Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[triforcharity]

To be clear I believe that controlled demolitions and gravity brought the buildings down. I think most of the floors were pulverised into dust using nanothermite which explains the lack of wire mesh reinforcing and floorpans in the rubble. They were evaporated. The core columns were selectively and sequentially removed. The perimeter columns probably peeled off and required only a little explosive here and there.


LOL, Oh my. So, your telling me that somehow people snuck in with this "super-duper-silent-invisible-nano-thermite" SOMEHOW managed to make it an explosive (I haven't found anywhere that proves nano-thermite is explosive, only "truthers'" claims) managed to somehow get thousands upon thousands of this stuff INTO the building, then SOMEHOW set it off without NOT ONE SOUL hearing this MASSIVE explosion?? Right. Come on now. Really?? That is moronic at best. Oh yeaah, thats right, I forgot the invisible silent dust that was put in it when it was made.

Right............:boggled: :boggled: :boggled:


ETA- Bill, Bill, your never going to believe this, I made you your VERY OWN THREAD to explain the events on 9/11. We are all waiting on the edge of our seats for this. Please, please, explain what 1,000,000 other people didn't see that day.

[R.Mackey]

Not that I have any hope of reaching the deluded, but for the rest of you, the scenario described above is physically impossible. Thermite cannot vaporize steel. If so, one would expect it to vaporize itself, but it does not. That requires much more energy.

One also cannot easily attack steel that is embedded in concrete with thermite. Concrete by its very nature contains a cement hydrate, and upon exposure to great heat, concrete spalls -- the water is liberated, causing the concrete to become brittle, flake apart, or even literally explode under the right conditions. This would surely scatter whatever thermite or reacted thermite products were nearby.

And, as others have noted, attacking the floor pans is not only unnecessary, and contrary to what was seen on video, but also counter-productive... While one probably could initiate a pancake-style collapse by failing (or "evaporating," nyuk nyuk) enough floors, it's much more effective to go after the columns themselves. Why even bother attacking the concrete? What's the point? Why not leave them there, to pull on the perimeter and introduce a crippling load?

Just another example of how a Truth Movement hypothesis, when finally teased to the surface, goes far beyond merely making no sense at all.

Until this is rectified -- and, with the eight year mark around the corner, I state with confidence it never will -- the Truth Movement is a laughing stock, full stop.

[FineWine]

I'm just the suspicious type. Especially around now just before your paper is published..

No, you're the obtuse agenda-driven type.

Heiwa didn't write a paper. He foolishly sent the ASCE journal criticisms of the work of a real engineer, employing his idiotic, incompetent garble of basic physics. When his scalp is handed to him again, he will bray about the NWO and religious fundamentalists.

You have hitched your wagon to a fool, rube.

[FineWine]

You are just bitter you failed The Heiwa Challenge.


Gee, all the people who defeated the Heiwa Challenge are bitter that you turned out to be fraud who won't pay.

[Dave Rogers]

Nah...perhaps the explosives did not detonate at their appointed time.

And yet the building still collapsed, showing that detonation of explosives in the lower core was not necessary to collapse. Congratulations; you've debunked yourself.

Dave

[bill smith]

Not that I have any hope of reaching the deluded, but for the rest of you, the scenario described above is physically impossible. Thermite cannot vaporize steel. If so, one would expect it to vaporize itself, but it does not. That requires much more energy.

One also cannot easily attack steel that is embedded in concrete with thermite. Concrete by its very nature contains a cement hydrate, and upon exposure to great heat, concrete spalls -- the water is liberated, causing the concrete to become brittle, flake apart, or even literally explode under the right conditions. This would surely scatter whatever thermite or reacted thermite products were nearby.

And, as others have noted, attacking the floor pans is not only unnecessary, and contrary to what was seen on video, but also counter-productive... While one probably could initiate a pancake-style collapse by failing (or "evaporating," nyuk nyuk) enough floors, it's much more effective to go after the columns themselves. Why even bother attacking the concrete? What's the point? Why not leave them there, to pull on the perimeter and introduce a crippling load?

Just another example of how a Truth Movement hypothesis, when finally teased to the surface, goes far beyond merely making no sense at all.

Until this is rectified -- and, with the eight year mark around the corner, I state with confidence it never will -- the Truth Movement is a laughing stock, full stop.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4869232#post4869232

[Tony Szamboti]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4869232#post4869232

Bill, when you say 80 acres or 1/8th of a square mile of steel mesh should have been in the rubble you are actually underestimating the amount of welded wire fabric used in the floors of the Twin Towers. We know that there were two layers of 4" x 10" grid of .230" diameter rod mesh in each floor of the twin towers, in the areas outside of the core. It is very likely that a similar method was employed in the concrete of the core slabs.

There were 110 one acre floors in each tower so that makes it 220 acres of steel mesh per tower or 440 acres total. Since a square mile is 640 acres, there would have been 11/16ths of a square mile of steel reinforcement. This doesn't count the sublevels, so it is probably accurate to say there would have been 3/4 of a square mile area of steel mesh in the rubble.

[phunk]

Tony, the floors weren't an acre, they didn't include the core.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, the floors weren't an acre, they didn't include the core.

Maybe you didn't notice, but I did say the core floor slab concrete probably had a similar reinforcement to that used on the concrete in the floor area outside the core. Between the area outside the core and the core itself, each floor was an about 95% of an acre in size.

[funk de fino]

Core floor slab?

probably?

[Tony Szamboti]

Core floor slab?

probably?

It sounds like you don't think the core floor slabs had some form of steel reinforcement in them.

The reinforcement was used to minimize cracking and all of the slabs would have had some form of it in them.

[alienentity]

It sounds like you don't think the core floor slabs had some form of steel reinforcement in them.

The reinforcement was used to minimize cracking and all of the slabs would have had some form of it in them.

Morning Tony. Have you got a good theory as to why someone would want to pulverize all the concrete?
Have you ever heard of this technique being used in actual controlled demolitions before? I haven't.

btw, you still haven't explained why or how nanothermite/thermate would make a quieter explosion than other high explosives, even though you postulated that concept a couple weeks ago. Given it any further thought?

[Grizzly Bear]

It sounds like you don't think the core floor slabs had some form of steel reinforcement in them.
The confusion is in what you're referring to as the "core floor slab." Which I presume to involve any inhabitable floor space required to access the utilities which utilized the core region of the towers (IE elevators, electrical equipment, plumbing, etc).

bill seems to be implying that the mesh used in the reinforcement of the concrete should have been in relatively pristine condition following the collapse if I go by his other absurdity with claiming the core columns magically disappearing...

[Tony Szamboti]

The confusion is in what you're referring to as the "core floor slab." Which I presume to involve any inhabitable floor space required to access the utilities which utilized the core region of the towers (IE elevators, electrical equipment, plumbing, etc).

bill seems to be implying that the mesh used in the reinforcement of the concrete should have been in relatively pristine condition following the collapse if I go by his other absurdity with claiming the core columns magically disappearing...

I don't see any reason it would have been in good condition. However, you have to admit that about 3/4 of a square mile is one heckuva lot of wire mesh and from the photos I have seen it isn't ubiquitous at all.

The use of the term wire mesh is relatively misleading as the welded wire fabric was actually made from high strength .230" diameter steel rod in a 4" x 10" grid pattern.

[Tony Szamboti]

Morning Tony. Have you got a good theory as to why someone would want to pulverize all the concrete?
Have you ever heard of this technique being used in actual controlled demolitions before? I haven't.

btw, you still haven't explained why or how nanothermite/thermate would make a quieter explosion than other high explosives, even though you postulated that concept a couple weeks ago. Given it any further thought?

I don't think all of the concrete was pulverized to a fine dust if that is what you are saying. One can calculate that about 15% of the concrete was actually pulverized into dust by knowing it's percentage by weight in the dust, the estimated amount of concrete in the towers and the estimated amount of gypsum and SFRM in the towers. Most of the dust was gypsum and SFRM.

However, most of the concrete was broken up pretty well into smaller pieces as we don't see many large chunks. Certainly this could have been done by impact especially since the above floors were moving faster than those below and there was a continuous pounding being taken once the collapses were well underway. However, when one looks at the six hundred foot diameter ball of dust around the South Tower, when it has only collapsed about twenty floors down, it does make you wonder.

I do not think it is necessary to break up floors in a controlled demolition.

As for lower noise level explosives being possible, the brisance and gas pressure of nanothermites used as explosives are tailorable by the sizing of the particles and the amount of organics used to generate gas pressure. Finally, it is the gas pressure velocity and it's range which causes the sound levels and the distance it travels.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

[funk de fino]

It sounds like you don't think the core floor slabs had some form of steel reinforcement in them.

The reinforcement was used to minimize cracking and all of the slabs would have had some form of it in them.

sounds like you have no proof and overestimate how large these slabs were

[funk de fino]

I don't think all of the concrete was pulverized to a fine dust if that is what you are saying. One can calculate that about 15% of the concrete was actually pulverized into dust by knowing it's percentage by weight in the dust, the estimated amount of concrete in the towers and the estimated amount of gypsum and SFRM in the towers. Most of the dust was gypsum and SFRM.

However, most of the concrete was broken up pretty well into smaller pieces as we don't see many large chunks. Certainly this could have been done by impact especially since the above floors were moving faster than those below and there was a continuous pounding being taken once the collapses were well underway. However, when one looks at the six hundred foot diameter ball of dust around the South Tower, when it has only collapsed about twenty floors down, it does make you wonder.

I do not think it is necessary to break up floors in a controlled demolition.

As for lower noise level explosives being possible, the brisance and gas pressure of nanothermites used as explosives are tailorable by the sizing of the particles and the amount of organics used to generate gas pressure. Finally, it is the gas pressure velocity and it's range which causes the sound levels and the distance it travels.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

Are you accusing the military?

Please show an exampe of thermite of any kind being used in a cd.

[Tony Szamboti]

sounds like you have no proof and overestimate how large these slabs were

It is hard to understand what you are saying here but it sounds like you might be trying to say that the overall area of the welded wire fabric was less than 3/4 of a square mile.

Even without the core floor slabs it is still about 1/2 of a square mile, and significantly larger than the 1/8th of a square mile Bill was originally thinking.

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you accusing the military?

Please show an exampe of thermite of any kind being used in a cd.

I am not accusing the military for one minute. If you read the quote it is obvious that more than military people would have had access to these materials.

All a CD needs is explosives placed in the right spots and gravity does the rest. There is no rule as to what explosive it has to be.

[Grizzly Bear]

As for lower noise level explosives being possible, the brisance and gas pressure of nanothermites used as explosives are tailorable by the sizing of the particles and the amount of organics used to generate gas pressure. Finally, it is the gas pressure velocity and it's range which causes the sound levels and the distance it travels.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

The paper you cite also explicitly states that these materials in a research and development phase as of the time of the article's publication.

The only other application I've been made aware of for such materials is small scale welding, and none of those uses brings it to the level of capability for bringing down a building.

And every known observation of the collapses I've seen rules out any "controlled" measure. The last thing on my list is a CD for that reason.

[bill smith]

It is hard to understand what you are saying here but it sounds like you might be trying to say that the overall area of the welded wire fabric was less than 3/4 of a square mile.

Even without the core floor slabs it is still about 1/2 of a square mile, and significantly larger than the 1/8th of a square mile Bill was originally thinking.

Tony you were saying that you thought about 15% of the concrete was pulverised. Frank Greening calculated for 120,000 tons of dust spread over Manhatten. Gypsum dust is light so most of that must have been concrrete dust.
Additionally there seems to be very little concrete in the rubble- broken or otherwise. Given this do you think we should see masses os wire mesh reinforcing in the rubble ? There is nothing in the official dynamic to account for it NOT being there surely ?

