laughably remote way resembles the towers?

Well, Bazant and Seffen (and NIST?) proved one-way crush down in 1-D (no horizontal elemens/no joints), i.e. only one (!) column - lika a flag pole - and it was shortened 75% when a top bit decided to drop off and compress the only column. What kind of structure is that???

Imagine! A model with only two super-elements. One - a 1-D line element (part A) that can compress to 25% of original length (it becomes rubble - part B) and another 1-D line element (part C) that cannot compress at all. LOL! And part C compresses part A!
Science? Structural analysis? Pure fraud in my view.

[AndrewIlluminatus]

Sagging floor truss viewable thru window openings. It's not a theory, it's a fact. That's hard evidence, not pseudoscientific, primitive math equations.
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg

That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

[Redtail]

That would be steelwork behaving gradually in an asymmetrically failing, plastic, ductile manner then, still immensely strong in compression as well as tension. So why did it give up those inherent properties suddenly to become super-brittle in the low resistance symmetrical gravity fed kinetic energy explosive destruction theory?

What?