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony you were saying that you thought about 15% of the concrete was pulverised. Frank Greening calculated for 120,000 tons of dust spread over Manhatten. Gypsum dust is light so most of that must have been concrrete dust.
Additionally there seems to be very little concrete in the rubble- broken or otherwise. Given this do you think we should see masses os wire mesh reinforcing in the rubble ? There is nothing in the official dynamic to account for it NOT being there surely ?

I looked at the concrete in the dust issue a couple of years ago with Gregory Urich and Gregory Jenkins. Using percentage by weight of the concrete in the dust, and the estimated amount of it in the towers relative to the other constituents in the dust, showed it was about 15% of the concrete which was actually pulverized to dust.

I agree that it seems strange that we don't see a lot more of the welded wire fabric in the rubble. I don't know what to really think about it but can say that your speculation cannot be ruled out due to whether or not it is a standard thing to do in a CD. If the collapses of the towers were due to controlled demolitions they were not standard CDs to begin with.

[bill smith]

I looked at the concrete in the dust issue a couple of years ago with Gregory Urich and Gregory Jenkins. Using percentage by weight of the concrete in the dust, and the estimated amount of it in the towers relative to the other constituents in the dust, showed it was about 15% of the concrete which was actually pulverized to dust.

I agree that it seems strange that we don't see a lot more of the welded wire fabric in the rubble. I don't know what to really think about it but can say that your speculation cannot be ruled out due to whether or not it is a standard thing to do in a CD. If the collapses of the towers were due to controlled demolitions they were not standard CDs to begin with.

Less the 15% you estimate that would leave enough concrete in he rubble to make a single homogenous block of concrete one acre in area and about 10 feet tall. Break that up into the rockery sized pieces I have seen and you should have absolute mountains of the stuff. I see no trace of quantities like this in any photograph I have seen.

[Humanzee]

Bill,
Wouldn't the sublevels have been sufficient to contain the broken up "10' of homogenous concrete" ?

[Tony Szamboti]

Bill,
Wouldn't the sublevels have been sufficient to contain the broken up "10' of homogenous concrete" ?

Right. While it was probably more like the equivalent of 30 feet of homogenous concrete x one acre in area, most of the broken up concrete probably did go into the sub-levels, which were six stories or about 72 feet deep.

As there was 4 inches of concrete on each floor, multiplying that by 110 gives a height of 440 inches x one acre in area. Taking 15% from 440 leaves 374 inches or about 31 feet.

[bill smith]

In WTC2 he damage to he basement levels was relatively minor with goods still on the shelves in the basement mall in some cases.Is here any special reason we should imagine that the basement levels of WTC1 should have been more vulnerable ?.


http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg
This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left.

[Tony Szamboti]

In WTC2 he damage to he basement levels was relatively minor with goods still on the shelves in the basement mall in some cases.Is here any special reason we should imagine that the basement levels of WTC1 should have been more vulnerable ?.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg
This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left.

Good point.

[sylvan8798]

In WTC2 he damage to he basement levels was relatively minor with goods still on the shelves in the basement mall in some cases.Is here any special reason we should imagine that the basement levels of WTC1 should have been more vulnerable ?.


http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg
This photo was taken inside the mall. The store sign "innovation" is visible on the left.

So now you're suggesting it's suspicious that they weren't totally destroyed?:covereyes

[phunk]

The mall wasn't under the towers, it was under the plaza and wtc 4 & 5. Innovation luggage was close to 300 ft from WTC2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/WTCmall.png

[Humanzee]

Thx phunk. I would think the basement levels of WTC1 would be more vulnerable as they were underneath the falling building.
Thx Tony for the info. 1 acre at 31'. Thats alot of concrete.

[bill smith]

The mall wasn't under the towers, it was under the plaza and wtc 4 & 5. Innovation luggage was close to 300 ft from WTC2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/WTCmall.png

Thanks. I didn't know this. Is everything to scale ? Seems like a big mall compared to the acre footprint of WTC2.

[BigAl]

I agree that it seems strange that we don't see a lot more of the welded wire fabric in the rubble. I don't know what to really think about it but can say that your speculation cannot be ruled out due to whether or not it is a standard thing to do in a CD. If the collapses of the towers were due to controlled demolitions they were not standard CDs to begin with.


For any distance shot, the diameter of the wire (.3inch) is going to be below the resolution of the image. It's there, we just can't see it in anything other than what amounts to a close-up photograph given the size of the WTC site.

[bill smith]

For any distance shot, the diameter of the wire (.3inch) is going to be below the resolution of the image. It's there, we just can't see it in anything other than what amounts to a close-up photograph given the size of the WTC site.

You often show close up pictures of rubble Al. See if you can find any with some of the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh ereinforcing that must be there .

[aggle-rithm]

However, when one looks at the six hundred foot diameter ball of dust around the South Tower, when it has only collapsed about twenty floors down, it does make you wonder.


Well, wonder no more. In any building collapse, there is a HUGE cloud of dust. Most are from controlled demolitions, granted...but it's obvious that the dust is generated by the collapse and NOT the explosives.

A report from The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego made the below comment:

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

I recommend a book called Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger. It will permanently destroy your faith in military weapons development.

Long story short -- they spend a lot of money on a lot of ridiculous crap that never goes anywhere. Unscrupulous scientists spend years working on projects that they KNOW are bogus because they are riding the military-spending gravy train.

[tfk]

You are just bitter you failed The Heiwa Challenge.
.
LoL.

I didn't fail anything.


I first addressed the theoretical challenge.

I laid out a clear explanation as to why the collapse would continue to the ground. I pointed out a half-dozen or so effects that needed to be considered. And explained, in plain English, why these factors result in a total collapse.

I invited you to join the conversation about a dozen time.

You ran away from the discussion each and every time. You were too much of a coward to stand and discuss things. And now, typically, come back & claim victory.

How childish.

But I did learn something significant thru that debate. I learned that the specific reason that you showed such cowardice is that YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG.

But your ego won't let you admit it.

And now you're publishing your silliness. You'll get smacked down in the dry, understated way of academia. And you figure that you'll be able to leverage your "fame" somehow.

Good luck with that.

I told you before that it is FAR preferrable to be an unknown incompetent than to be a famous incompetent.

Tom

PS. I also told you that I know exactly how to build a free standing structure that will crush down just like the towers.

Too bad your rude behavior prevents you from hearing about it.

Unless you want to reinstitute that wager that you withdrew...

[tfk]

I am not accusing the military for one minute. If you read the quote it is obvious that more than military people would have had access to these materials.

All a CD needs is explosives placed in the right spots and gravity does the rest. There is no rule as to what explosive it has to be.
.
Tony,

A couple of questions...

1) Steven Jones has said explicitly (1) that explosives would be needed ever floor, 2nd floor or so. What do you think. What is the largest number of floors that could be left UNexploded and have the descent still look as it did?

As a follow on, what percent of the core and/or peripheral columns would have to be destroyed?

Are you a "thermat-o-phile"?
If not, you can skip this question.
2) I've got a video that shows the penetration of a 1/2" thick plate of steel using thermite. (2) It takes the thermite approximately 7 seconds to cut thru this plate. Considering that the lower columns were on the order of 2 to 5 inches thick, requiring 14 to 70 seconds, how could one possibly sequence this in a demolition that was, for the bottom 2/3rds, occurring at approximately 1/10th of a second per floor?

3) Why are there no, zero, none beams with the clear evidence of being cut by thermite in the pile?? I am not talking about thermite cuts once someone has time to clean off the dross and residuals. I'm talking about the 5" thick, clear as a bell, see it from 50 feet away, yellow slag that thermite leaves when cutting steel.

4) Why are there approximately zero beams in the rubble heap that have been cut to 1 story long? A quick math check will tell you that, if you had to cut 50% of the beams per floor to get "free fall" descent, then 75% of all the beams in the rubble should have been 1 story long. This amount to about 12,000 1 story beams per tower. And about 4,000 3 story beams. Why do there appear to be ONLY 3 story beams?

Doesn't the lack of cut beams in the rubble heap - evidence that we can still examine today - negate any demolition of any sort using any technique whatsoever?

Thanks,

Tom


(1)
A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center
October 26, 2006
KGNU Radio, Denver

"ROBERTSON: We’re not—are we really saying every floor, every other, every third floor would have had to have had some kind of explosives in it? That’s absolute nonsense.

JONES: That would be required, to move the mass out of the way, yes, in order for the upper floors to proceed so rapidly to the ground.

ROBERTSON: So the premise that you’re putting forward on the table here I gather, Steven, is that, many, many floors of the building had in them explosives designed to bring down the building.

JONES: Completely and rapidly.


In your estimation, what percent of the columns on any given floor would


(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs

[Norseman]

Right. While it was probably more like the equivalent of 30 feet of homogenous concrete x one acre in area, most of the broken up concrete probably did go into the sub-levels, which were six stories or about 72 feet deep.

As there was 4 inches of concrete on each floor, multiplying that by 110 gives a height of 440 inches x one acre in area. Taking 15% from 440 leaves 374 inches or about 31 feet.

The picture below shows the remains of the south face of WTC 2. The photo is taken at street level. Debris has crashed through the street level just outside WTC 2 and revealed sub levels B1, B2 and B3.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_181414a4eb0bfa47d0.jpg

A high resolution version of the photo can be downloaded here:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4015

Just click "Download original photo".

The photo shows the inside of WTC 2 packed with debris from nearly the top of what once was the lobby area and down to at the least B3. Note all the rebar sticking out all over of the pile. Especially from the debris inside B1.

It is all there inside that pile.

The photo is one of 806 photos taken by FEMA (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_search.do?SKeywords=&SPhotographer=&SFilename=&SId=&SLocation=&SApproved=&SCategoryComboId=&SStartDate=&SEndDate=&SDisasterNumber=1391) at ground zero.

[Furcifer]

The use of the term wire mesh is relatively misleading as the welded wire fabric was actually made from high strength .230" diameter steel rod in a 4" x 10" grid pattern.

Actually the term "high strength" is dliberately misleading. Do you have a source that indicates the the steel rod was made from the highest grade rod or not? Somehow I doubt it. In relative terms, .230" diameter steel rod is "undersized" for use as reinforcement in concrete. So is the 4" floor slab. Anyone familiar with US building code feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

I think it's funny that "truthers" feel it necessary to add "Extra Strength!" and "Super Strong" to every element of the WTC construction. It's almost as if subconsiously they realize that despite their massive size the WTC's were very fagile and they need to compensate for this.

[Norseman]

You often show close up pictures of rubble Al. See if you can find any with some of the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh ereinforcing that must be there .

In this one together with twisted floor trusses:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4028

(See figure 2-17 in NIST NCSTAR 1-1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/) for what a floor truss looked like)

And of course you wont see much of it because it is hidden inside the pile.

[Furcifer]

A high resolution version of the photo can be downloaded here:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4015


This "missing rebar" claim is just about the lamest thing I have heard in a long time. The high resolution photo clearly shows there was tons of rebar in the pile. A new level of stupidity.

[Heiwa]

.
LoL.

I didn't fail anything.


I first addressed the theoretical challenge.

I laid out a clear explanation as to why the collapse would continue to the ground. I pointed out a half-dozen or so effects that needed to be considered. And explained, in plain English, why these factors result in a total collapse.



You did? LOL! Little weak structural part C one-way crushing down big strong structural part A! And half-dozen or so effects to enable it. Please remind me how it is possible!

[Humanzee]

Those images sum it up nicely, Norse. Thx

[Norseman]

This "missing rebar" claim is just about the lamest thing I have heard in a long time. The high resolution photo clearly shows there was tons of rebar in the pile. A new level of stupidity.

That is why I posted the photo, to put an end to the silliness. When I read this part of the thread I remembered that photo and posted it. Here is another one that shows what a spaghetti of rebar that pile was. It is from the final stages of the clean up in March 2002, with a digger standing on top of the last remains of the WTC 2 pile, all the way down on the bottom of the bath tube.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=6036

[FineWine]

You did? LOL! Little weak structural part C one-way crushing down big strong structural part A! And half-dozen or so effects to enable it. Please remind me how it is possible!



You're lying again. Your so-called part A consists, in reality, of INDIVIDUAL FLOORS that are crushed very quickly ONE-BY-ONE.

Will you continue peddling your idiocy after you've been slapped down by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?

[Heiwa]

You're lying again. Your so-called part A consists, in reality, of INDIVIDUAL FLOORS that are crushed very quickly ONE-BY-ONE.

Will you continue peddling your idiocy after you've been slapped down by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?

The INDIVIDUAL FLOORS in lower part A were just secondary structural elements in the structure and cannot crush very much even if they are full of rebars, etc. as e have now learnt. But they offer plenty of resistance to primary elements (COLUMNS) and secondary elements of upper part C displacing down on them. It is Bazant that calls the parts A and C.

My article in JEM, approved for publication by editor Ross Corotis, I wonder when it will be published. It actually describes the early destructions of the 12 part A top floors ... and why it is not possible. Let's discuss it after JEM publication.

[Oscar]

Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again. Yet you come back with:

My article in JEM, approved for publication by editor Ross Corotis, I wonder when it will be published.

It's a joke.

It doesn't please me to say this, but you've been a joke for 99.9% of casual observers ever since you started posting.

Give your embarrassment meter a rest and stop plugging your ridiculous excuses for papers.

[bill smith]

The picture below shows the remains of the south face of WTC 2. The photo is taken at street level. Debris has crashed through the street level just outside WTC 2 and revealed sub levels B1, B2 and B3.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_181414a4eb0bfa47d0.jpg

A high resolution version of the photo can be downloaded here:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4015

Just click "Download original photo".

The photo shows the inside of WTC 2 packed with debris from nearly the top of what once was the lobby area and down to at the least B3. Note all the rebar sticking out all over of the pile. Especially from the debris inside B1.

It is all there inside that pile.

The photo is one of 806 photos taken by FEMA (http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_search.do?SKeywords=&SPhotographer=&SFilename=&SId=&SLocation=&SApproved=&SCategoryComboId=&SStartDate=&SEndDate=&SDisasterNumber=1391) at ground zero.

You may be misunderstanding me. I do not say there is NO wire mesh. I say that there is far too little by dozens of orders of magnitude. his is a bit like saying that a herd of elephants galloped through Manhatten and the proof is these three footprints. We are looking for three-quarters of a square mile of mesh.

Two other interesting things about that photo are if it really does show the top three basement levels of WWTC2 is
1. The virtual absense of concrete.
2. The obvious lack of compression. You would expect this rubble to be pressed together like strata in a rock. It definately is not.

[Tony Szamboti]

Actually the term "high strength" is dliberately misleading. Do you have a source that indicates the the steel rod was made from the highest grade rod or not? Somehow I doubt it. In relative terms, .230" diameter steel rod is "undersized" for use as reinforcement in concrete. So is the 4" floor slab. Anyone familiar with US building code feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

I think it's funny that "truthers" feel it necessary to add "Extra Strength!" and "Super Strong" to every element of the WTC construction. It's almost as if subconsiously they realize that despite their massive size the WTC's were very fagile and they need to compensate for this.

The rebar was 70 to 90 ksi steel. That is considered high strength for construction. You can find this information in the NIST report.

That size rod is not undersize for use as rebar in a floor. Go look up welded wire fabric.

I only said high strength because it is high strength. It wasn't for effect but accuracy.

[GlennB]

That is why I posted the photo, to put an end to the silliness. When I read this part of the thread I remembered that photo and posted it. Here is another one that shows what a spaghetti of rebar that pile was. It is from the final stages of the clean up in March 2002, with a digger standing on top of the last remains of the WTC 2 pile, all the way down on the bottom of the bath tube.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=6036

Bill has been shown many photos of rebar in close-up photos. His only response has been to say he "can't see enough of it", which would be laughable if he actually meant that.
He's trolling and has no interest at all in seeing photos of rebar.

[Tony Szamboti]

.
Tony,

A couple of questions...

1) Steven Jones has said explicitly (1) that explosives would be needed ever floor, 2nd floor or so. What do you think. What is the largest number of floors that could be left UNexploded and have the descent still look as it did?

As a follow on, what percent of the core and/or peripheral columns would have to be destroyed?

Are you a "thermat-o-phile"?
If not, you can skip this question.
2) I've got a video that shows the penetration of a 1/2" thick plate of steel using thermite. (2) It takes the thermite approximately 7 seconds to cut thru this plate. Considering that the lower columns were on the order of 2 to 5 inches thick, requiring 14 to 70 seconds, how could one possibly sequence this in a demolition that was, for the bottom 2/3rds, occurring at approximately 1/10th of a second per floor?

3) Why are there no, zero, none beams with the clear evidence of being cut by thermite in the pile?? I am not talking about thermite cuts once someone has time to clean off the dross and residuals. I'm talking about the 5" thick, clear as a bell, see it from 50 feet away, yellow slag that thermite leaves when cutting steel.

4) Why are there approximately zero beams in the rubble heap that have been cut to 1 story long? A quick math check will tell you that, if you had to cut 50% of the beams per floor to get "free fall" descent, then 75% of all the beams in the rubble should have been 1 story long. This amount to about 12,000 1 story beams per tower. And about 4,000 3 story beams. Why do there appear to be ONLY 3 story beams?

Doesn't the lack of cut beams in the rubble heap - evidence that we can still examine today - negate any demolition of any sort using any technique whatsoever?

Thanks,

Tom


The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.

The breaking of the welded joints of the outer core columns every third floor would very effectively bring down those towers. The remaining spires were comprised of only the interior core columns. All of the much more robust and heavier outer core columns collapsed to the ground with the collapse wave.

I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.

In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.

[FineWine]

Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again. Yet you come back with:



It's a joke.

It doesn't please me to say this, but you've been a joke for 99.9% of casual observers ever since you started posting.

Give your embarrassment meter a rest and stop plugging your ridiculous excuses for papers.


The interesting question, one that Heiwa runs away from, is what does he do when the real engineers at the ASCE journal tell him what the real engineers on this forum keep telling him? Is there the remotest possibility that he will attempt to rethink his bizarre views, or will he reflexively lash out in a spasm of name-calling?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again.

Hallo Oscar! Welcome to JREF! I must have missed (my arguments) being ripped apart. Please remind me!

[GlennB]

I don't see any reason it would have been in good condition. However, you have to admit that about 3/4 of a square mile is one heckuva lot of wire mesh and from the photos I have seen it isn't ubiquitous at all.


Which is a strange kind of "have your cake and eat it" argument.

The idea that rebar might really be 'missing' is patently absurd - laughable, in fact - yet your point above seems to allow for that possibility. It smacks of willingness to entertain even the most extreme woo.

[Tony Szamboti]

Which is a strange kind of "have your cake and eat it" argument.

The idea that rebar might really be 'missing' is patently absurd - laughable, in fact - yet your point above seems to allow for that possibility. It smacks of willingness to entertain even the most extreme woo.

It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.

[aggle-rithm]

Please remind me how it is possible!

How do you function as an engineer with such a short memory of basic concepts?

[aggle-rithm]

Hallo Oscar! Welcome to JREF! I must have missed (my arguments) being ripped apart.

You should really pay more attention.

[aggle-rithm]

It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it.

"So much of it" is a relative term.

If you took all that rebar and mixed it in with a standard Erector Set, then the rebar would be difficult to miss. In fact, you would probably say, "What happened to the Erector Set?!? Who made it disappear?!? I only see rebar!"

If, however, you take the same amount and mix it with the wreckage of a 110-story building, then it would easily disappear in the tangle of debris, as it would probably make up less than 1% of the total mass and would be heavily distorted by the collapse.

[GlennB]

It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.

Although I have given it in this sub-forum several times, it's fair to say that it would be hard to find. So -

For rebar - in the macro, identifiable state - to be physically missing in significant amounts would require it to be :

1. vapourised
or
2. ground to fine particles

There is no known mechanism whereby either could occur.

And the fact that somebody might make a judgement on the seeming absence of rebar based on clearup photos or videos reflects more on their willingness to embrace CT than any plausible scientific scenario.

I'm not saying you positively believe rebar did disappear, but your post above allowed for that possibility. It shouldn't have. It's generalised, unrigorous, wishy-washy flakiness. Woo for short.

[Justin39640]

The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.

The breaking of the welded joints of the outer core columns every third floor would very effectively bring down those towers. The remaining spires were comprised of only the interior core columns. All of the much more robust and heavier outer core columns collapsed to the ground with the collapse wave.

I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.

In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.

wtf is "artificial heat weakening" - heat is heat no matter how you produce it

how can you attack a 1 inch bead of weld (or smaller) without damaging the 2 ends butted together?
you cant

furthermore the welds were in addition to the rivets that they used to actually fasten the columns together
you actually think that the core columns were held together by welds alone??

the wind loads would have busted the welds if thats all there was long before 911 (and would have had no chance once the building started to fall)

remember a weld fills in a seam but its not the same strength as casting a piece
example:
i went to a job in brooklyn at a recycling sort facility
they had a large payloader (articulating body for steering, 2 solid axles)
they had cracked the bell housing for the differential on the front axle
the axle was a single cast piece (including the bell housing)
their plan was for me to remove the axle and they wanted to send it to their weld shop to try to repair it
i told them it wouldnt work cause the weld fills a seam
the cast part had no seam originally and that they needed a new housing
i told them before i picked up my first wrench that i give it 24 hours before it WILL break again after the repair
so i take it out, they send it to Ct. for repair (V the crack and fill it in)
it comes back i put it in
and 3 hours later the crack opened back up

broken welds are a big part of my job
i see it a lot, a weld isnt as strong as you seem to think it is

[Justin39640]

Hallo Oscar! Welcome to JREF! I must have missed (my arguments) being ripped apart. Please remind me!

take your blinders off :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

The remaining spires were comprised of only the interior core columns.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

[Tony Szamboti]

wtf is "artificial heat weakening" - heat is heat no matter how you produce it

how can you attack a 1 inch bead of weld (or smaller) without damaging the 2 ends butted together?
you cant

furthermore the welds were in addition to the rivets that they used to actually fasten the columns together
you actually think that the core columns were held together by welds alone??

the wind loads would have busted the welds if thats all there was long before 911 (and would have had no chance once the building started to fall)

remember a weld fills in a seam but its not the same strength as casting a piece
example:
i went to a job in brooklyn at a recycling sort facility
they had a large payloader (articulating body for steering, 2 solid axles)
they had cracked the bell housing for the differential on the front axle
the axle was a single cast piece (including the bell housing)
their plan was for me to remove the axle and they wanted to send it to their weld shop to try to repair it
i told them it wouldnt work cause the weld fills a seam
the cast part had no seam originally and that they needed a new housing
i told them before i picked up my first wrench that i give it 24 hours before it WILL break again after the repair
so i take it out, they send it to Ct. for repair (V the crack and fill it in)
it comes back i put it in
and 3 hours later the crack opened back up

broken welds are a big part of my job
i see it a lot, a weld isnt as strong as you seem to think it is

We are speaking of the core columns here. While they could take some bending, they weren't intended to take wind loads. Most of the core columns did not have splice plates.

Are you saying that the core columns used rivets in addition to butt welds to fasten them together vertically?

I am a mechanical engineer and design weldments quite often and am aware of the strength of a weld using E70 weld material on A36 steel. I don't know what material the bell housing you speak of was made from, or the quality of the weld that was applied, or the stresses on the housing in that area, so your example isn't necessarily relavent.

Do you know what the strength of E70 weld material is vs. that of ASTM A36 steel?

Who said the welds were attacked thermally?

You can't just attack the weld. An explosive charge could have been placed on the column below the weld plane and caused it to be sheared. There are plenty of columns in the rubble with torn or concave side plates at their ends.

[Tony Szamboti]

What is your evidence for this assertion?

There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

[Tony Szamboti]

Although I have given it in this sub-forum several times, it's fair to say that it would be hard to find. So -

For rebar - in the macro, identifiable state - to be physically missing in significant amounts would require it to be :

1. vapourised
or
2. ground to fine particles

There is no known mechanism whereby either could occur.

And the fact that somebody might make a judgement on the seeming absence of rebar based on clearup photos or videos reflects more on their willingness to embrace CT than any plausible scientific scenario.

I'm not saying you positively believe rebar did disappear, but your post above allowed for that possibility. It shouldn't have. It's generalised, unrigorous, wishy-washy flakiness. Woo for short.

All we were doing was looking at the possibilities. If you noticed I also made a comment that a 30 foot tall x one acre volume of broken up concrete could have fit in the sub-levels. Implying the rebar would not necessarily be seen. Bill then showed photos of clear area in the sub-levels and was then corrected that those areas were not directly under the buildings.

If you don't want to join in in a friendly way then you know what you can do.

[bill smith]

There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Very good site Tony. I think I go with most of this.

+ Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

+ Phase two initiated the collapse of the perimeter structure by attacking the four corners of the towers on two storeys. [ Plane 2 and Plane 3 ]

+ Phase three progressed the collapse by disassociating the floor to perimeter column connections and two vertical lines of spandrel plates at each tower corner, and by continued attacks upon the corners as in phase 2.

+ Phase four completed the collapse by attacking the remaining central core structure at lower levels and disassociating the horizontal bracing.

[Grizzly Bear]

All of which are achievable through -- wait for it -- structural failure... Why an extravagant story for their failures has to be made is beyond me....

[bill smith]

All we were doing was looking at the possibilities. If you noticed I also made a comment that a 30 foot tall x one acre volume of broken up concrete could have fit in the sub-levels. Implying the rebar would not necessarily be seen. Bill then showed photos of clear area in the sub-levels and was then corrected that those areas were not directly under the buildings.

If you don't want to join in in a friendly way then you know what you can do.

That should be a one acre 30-foot tall homogenous block of concrete. If it was broken into the small pieces we have seen it would occupy far more space than that.

[bill smith]

All of which are achievable through -- wait for it -- structural failure... Why an extravagant story for their failures has to be made is beyond me....
Maybe you'd like to make a start by explaining phase one ?

+ Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

Tip: Think about the antenna dropping into the building before any other visible movement takes place,

[George152]

There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Ah. So Mumbling Dumbo has caught some-one else in his vapid claims. :-(

[Heiwa]

There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Thanks for reminding us of Gordon Ross' excellent analysis of the controlled demolitions, CD, of the WTCs. A one-way crush down of a structure (topic) is not possible without assistance like CD. That US authorities under various administrations suggest the opposite is a concern to us in Europe.

[aggle-rithm]

I am a mechanical engineer and design weldments quite often and am aware of the strength of a weld using E70 weld material on A36 steel.


Great, another engineer speaking outside his area of expertise.

Where are the chemical and environmental engineers? I haven't seen any of those weigh in yet.

[aggle-rithm]

Thanks for reminding us of Gordon Ross' excellent analysis of the controlled demolitions, CD, of the WTCs. A one-way crush down of a structure (topic) is not possible without assistance like CD.

...or heavy damage from a plane crash and fire.

You still haven't said what you mean by one-way crush down, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.

That US authorities under various administrations suggest the opposite is a concern to us in Europe.

"Us"? There are more of you?

[Heiwa]

You still haven't said what you mean by one-way crush down, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.



Suggest you read post #1. A one-way crush down and why it is not possible is what we discuss in this thread.

[bill smith]

Wow ...look at the intact central core (WTC2) in this clip round the 30-second mark. I don't think I've seen this before.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[Tony Szamboti]

All of which are achievable through -- wait for it -- structural failure... Why an extravagant story for their failures has to be made is beyond me....

Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow ...look at the intact central core (WTC2) in this clip round the 30-second mark. I don't think I've seen this before.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

Bill, I think a full core is superimposed on the video in that clip. It doesn't look like they are actually showing the core remnant. The reason I say this is that it is fully intact up top.

[tsig]

...or heavy damage from a plane crash and fire.

You still haven't said what you mean by one-way crush down, so it's impossible to say one way or the other.



"Us"? There are more of you?

He's got a mouse in his pocket.

[bill smith]

Bill, I think a full core is superimposed on the video in that clip. It doesn't look like they are actually showing the core remnant. The reason I say this is that it is fully intact up top.

I just made this post on another hread..

This is surely blinding evidence of controlled demolition. The core at the 30-second mark has survived all the stress that the falling building can place on it. That stress is over and has passed by leaving the core still intact and stnding. Given that the core was the srongest element of the entire building only controlled demolition could have brought it down after this point.

If we are dealing with manipulated video how can we teil whether any of he core footage is authentic ? Personally I don't recall seeing any video of core remnants until a year or two ago.

[Grizzly Bear]

Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7753/44052587.jpg

[Bobert]

"The Detonators" is showing all day today on The Science channel.
Here is your chance truthers because SEVERAL demo companies are featured so you can contact then!
Maybe they will help you kick off the new investigation!
I did learn that shape charges can only cut through about an inch of steel! So if they were used at the WTlC's it would have required EMENSE prep. I am no expert but the welding alone would have taken weeks or months just to plant the charges.
Gee I am sure no one would have noticed.
And what about all the people needed to plant the explosives?
What of just 1 had a pain of conscious?
The whole plot would have been blown wide open so to speak.
When you watch these shows it just further illustrates how insane and deluaional truthers are.

[Tony Szamboti]

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7753/44052587.jpg

Cute cartoon but not the silly answer.

You obviously don't have one.

[Grizzly Bear]

You obviously don't have one.
No Tony, I didn't feel like repeating the same absurdities yet again. Your jolt expectations are meaningless and it's been explained countless times as to why. Asking me to prove the existence of a dynamic load during a collapse was equally absurd when you brought that up to me. It's college material, not something you should be having this sort of trouble with. Frankly if you can't apply your expertise correctly that's not a problem I'm particularly responsible for solving. I'd rather not play that game.

[DGM]

It is only giving a consideration as to why we don't seem to see more of the rebar, since there was so much of it. I am not drawing conclusions here and said I don't know what to make of this issue presently. Detective work requires an open mind to possibilities.

On the contrary, you don't seem to want to consider any possibilities other than damage and fire, and you haven't shown why the notion of missing rebar is patently absurd, here at least.
Hey Tony:
May I suggest you speak with people that worked on the clean-up, I'm positive they could describe what was there better then just using internet pictures, don't you agree? If you need help finding these people I think I can dig up some good contacts in NY/NJ for you. Let me know.

[Bobert]

Why is it truthers spend COUNTLESS hours posting on forums,creating videos, etc yet they refuse to talk to first responders, demo experts, those involved on cleanup, etc?

[DGM]

Why is it truthers spend COUNTLESS hours posting on forums,creating videos, etc yet they refuse to talk to first responders, demo experts, those involved on cleanup, etc?
Why do you ask? You know the answer (we all do).

[Dave Rogers]

Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.

Did you read post #1510? I estimated that a 0.25 degree angle would give no velocity loss, and a 0.5 degree angle or greater would give no reduction in acceleration below 0.4G. Greater angles, including the 8 degrees actually observed and documented, give a minimum acceleration around 2/3G i.e. the figure actually observed. So no jolt and no velocity loss.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

No Tony, I didn't feel like repeating the same absurdities yet again. Your jolt expectations are meaningless and it's been explained countless times as to why. Asking me to prove the existence of a dynamic load during a collapse was equally absurd when you brought that up to me. It's college material, not something you should be having this sort of trouble with. Frankly if you can't apply your expertise correctly that's not a problem I'm particularly responsible for solving. I'd rather not play that game.

You said all this and didn't actually say anything. So you are going to use the copout "that it has been explained to me many times" and that I am just not listening. Of course, you just say this with no links or basis for it.

There is no evidence of a dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1's upper block and I would venture to say probably not in WTC 2 either although that is difficult to measure. Your comment that this is simple material is nonsense. Understanding and designing for dynamic loads is much more difficult than designing for static loads. Most engineers don't get to do it until they have a reasonable amount of experience. I am wondering whether you have a full appreciation of dynamic loading.

[bill smith]

Why is it truthers spend COUNTLESS hours posting on forums,creating videos, etc yet they refuse to talk to first responders, demo experts, those involved on cleanup, etc?

If the truth be told there are so many Shills out there that itis hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff. So we are better off being careful who we believe.

[Tony Szamboti]

Did you read post #1510? I estimated that a 0.25 degree angle would give no velocity loss, and a 0.5 degree angle or greater would give no reduction in acceleration below 0.4G. Greater angles, including the 8 degrees actually observed and documented, give a minimum acceleration around 2/3G i.e. the figure actually observed. So no jolt and no velocity loss.

Dave

I read over your post Dave and would like to know how you determine the remaining kinetic energy in the upper block and what the velocity is after each small jolt on a series of columns. This also relates to how quickly the series of separate jolts occur, as if the kinetic energy cannot be made up between jolts there will be a velocity drop which you aren't predicting. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.

Your analysis currently does not account for axial plastic deformation and buckling separately. There are three energy loss mechanisms in the deformation of the columns: axial elastic, axial plastic, and buckling.

It would be interesting to see a spread sheet of your calculated energy losses due to column deformation and how fast these occur relative to one another and how far the upper block has fallen in the total time for the separate tilt jolts to occur over one floor.

Do you know that the actual core column sizes are available on the Internet? They are here http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

Additionally, it sounds like you are applying the full force of the upper block on each separate set of columns being impacted at any one time. Are you doing that? It also sounds like your model requires the lifted end to finally move down with a pivot in the center of the core, like a seesaw. Is that what you picture? What happens the next floor down? Does it reverse itself?

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony:
May I suggest you speak with people that worked on the clean-up, I'm positive they could describe what was there better then just using internet pictures, don't you agree? If you need help finding these people I think I can dig up some good contacts in NY/NJ for you. Let me know.

DGM, while I am sure some of these people have some facinating information I don't think they can tell me much about a lack of deceleration or velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. Or about the factors of safety of the tower columns.

I am not going just by photos when examining this. The factors of safety were derived by knowing the building loads, the sizes of the columns, and the fact that the unit stress was kept the same on each column of a particular story to eliminate floor warpage due to differential deflection between the core and perimeter.

The Missing Jolt paper used the Sauret video to measure the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. What could clean up workers tell us about that?

If you are referring to distorted column ends there are a large volume of photos showing these things. That is better than the memories of individuals workers.

[DGM]

DGM, while I am sure some of these people have some facinating information I don't think they can tell me much about a lack of deceleration or velocity loss in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. Or about the factors of safety of the tower columns.

I am not going just by photos when examining this. The factors of safety were derived by knowing the building loads, the sizes of the columns, and the fact that the unit stress was kept the same on each column of a particular story to eliminate floor warpage due to differential deflection between the core and perimeter.

The Missing Jolt paper used the Sauret video to measure the fall of the upper block of WTC 1. What could clean up workers tell us about that?

If you are referring to distorted column ends there are a large volume of photos showing these things. That is better than the memories of individuals workers.
I was referring to the comment that "why we don't seem to see more of the re-bar". I figured you'd get that. Why don't you resurrect the thread on your latest paper (the jolt) if you now what to discus it?

[Tony Szamboti]

I was referring to the comment that "why we don't seem to see more of the re-bar". I figured you'd get that. Why don't you resurrect the thread on your latest paper (the jolt) if you now what to discus it?

DGM, the missing rebar question was something I simply joined in the conversation on to explain just how much rebar there would have been in each tower. The issue is something Bill Smith was bringing up. Your post would have been better off being addressed to him, but you may not have realized that.

I am sure he will see this here and hopefully will respond to you.

From the perspective of the missing rebar notion, I do think your offer of putting someone looking into that in touch with cleanup workers is a very good one. They would remember whether it was ubiquitous or not.

[Grizzly Bear]

You said all this and didn't actually say anything. So you are going to use the copout "that it has been explained to me many times" and that I am just not listening. Of course, you just say this with no links or basis for it.
Because I figured you might actually remember something that was discussed within the last 10 pages:
#1460 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4854795&postcount=1460)
#1448 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4854237&postcount=1448)
Or try all of the material spanned in the last 10 pages. It's been covered, many times in much better context than I can write it in. I suggest you reserve your copout remarks for a more fitting situation.


There is no evidence of a dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1's upper block and I would venture to say probably not in WTC 2 either although that is difficult to measure.
Well dynamic loads by definition are loads that change rapidly, this would also include any unusual loading conditions resulting from the rotation of say, the upper structure against the columns below it. You're claim seems obviously based on your thinking that there was no resistance or deceleration in the duration of the collapse, which would be wrong, and I picked out the total collapse time to demonstrate this to you with better clarity since the time period was easily measurable. It tells me there was resistance, but it was overcome before it had any seizable effect on the overall acceleration of the falling mass. Hand wave it away, but it doesn't change that your based assertion is wrong, and it subsequently affects the credibility of your remaining assertions since they ride on that concept.

Your comment that this is simple material is nonsense. Understanding and designing for dynamic loads is much more difficult than designing for static loads. Most engineers don't get to do it until they have a reasonable amount of experience. I am wondering whether you have a full appreciation of dynamic loading.

Understanding the presence of a dynamic load and being able to calculate it are two different things. I'm not qualified to do calculations, but I do have an appreciation for the former at least. You have a capability to do these calcs, but I'm concerned your confusion over the fundamentals isn't helping with your situation.

[Tony Szamboti]

Because I figured you might actually remember something that was discussed within the last 10 pages:
#1460 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4854795&postcount=1460)
#1448 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4854237&postcount=1448)
Or try all of the material spanned in the last 10 pages. It's been covered, many times in much better context than I can write it in. I suggest you reserve your copout remarks for a more fitting situation.



Well dynamic loads by definition are loads that change rapidly, this would also include any unusual loading conditions resulting from the rotation of say, the upper structure against the columns below it. You're claim seems obviously based on your thinking that there was no resistance or deceleration in the duration of the collapse, which would be wrong, and I picked out the total collapse time to demonstrate this to you. There was resistance, it was overcome before it had any seizable effect on the overall acceleration of the falling mass. Hand wave it away, but it doesn't change that your based assertion is wrong, and it subsequently affects the credibility of your remaining assertions since they ride on that concept.



Understanding the presence of a dynamic load and being able to calculate it are two different things. I'm not qualified to do calculations, but I do have an appreciation for the former at least.

In the case of an impact dynamic load or shock load it causes amplification of the static load due to rapid deceleration of the impacting object. The reality is that to defeat the reserve strength of the columns by the statically insufficient load of the upper block there needed to be a large dynamic load.

The general argument here is that the impacts occurred gradually and no large jolt was noticed. The problem with this is that the energy of deformation does not change and even separate impacts would still cause an aggregate energy drain from the upper block with a resultant velocity loss, which isn't observed.

[Grizzly Bear]

The general argument here is that the impacts occurred gradually and no large jolt was noticed. The problem with this is that the energy of deformation does not change and even separate impacts would still cause an aggregate energy drain from the upper block with a resultant velocity loss, which isn't observed.
But it seems that deforming all of the columns wasn't strictly necessary to overcome that resistance. Aren't the connections the limiting factors in the design strength, and wouldn't we expect those to fail sooner than it takes to actually bend the columns under particularly unusual loading conditions (this (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg) vs this (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg))?

The detached columns in the debris pile seems to indicate this was much more the case. And so does the buckling of the columns at the moment of collapse initiation:

WTC 2 Exterior panel buckling (http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg)
The exterior paneling at lobby level showing the interlocking pattern which they were built in (http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9402/wtc071.jpg)
WTC column end (bolts missing) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg)
Another column closeup showing where the bolts would have been (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg)

And the same failure pattern was observed where the planes impacted the buildings. Nearly all of the exterior panels that were taken out failed because the connections gave out rather than the plane actually shearing through the columns themselves.

[Norseman]

Bill has been shown many photos of rebar in close-up photos. His only response has been to say he "can't see enough of it", which would be laughable if he actually meant that.
He's trolling and has no interest at all in seeing photos of rebar.

Yes Bill Smith failed to surprise me with his response to my post. We already got "noplaners", and now we can add "norebarers" to the list.

[Tony Szamboti]

But it seems that deforming all of the columns wasn't strictly necessary to overcome that resistance. Aren't the connections the limiting factors in the design strength, and wouldn't we expect those to fail sooner than it takes to actually bend the columns under particularly unusual loading conditions (this (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg) vs this (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg))?

The detached columns in the debris pile seems to indicate this was much more the case. And so does the buckling of the columns at the moment of collapse initiation:

WTC 2 Exterior panel buckling (http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg)
The exterior paneling at lobby level showing the interlocking pattern which they were built in (http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9402/wtc071.jpg)
WTC column end (bolts missing) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg)
Another column closeup showing where the bolts would have been (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/splice2.jpg)

And the same failure pattern was observed where the planes impacted the buildings. Nearly all of the exterior panels that were taken out failed because the connections gave out rather than the plane actually shearing through the columns themselves.

We don't know exactly what happened to the columns and connections in the fire affected areas as the city of New York did not save the steel for investigators.

The welds between the core column sections were about 60% of the bending strength of the column itself but only occurred every three floors and no bending load would have been on those connections initially due to the horizontal bracing at every floor.

The connection of columns to horizontal beams is done to reduce the slenderness ratio for buckling and the amount of force on them due to a vertical load above is a fraction of what it is on the column. They are not in the direct load path. They would have also kept bending loads from reaching the welds before column buckling occurred.

The perimeter column panels were staggered so that no more than one third of them had connections to lower panels on any one floor. It is not likely that perimeter columns would have failed naturally in the initial stages of the collapse without a dynamic vertical load. The failures of these connections due to aircraft impact was due to shear and bending failure induced by a huge local dynamic horizontal load on them and the columns from the impacting aircraft.

[Grizzly Bear]

We don't know exactly what happened to the columns and connections in the fire affected areas as the city of New York did not save the steel for investigators.
The NIST report did however document pre-collapse data which showed that the exterior columns were beginning to deflect as early as 18 minutes into the event. Additionally estimations have placed these deflections at as much as 55 inches later into event. There was also visible buckling in the original video that this (http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/WTC2_collapse2.jpg) was extracted from which offers a glimpse into what was going on before the dust began to obscure the remainder of the initiation.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/530/buckling.png

I believe it's also imperative to bear in consideration that the helicopters circling the North tower reported that it was leaning to the south shortly before it collapsed. Some of the accounts are described in the 102 minutes book (also summarized in NIST NCSTAR1-8 page 37) (http://books.google.com/books?id=qOvACVmpVW4C&pg=RA1-PA227&lpg=RA1-PA227&dq=is+buckling+on+the+southwest+corner+and+leaning +to+the+south&source=bl&ots=dO7ACSUsoR&sig=23DVJO1eixqPhqvLMmSKTu-C9VY&hl=en&ei=pgRQSpKFJcSWtgeV-I2pBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1).

While few column samples could be definitively identified as being in the impact and fire regions, the video, photographic and witness accounts give a pretty good indication of what was happening. Do you dispute this?

The welds between the core column sections were about 60% of the bending strength of the column itself but only occurred every three floors and no bending load would have been on those connections initially due to the horizontal bracing at every floor.
But within the fire regions the strength of the bolted connections would have been reduced from exposure to the heat. Wouldn't this make them more vulnerable to failure from unanticipated out-of-plane bending of the column tree sections? Most of the bolts observed from the available examinations showed signs of tensile fracture, and many were bent in the shank. The end plates show no signs of plastic deformation either.


The connection of columns to horizontal beams is done to reduce the slenderness ratio for buckling and the amount of force on them due to a vertical load above is a fraction of what it is on the column. They are not in the direct load path. They would have also kept bending loads from reaching the welds before column buckling occurred.
Sounds right when you consider the building's design loads, but doesn't this work best when you don't have 15 to 29 floors rotating around a fulcrum and applying an unanticipated out-of-plane loading condition to these parts?

The perimeter column panels were staggered so that no more than one third of them had connections to lower panels on any one floor. It is not likely that perimeter columns would have failed naturally in the initial stages of the collapse without a dynamic vertical load. The failures of these connections due to aircraft impact was due to shear and bending failure induced by a huge local dynamic horizontal load on them and the columns from the impacting aircraft.
Aside from the red I'm not disputing any of this. The aircraft impacts were also out-of-plane though. Also, the lateral deflection of the columns whether by creep or otherwise is dangerous for a reason. Those columns are at their best when they aren't buckling and when the loads fall within the allowable limits.

[aggle-rithm]

Not without a jolt(s) and a velocity loss. There are none.

I've seen a video that shows once of the collapses from a scarily close perspective. At this range, you can hear the floors failing one-by-one, with accelerating frequency and volume...bang, bang, BANG, BANGBANGBANG...it made a real impression.

Anyway, these were the "jolts" you seek. They were audible, they just weren't visible. This is possibly because the disintegrating outer shell obscured what was going on inside.

[Furcifer]

The rebar was 70 to 90 ksi steel. That is considered high strength for construction. You can find this information in the NIST report.
That size rod is not undersize for use as rebar in a floor. Go look up welded wire fabric.

90 ksi steel would in fact be high strength, but I think you are confusing the both of us. Rebar and welded wire fabric are two seperate things. As far as I remember the floors were simply reinforced with standard 60 ksi rebar and the web wasn't as tight due to the truss support system. As for the size, that's thinner than M10 which is the thinnest rebar redily available.


I only said high strength because it is high strength. It wasn't for effect but accuracy.

I doubt it. The truth movement seems to like pointing out what high strength materials were used in making the floor system but fail to acknowledge they were the weak link that ultimately lead to the global collapse. Remove them from the equation and the damage to the exterior and core probably wouldn't have lead to a cascade failure.

[Heiwa]

Understanding and designing for dynamic loads is much more difficult than designing for static loads. Most engineers don't get to do it until they have a reasonable amount of experience. I am wondering whether you have a full appreciation of dynamic loading.

In the marine structural field you have to consider dynamic loads from the beginning! The structure is located in the interface water/air and the water is moving - waves - which impose dynamic loads ... all the time. And they are of two types - the regular dynamic loads with frequency of the waves and the sudden impact ones - a rare freak wave impacting the structure. There is a third case - when two marine structures collide.

The latter is of interest for 911 research and with my 40+ years experience of marine structural design and damage analysis I would say that the top part of WTC 1 cannot possibly one way crush down the bottom part by imposing a dynamic load from the top. If the top part really tried to do it, the top part would first have been subject to a violent jolt and second to serious local failures to itself and then the destruction would have been arrested. No jolt is seen on any video and one reason is that the top part never imposes a dynamic load on the bottom part! The top part is actually destroyed locally so its roof is dropping, while the bottom part is still intact. A little later the bottom part is destroyed from top down by CD. No doubt about it.

[triforcharity]

Wow, still holding on to that CD idea huh Heiwa??

I was there that day, and I didn't hear a series of timed explosions going off. Neither did many of my Brothers who were there. Sure, some say they heard something LIKE explosions, some even did hear explosions. (One would expect some explosions from transformers, etc. etc. etc. ) But, not bombs.

I think your idea is slightly flawed. If you wanna hitch your wagon to that idiotic idea, explain how it got in there, and NOBODY saw???

[Oscar]

Heiwa:
In the marine structural field you have to consider dynamic loads from the beginning! The structure is located in the interface water/air and the water is moving - waves - which impose dynamic loads ... all the time. And they are of two types - the regular dynamic loads with frequency of the waves and the sudden impact ones - a rare freak wave impacting the structure. There is a third case - when two marine structures collide.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world trade centre wasn't in the water/air interface...was it? Mind you, losing touch with reality is a frequent occurrence when reading your posts.

Heiwa:
The latter is of interest for 911 research and with my 40+ years experience of marine structural design and damage analysis I would say that the top part of WTC 1 cannot possibly one way crush down the bottom part by imposing a dynamic load from the top. If the top part really tried to do it, the top part would first have been subject to a violent jolt and second to serious local failures to itself and then the destruction would have been arrested. No jolt is seen on any video and one reason is that the top part never imposes a dynamic load on the bottom part! The top part is actually destroyed locally so its roof is dropping, while the bottom part is still intact. A little later the bottom part is destroyed from top down by CD. No doubt about it.

Let's get this straight. You work, apparently *cough* in marine structural design, and you're convinced 9/11 was a controlled demolition...because block A wouldn't crush block C. You haven't read anything that's been said to you, have you. You haven't taken a single word on board. You are a ______(fill in the blanks)

[GlennB]

There has been analysis done by Muhammad Columbo showing that the spires were comprised of the 23 internal core columns only. None of the outer core columns were part of the remaining spires.

Gordon Ross shows Muhammad's analysis on his site here about halfway down the page

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

1) All the outer core columns adjoined office space and were covered by heavy reinforced wallboard :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/corearchitecture-1.jpg

The placement of charges of any kind would prevent the replacement of the wallboard panels as is obvious here:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/partitionwallsystem.jpg


2) Here are some shaped charges being placed. Such operations in a working building are incompatible with 1)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/cuttercharges-1.jpg

3) And finally, you believe these are all inner core columns, i.e. 6 columns wide in total ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

[alienentity]

1) All the outer core columns adjoined office space and were covered by heavy reinforced wallboard :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/corearchitecture-1.jpg

The placement of charges of any kind would prevent the replacement of the wallboard panels as is obvious here:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/partitionwallsystem.jpg


2) Here are some shaped charges being placed. Such operations in a working building are incompatible with 1)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/cuttercharges-1.jpg

3) And finally, you believe these are all inner core columns, i.e. 6 columns wide in total ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

Very good points and info, thanks. However, in figure 2 you can clearly see that nearby office workers didn't notice the two men placing the shaped charges. That's because the building had no occupants, of course....

This wouldn't have been feasible in any working office building, before or since 9/11. It takes a special kind of retarded logic for truthers to overlook things like this.

[triforcharity]

What office buildings?? They already blew them up so there wouldn't be any witnesses!!!

[alienentity]

Tony S, thanks for your replies regarding pulverized concrete and quiet explosives.

I credit you for being more sane than most other truthers, as you've allowed that the concrete was largely destroyed by the energy of the collapses.

I'm rather dismayed by your apparent reliance on some comments made in 2001 regarding possible promising areas for nanothermites, extrapolating those to fit into the alleged demolition of the WTC towers.

I believe the words were 'Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.'

The context of these comments was regarding TBX weapons and fragmentation. I see no indication that this is relevant to cutting core columns of skyscrapers, even if it might have been 'promising' to researchers back in 2001.
Usually 'promising' means 'not yet developed fully', so I'd be very cautious about assuming that this stuff would have any meaningful applications as you seem to suggest.

If that's all you're going on it's awfully slim.

Elsewhere you wrote 'The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.'

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I was a bit alarmed to read ' As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise'

Really, what you're offering is that there is no direct evidence, either audible or visual, of the explosives you postulate, and therefore no way to verify or disprove the idea.

In other words, they couldn't be detected. In that case, it seems just as likely that they just weren't there in the first place.
That would solve your engineering problems right away.

Even a light application of Occam's Razor would discourage this type of theorizing amongst more prudent thinkers, one would think. Tony, quite honestly this stuff seems a bit foolish and wishful thinking on your part. I really wonder why you continue to waste time with these ideas.

[alienentity]

One also must wonder how Dr Jones/Harrit's magical grey and red chips would play into the scenario offered by Tony S.

I believe Dr. Harrit thinks there were many tons of this stuff, brought in on pallets, as he puts it. Dr. Jones speculates that it was unwittingly painted onto steel columns by contract workers - to what thickness no one (except skeptics such as Mackey and Greening) has even bothered to calculate seriously.

What this might have to do with Tony's idea of breaking the outer core columns is anybody's guess, but this kind of vague, 'kitchen sink' approach to the theory, IMHO results in a mishmash of ideas which fail to make any sense.
If one is forced to lower the threshold of credibility so far as to accept this kind of speculation, then there are lots of other weird and wacky ideas that are just as valid and credible.

I can't see how any of this is ever going to be taken very seriously by the engineering community or the scientific community, for example. I can't believe grown men are seriously considering these things. Wow.

[bill smith]

Bill, I think a full core is superimposed on the video in that clip. It doesn't look like they are actually showing the core remnant. The reason I say this is that it is fully intact up top.

The makers of he video indicate that this was the actual authentic video of the collapse. I notice that the still standing core looks to be about 8 x 4 columns completely intact and including all crossbracing.. That would be the entire centre set with all the larger outer core columns gone. One thing is certain- no gravity-only collapse allowed this to happen.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 at 30 seconds

[Dave Rogers]

I read over your post Dave and would like to know how you determine the remaining kinetic energy in the upper block and what the velocity is after each small jolt on a series of columns. This also relates to how quickly the series of separate jolts occur, as if the kinetic energy cannot be made up between jolts there will be a velocity drop which you aren't predicting. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.

There isn't any need to look at the whole picture. Once the upper block starts moving, it can only be stopped by an absolute deceleration. If the acceleration never falls below zero, collapse must propagate. For angles over 0.25 degrees in this model, that's the case. I can infer from that that the energy balance favours collapse, because Newtonian mechanics is self-consistent.

Your analysis currently does not account for axial plastic deformation and buckling separately. There are three energy loss mechanisms in the deformation of the columns: axial elastic, axial plastic, and buckling.

Agreed, and I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has a better functional form for the resistive force as a function of distance. For the time being I simply tried to get the energy loss about right. The qualitative conclusion, which doesn't depend particularly strongly on the functional form, is that tilt angle has a very big effect on the value of jolt.

It would be interesting to see a spread sheet of your calculated energy losses due to column deformation and how fast these occur relative to one another and how far the upper block has fallen in the total time for the separate tilt jolts to occur over one floor.

Interesting but not crucial - events that are separated in space must also be separated in time. I haven't converted it to a time dependence. Ryan Mackey's figure for the angle at which the separate floor impacts can't be resolved is still valid.

Do you know that the actual core column sizes are available on the Internet? They are here http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data

I'll look it up and put them in when I get time. The structure I define isn't far different.

Additionally, it sounds like you are applying the full force of the upper block on each separate set of columns being impacted at any one time. Are you doing that? It also sounds like your model requires the lifted end to finally move down with a pivot in the center of the core, like a seesaw. Is that what you picture? What happens the next floor down? Does it reverse itself?

As I stated in the post, I'm simply assuming that the upper block is descending at a constant angle of tilt i.e. angular velocity is zero. There's no need for the angle of the upper block to change during or between impacts. I'm not "applying the full force of the upper block" on the support, I'm applying an upward force from the support to the upper block, so at all times the force is calculated from the simplified functional form for the column resistance. The force exerted by the upper block must be the same, from Newton's Third Law.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony S, thanks for your replies regarding pulverized concrete and quiet explosives.

I credit you for being more sane than most other truthers, as you've allowed that the concrete was largely destroyed by the energy of the collapses.

I'm rather dismayed by your apparent reliance on some comments made in 2001 regarding possible promising areas for nanothermites, extrapolating those to fit into the alleged demolition of the WTC towers.

I believe the words were 'Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.'

The context of these comments was regarding TBX weapons and fragmentation. I see no indication that this is relevant to cutting core columns of skyscrapers, even if it might have been 'promising' to researchers back in 2001.
Usually 'promising' means 'not yet developed fully', so I'd be very cautious about assuming that this stuff would have any meaningful applications as you seem to suggest.

If that's all you're going on it's awfully slim.

Elsewhere you wrote 'The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.'

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I was a bit alarmed to read ' As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise'

Really, what you're offering is that there is no direct evidence, either audible or visual, of the explosives you postulate, and therefore no way to verify or disprove the idea.

In other words, they couldn't be detected. In that case, it seems just as likely that they just weren't there in the first place.
That would solve your engineering problems right away.

Even a light application of Occam's Razor would discourage this type of theorizing amongst more prudent thinkers, one would think. Tony, quite honestly this stuff seems a bit foolish and wishful thinking on your part. I really wonder why you continue to waste time with these ideas.

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.

Occam's Razor would have to allow for speculation on explosive use for this reason.

[Tony Szamboti]

I've seen a video that shows once of the collapses from a scarily close perspective. At this range, you can hear the floors failing one-by-one, with accelerating frequency and volume...bang, bang, BANG, BANGBANGBANG...it made a real impression.

Anyway, these were the "jolts" you seek. They were audible, they just weren't visible. This is possibly because the disintegrating outer shell obscured what was going on inside.

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

[Reactor drone]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

The dynamic loads would only have to be great enough to overcome the reserve strength of the columns if the columns were taking the load,with the collapse causing the upper section to shift the loads were being taken by the floors and the floor to column connections.

[Tony Szamboti]

The dynamic loads would only have to be great enough to overcome the reserve strength of the columns if the columns were taking the load,with the collapse causing the upper section to shift the loads were being taken by the floors and the floor to column connections.

You have no real basis for this and it is certain that even if one or two sides impacted floors that at least two sides would not have. You can't fit a 207 foot square block into a 204 foot square hole.

I am wondering if you even know what the maximum loads the floor to column connections outside and inside the core could take. They were not insignificant.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world trade centre wasn't in the water/air interface...was it? Mind you, losing touch with reality is a frequent occurrence when reading your posts.

Heiwa:


Let's get this straight. You work, apparently *cough* in marine structural design, and you're convinced 9/11 was a controlled demolition...because block A wouldn't crush block C. You haven't read anything that's been said to you, have you. You haven't taken a single word on board. You are a ______(fill in the blanks)

WTC1 was constructed in the interface ground(soil)/air and when earthquakes occur ground moves. But it doesn't happen often. But the principles are the same.

Yes, I am in the marine structure biz since 40+ years, where it is quite easy to do real, dynamic impact tests, e.g. big wave C hitting ship A or vice versa. Just select a suitable time (storm/big waves) and speed up A into C. After a while you will experience a BIG BANG (A hitting C or C A as you like) associated with jolt (A slowing down) and a splash (C braking apart). OK, in this example C and A do not have similar structures but replace C with another ship and you have a ship collision. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)! If there is no jolt, there is no impact. It is as simple as that. Tony S has explained this in other ways but the conclusion is the same.

So there was no impact! Upper part C did not impact lower part A as suggested by Bazant, Seffen, NIST, Mackey & Co. So how on earth can then part A be destroyed? Just watch the videos! Part C is destroyed first and because the C roof line drops, it is believed that complete part C drops (and impacts A). This is not true. You see clearly part C being destroyed above part A, while part A is still intact. The destruction of part C then produces the famous fountain of smoke and debris and not until then part A is destroyed exactly like part C = being blown apart.

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after! Part C should remain up on top of part A. Only local failures of weak elements in interface C/A would take place.

[aggle-rithm]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them.


Several times the static load?

The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.

Here's an experiment: Set up a video camera and make a video of someone stomping on a soft drink can and smashing it flat. (It may take several tries because it's difficult to smash it straight on without having it squirt from underneath.)

Identify the jolt when the foot impacts the can.

Or, better yet, look at high speed film of jets or rockets smashing into walls. Where is the jolt?

The fact is, in order to know whether a jolt should take place, you have to know the amount of force applied and the amount of resistance. When the ratio gets high enough, the jolt smooths out and you see nothing but a fluid motion, even at high speed.

Would you agree with this?

If so, then you are essentially arguing that the force/resistance ratio is too low for this fluid motion to take place. And since you are making the claim that there must be a jolt, then it is you who should provide concrete evidence.

This shouldn't be too difficult, since you are an engineer. You don't design things by just saying, "This looks right", do you? You have to do actual engineering.

So do it here, to prove your point.

[aggle-rithm]

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)!

....

So there was no impact!

....

Just watch the videos!

....

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after!


Perhaps I'm biased, but I have trouble accepting an engineering analysis that relies so heavily on strategically placed explanation marks.

[alienentity]

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.

Occam's Razor would have to allow for speculation on explosive use for this reason.

Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.

The problem you've created for yourself is that you are forced to handwave a mountain of directly relevant evidence in order to bias towards your claim.

It's a losing battle Tony. The only way I can envision you succeeding is if the entire engineering and scientific communities suddenly got extremely dumb and bought into ALL of the inside job claptrap - that isn't going to happen in this particular universe.

Need I remind you that it's almost 8 years since the event, and the 'truth' movement has utterly failed to produce any material evidence that could result in a criminal conviction for the alleged crimes.
Even if you were able to convince some government body to conduct another investigation it would be futile, since it's fairly obvious (to most observers) that there WAS no inside job conspiracy.
You could have 100 commissions and investigations and you'd still get nothing.

I know you're not emotionally prepared to accept this reality, and I'm sorry for that.

[tfk]

You did? LOL! Little weak structural part C one-way crushing down big strong structural part A! And half-dozen or so effects to enable it. Please remind me how it is possible!

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."
___

Before I knew what a rude, insincere and technically incompetent person you are, I attempted to engage you in civil, respectful discussion about 15 successive times.

You ran.

You'll run again.

"... fool me once ..."

Tom

[tfk]

Bill,

You've picked up some technical words.

Please don't confuse yourself that you understand what they mean...


You may be misunderstanding me. I do not say there is NO wire mesh. I say that there is far too little by dozens of orders of magnitude.


Hmmm,

How many "dozens of orders of magnitude", bill.

1 dozen?
2 dozens?
5 dozens?

I assume that you acknowledge that you see at least one foot of your missing mesh.

Your vacuous patter has more technical words in it, bill. It's still technobabble. And, if imaginable, it makes you sound even dumber...

Tom

[Tony Szamboti]

Several times the static load?
What don't you understand here?


Here's an experiment: Set up a video camera and make a video of someone stomping on a soft drink can and smashing it flat. (It may take several tries because it's difficult to smash it straight on without having it squirt from underneath.)

Identify the jolt when the foot impacts the can.


Or, better yet, look at high speed film of jets or rockets smashing into walls. Where is the jolt?

This is irrelevant. The effect of an impact can be seen afterwards by a velocity loss which is measureable.


The fact is, in order to know whether a jolt should take place, you have to know the amount of force applied and the amount of resistance. When the ratio gets high enough, the jolt smooths out and you see nothing but a fluid motion, even at high speed.

Would you agree with this?

No. Have you read the Missing Jolt paper?



If so, then you are essentially arguing that the force/resistance ratio is too low for this fluid motion to take place. And since you are making the claim that there must be a jolt, then it is you who should provide concrete evidence.

This shouldn't be too difficult, since you are an engineer. You don't design things by just saying, "This looks right", do you? You have to do actual engineering.

So do it here, to prove your point.

I already wrote a paper on it. You need to read it.

[Heiwa]

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."

Tom

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?

[Tony Szamboti]

Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.
What evidence?

The problem you've created for yourself is that you are forced to handwave a mountain of directly relevant evidence in order to bias towards your claim.

I don't ignore solid evidence. What basis do you have for that?

It's a losing battle Tony. The only way I can envision you succeeding is if the entire engineering and scientific communities suddenly got extremely dumb and bought into ALL of the inside job claptrap - that isn't going to happen in this particular universe.

The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.

Need I remind you that it's almost 8 years since the event, and the 'truth' movement has utterly failed to produce any material evidence that could result in a criminal conviction for the alleged crimes.

The only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.



Even if you were able to convince some government body to conduct another investigation it would be futile, since it's fairly obvious (to most observers) that there WAS no inside job conspiracy.
You could have 100 commissions and investigations and you'd still get nothing.

I know you're not emotionally prepared to accept this reality, and I'm sorry for that.

I am not naive and fully appreciate that political motives may well squelch any future investigation. However, that doesn't mean I can't say what the reality was. It is living in a fairy tale land to believe these building collapses were caused by anything other than controlled demolitions.

[Tony Szamboti]

WTC1 was constructed in the interface ground(soil)/air and when earthquakes occur ground moves. But it doesn't happen often. But the principles are the same.

Yes, I am in the marine structure biz since 40+ years, where it is quite easy to do real, dynamic impact tests, e.g. big wave C hitting ship A or vice versa. Just select a suitable time (storm/big waves) and speed up A into C. After a while you will experience a BIG BANG (A hitting C or C A as you like) associated with jolt (A slowing down) and a splash (C braking apart). OK, in this example C and A do not have similar structures but replace C with another ship and you have a ship collision. All described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Thus, if, as alleged, WTC 1 upper part C impacts WTC 1 lower part A on 911, there must be a visible jolt (C slowing down)! If there is no jolt, there is no impact. It is as simple as that. Tony S has explained this in other ways but the conclusion is the same.

So there was no impact! Upper part C did not impact lower part A as suggested by Bazant, Seffen, NIST, Mackey & Co. So how on earth can then part A be destroyed? Just watch the videos! Part C is destroyed first and because the C roof line drops, it is believed that complete part C drops (and impacts A). This is not true. You see clearly part C being destroyed above part A, while part A is still intact. The destruction of part C then produces the famous fountain of smoke and debris and not until then part A is destroyed exactly like part C = being blown apart.

Because if part C would really have dropped on part A (through the fire/initiation zone), you would first see the jolt at impact ... followed by total arrest of any destruction soon after! Part C should remain up on top of part A. Only local failures of weak elements in interface C/A would take place.

Anders, what you are saying here is the unvarnished absolute truth one sees when watching the videos of the WTC collapses and applying engineering principles to them. Of course, some here would say our eyes and years of engineering experience aren't seeing and explaining things right. Their problem is that they can't explain why.

Your thread here and the Heiwa Challenge thread have been on this forum's front page for three months and look like they could become the most posted on threads ever on the JREF forum. I am sure a number of individuals here just love that prospect.

[Tony Szamboti]

In a phrase: "one floor at a time".

Which, using your simplistic, facile language, turns this into:

"big strong 13 story, floor 98-110 part C crushes down little, tiny weak floor 97. Then big strong 14 story, floor 97-110 part C crushes down little tiny floor 96 ..."

tiny weak floor 97 could handle several times the vertical static load of floors 98-110 so how can it just crush it down? The same goes for floor 96 and all those below.

There needs to be load amplification for it to happen. How does that occur?

[Heiwa]

Anders, what you are saying here is the unvarnished absolute truth one sees when watching the videos of the WTC collapses and applying engineering principles to them. Of course, some here would say our eyes and years of engineering experience aren't seeing and explaining things right. Their problem is that they can't explain why.

Your thread here and the Heiwa Challenge thread have been on this forum's front page for three months and look like they could become the most posted on threads ever on the JREF forum. I am sure a number of individuals here just love that prospect.

Tony! This is the whole purpose of my efforts at JREF. Simple topics, simple challenges, simple critical thinking, science, structural analysis in a friendly and lively way. I get a lot of useful feedback which I put together for a paper for the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which I was told last month will be published soon.
Evidently it is not popular among the 'people in power'. I have plenty of experience of the latter; a ship sinks, 850+ people die, people in power order a cover-up of the tragedy = a conspiracy!, the poor conspirators make a mess of the cover-up, more people are killed, the people in power order more cover-ups, people are bribed or threatened to shut up, etc, etc. The people in power get away with it as they control the media that just support the cover-up/conspiracy. Normal people get afraid and keep silent. Democracy dies. I have described it all in my book DISASTER INVESTIGATION at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/DIP.pdf .

[tfk]

What don't you understand here?

This is irrelevant. The effect of an impact can be seen afterwards by a velocity loss which is measureable.

No. Have you read the Missing Jolt paper?

I already wrote a paper on it. You need to read it.


Tony,

Thank you for answering my previous questions. This leads to progress, I believe. (I'm busy today. I'll be able to respond later.)

Please answer precisely. Engineering terms.

What, exactly, determines the instantaneous magnitude of the acceleration?

What, exactly, determines the sequence (i.e., the timing) of the successive accelerations?

Tom

[tfk]

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?


All answered in detail here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226

YOU should read MY post.

LoL.

Tom

[FineWine]

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?



Here is your madness in capsule form. YOU ignore the FACT that the top thirteen floors crush the floor immediately below. Then fourteen floors crush the floor below. And so on.

It is obvious to every sane human on the planet that it is NOT only the 98th floor, the bottom floor of the collapsing mass, that impacts floor 97: The weight of ALL the falling floors hit the floor below.

Please explain to us how the 96 floors below floor 97 help it to avoid being crushed when floors 98-110 fall on it. Stop blowing smoke and dancing around this most obvious of questions.

[Heiwa]

All answered in detail here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226

YOU should read MY post.

LoL.

Tom

So YOU said, quote:

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

un-quote.

LOL!

Part C is going to gather debris ... ! LLOL.

A solid mass of impacted debris ... LLLLLLOL!

This lower solid mass of debris ... protects the upper Part C ... Hilarious.

Sorry Tom! You don't know anything about structures and what happens when you drop a part C on a part A of same structure. Haven't you ever dropped something?

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Thank you for answering my previous questions. This leads to progress, I believe. (I'm busy today. I'll be able to respond later.)

Please answer precisely. Engineering terms.

What, exactly, determines the instantaneous magnitude of the acceleration?

What, exactly, determines the sequence (i.e., the timing) of the successive accelerations?

Tom

Instantaneous acceleration is the derivative of the velocity or dV/dT at a given point.

If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that we measure distance vs. time of the roof's fall. This is then differentiated to find velocity at each measurement point using

Vn = Dn-Dn-1/Tn-Tn-1 where D is distance and T is time.

With the velocity known at each point in the overall measurement time it can be graphed. Acceleration and deceleration are the derivative of velocity and thus comprise the slope of the velocity curve. If the slope is positive that is acceleration, if it is negative that is deceleration.

In the case of WTC 1's upper block fall there is no negative slope in the velocity curve and the velocity was increasing continuously, there was no deceleration.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony! This is the whole purpose of my efforts at JREF. Simple topics, simple challenges, simple critical thinking, science, structural analysis in a friendly and lively way. I get a lot of useful feedback which I put together for a paper for the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which I was told last month will be published soon.
Evidently it is not popular among the 'people in power'. I have plenty of experience of the latter; a ship sinks, 850+ people die, people in power order a cover-up of the tragedy = a conspiracy!, the poor conspirators make a mess of the cover-up, more people are killed, the people in power order more cover-ups, people are bribed or threatened to shut up, etc, etc. The people in power get away with it as they control the media that just support the cover-up/conspiracy. Normal people get afraid and keep silent. Democracy dies. I have described it all in my book DISASTER INVESTIGATION at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/DIP.pdf .

I have only heard bits and pieces about the Estonia tragedy over the years and I know you got quite involved with it and eventually wrote this book about it. I am curious as to what the motives were for a cover-up. What was being covered up, incompetence or something more?

[FineWine]

So YOU said, quote:

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

un-quote.

LOL!

Part C is going to gather debris ... ! LLOL.

A solid mass of impacted debris ... LLLLLLOL!

This lower solid mass of debris ... protects the upper Part C ... Hilarious.

Sorry Tom! You don't know anything about structures and what happens when you drop a part C on a part A of same structure. Haven't you ever dropped something?


No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

[FineWine]

What evidence?



I don't ignore solid evidence. What basis do you have for that?



The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.



The only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.





I am not naive and fully appreciate that political motives may well squelch any future investigation. However, that doesn't mean I can't say what the reality was. It is living in a fairy tale land to believe these building collapses were caused by anything other than controlled demolitions.


You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.

[Tony Szamboti]

You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.

If you have something to debate by all means please bring it up with what you think supports your argument.

But just making inane pronouncements like the above is ridiculous.

I just can't understand why anyone would write something like this on a debating forum.

[bill smith]

Bill,

You've picked up some technical words.

Please don't confuse yourself that you understand what they mean...



Hmmm,

How many "dozens of orders of magnitude", bill.

1 dozen?
2 dozens?
5 dozens?

I assume that you acknowledge that you see at least one foot of your missing mesh.

Your vacuous patter has more technical words in it, bill. It's still technobabble. And, if imaginable, it makes you sound even dumber...

Tom

Hello hello T.

I don't suppose ypu have a clue where the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh reinforcing is gone either ? Well, considering that you don't know much about structures I suppose that more cannot be expected. Toaster design is a different area of ngineering anyway I suppose though here is some mesh involved I believe.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by alienentity
'Agreed, except there WAS evidence of dynamic load in the case of the towers. Just because it didn't fulfill some particular criteria that you wish to impose on it doesn't make it go away.'
Tony S What evidence? Gee, Tony, just the obvious and unmistakable loads imposed by the movement of the upper blocks of the towers.

Ignore the obvious much?

As I suggested before, you need to convince well-trained, competent engineers of your pet theories. You aren't even close to doing this - have you submitted your calculations and hypothesis to LEADING experts in structural engineering and received their assessments yet?

I didn't think so. It's way past time you should have done this, but you seem to prefer the wallow of the truthersphere. Unfortunately it's a bad place to hang out.

Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.

Until then,

ciao.

[alienentity]

You appear to have some knowledge of engineering, although the other engineers have shown that your bizarre assumptions about the collapse of the towers are wrong. You know nothing at all about demolition. Why isn't it living in a fairy tale land to insist that every demolition expert is wrong about the collapses? There is absolutely no evidence for demolition--nothing.


I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?

Please tell us you didn't just come up with this stuff on your own.

The other major issue with Mr. Szamboti's strange obsession with CD is his insistence (a matter of truther doctrine, actually) that some form of exotic, never-before-seen-or-tested (that's right! Neither Mr. Szamboti, nor Dr. Harrit, nor Dr. Jones has ever seen this mythical material) nanothermite sol-gel? or paint? would have been one of the main ingredients.

There's no evidence at all to show that such hypothetical materials, only obliquely referred to in the literature as 'promising' in weaponry, actually have any chance of producing any of the effects he's staking his claim on.

Worse, the so-called 'active thermitic materials' are not even well understood enough to provide a serious correlation with the hypothetical nanomaterials. To whit, Dr. Jones readily admits that they do not know what the grey layer is, or what it might do. Nor does Dr. Jones understand what the organic 'binder' actually is.

In several cases, the ATM's possess a higher energy density than allowed by the thermite reaction, and as pointed out by Ryan Mackey, nanothermite must have a LOWER energy density, below 2 MJ per Kilogram.

Mr. Szamboti has once again hitched his wagon to the wrong horse, and is compelled to ride it into intellectual oblivion. That's his prerogative, of course.

[Heiwa]

No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.

[Tony Szamboti]

I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?

Please tell us you didn't just come up with this stuff on your own.

The other major issue with Mr. Szamboti's strange obsession with CD is his insistence (a matter of truther doctrine, actually) that some form of exotic, never-before-seen-or-tested (that's right! Neither Mr. Szamboti, nor Dr. Harrit, nor Dr. Jones has ever seen this mythical material) nanothermite sol-gel? or paint? would have been one of the main ingredients.

There's no evidence at all to show that such hypothetical materials, only obliquely referred to in the literature as 'promising' in weaponry, actually have any chance of producing any of the effects he's staking his claim on.

Worse, the so-called 'active thermitic materials' are not even well understood enough to provide a serious correlation with the hypothetical nanomaterials. To whit, Dr. Jones readily admits that they do not know what the grey layer is, or what it might do. Nor does Dr. Jones understand what the organic 'binder' actually is.

In several cases, the ATM's possess a higher energy density than allowed by the thermite reaction, and as pointed out by Ryan Mackey, nanothermite must have a LOWER energy density, below 2 MJ per Kilogram.

Mr. Szamboti has once again hitched his wagon to the wrong horse, and is compelled to ride it into intellectual oblivion. That's his prerogative, of course.

Well, as you surmised you just might be, you are wrong.

I did the calculations for the Missing Jolt paper with a retired civil engineering professor. I would also hope you are aware that I am a mechanical engineer who designs structures in the Aerospace industry. You know a place where dynamic loads are designed for everyday.

[alienentity]

I can't help it today. The more Tony Szamboti writes, the more problems I see.

Here are three examples:

'there is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.' Wrong on the second count. There is obvious evidence of velocity loss, since the block didn't fall with the acceleration of freefall. Relative to 9.8 m/s2, there was loss. Case closed.

Tony offers an excuse as to why the engineering community isn't jumping all over the evidence for controlled demolition (or the other random truther nonsense I guess) 'The reality is most engineers haven't looked into it and don't know either way.'

Really. Which is precisely why you've sent your calculations to leading experts, to make sure they get the info, right? You wouldn't be avoiding them, would you?

'the only reason a new investigation isn't taking place is political. There has been plenty of scientific evidence to show the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete collapses of those buildings.'
Or it just shows that you're not following good science. When you say 'the only reason' you're making a bold, bold statement. Unfortunately it's as fact-free as the rest of 9/11 'truth'.

[alienentity]

Well, as you surmised you just might be, you are wrong.

I did the calculations for the Missing Jolt with a retired civil engineering professor.

Read my statement again very carefully, Mr. Szamboti. I was very specific.

'I would wager that Mr. Szamboti did not bother to run his hypothesis by any leading demolition expert, nor any leading structural engineering firm with relevant experience, before committing himself to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony, but which demolition experts did you consult with as you developed your ideas? And how did they respond to your calculations?'

Since you just admitted you didn't meet the criteria I suggested, it seems rather disingenuous to call me wrong. You go beyond defensiveness into dishonesty sir.

Why does this not surprise me?

[alienentity]

Again, Tony evades my challenge with obfuscation:

'Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.'

Tony is apparently afraid to submit his work to those with that type of experience and qualification. No surprise there.

[alienentity]

You could always ask Heiwa for an introduction to Dr. Sunder, who peer-reviewed Heiwa's 'famous' paper. Isn't that so, Heiwa?

Oh, yeah... Heiwa was lying about that. I forgot.

[Tony Szamboti]

I can't help it today. The more Tony Szamboti writes, the more problems I see.

'there is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.' Wrong on the second count. There is obvious evidence of velocity loss, since the block didn't fall with the acceleration of freefall. Relative to 9.8 m/s2, there was loss. Case closed.



It isn't called a velocity loss because something isn't accelerating at freefall.

A velocity loss would be considered to have occurred if there was a reduction in velocity relative to the velocity just prior to any impact.

You seem to not only stretch things but you out and out get them wrong. One shouldn't make loud comments in areas were they obviously have no expertise. You apparently don't here.

[Tony Szamboti]

Again, Tony evades my challenge with obfuscation:

'Find a few leading SE's preferably with lots of experience building very tall buildings (you could start with Leslie Robertson if you dare) and get back to us when you have their responses.'

Tony is apparently afraid to submit his work to those with that type of experience and qualification. No surprise there.

You are joking here aren't you? Do you actually believe that an engineering firm could sign up to calling a government report a lie? Just how would that serve their interest at the moment? They cannot get involved.

There have been many structural engineers who, as individuals, agree with the conclusions of the Missing Jolt paper.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if you are even competent to read and understand it, based on your comments here.

[alienentity]

You seem to not only stretch things but you out and out get them wrong. One shouldn't make loud comments in areas were they obviously have no expertise. You apparently don't here.

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle (cough! nanothermite cough!controlled demolition! cough!)

What a hypocrite.

The rate of change of velocity is acceleration. There was loss of acceleration relative to freefall, because of the structural resistance. There's your lost velocity Tony. You can't see it because it's too obvious for you.

[Grizzly Bear]

The jolt required is that necessary to overcome the reserve strength of the columns below, which were capable of supporting several times the load of the entire upper block above them. The jolt would have to include the mass of the entire upper block not just some of the floors inside. There is no evidence of any jolt or velocity loss involving the upper block.
As has been explained to you before this applies only to a static condition in which the building is intact. How strong is a column once it's buckled? How strong is a column when you apply the same load outside of its vertical plane? Just why do you that accidental loads are so dangerous to built structures?

A natural collapse scenario, without evidence of a dynamic load, does not satisfy the Occam's Razor criteria. What I think is wishful thinking is how one could believe these buildings fell apart like a house of cards in a natural way with no evidence of a dynamic load.
You seem fond of this assertion despite having having absolutely no basis for it. Since you seem to have your own practice of determining whether a load was present or not why don't you take a moment to explain it? What does one have to do to prove the existence of a dynamic load according the known architectural and engineering practices?

[alienentity]

You are joking here aren't you? Do you actually believe that an engineering firm could sign up to calling a government report a lie? Just how would that serve their interest at the moment? They cannot get involved.


You write some paranoid apologia like that and you have the audacity to question my judgment? That's sad.

[alienentity]

There you have it folks. Tony has safely tucked away the engineering community from his sacred knowledge by these logical contortions:

1) Most engineers haven't looked into it, but presumably would eagerly endorse Mr. Szamboti's pet theories, if they only had the chance.
2) They wouldn't dare contradict a government report, so it's pointless for Mr. Szamboti to send leading firms or experts his work for evaluation.

Either way, Tony hopes to inoculate himself from the obvious problem that the greater scientific and engineering communities are ignoring his theories. I guess it makes him feel better, but it does make him look rather foolish.

[alienentity]

And once again I think this exchange illustrates why guys who ACTUALLY build tall skyscrapers, notably the chief structural engineer of the WTC itself, Leslie Robertson, have signed off on the conventional understanding of the fire-driven collapses, and the guys who do NOT have these qualifications but have an emotional agenda think it was controlled demolition.

Thanks for playing, but I'll go with the chief SE on this one.

[Tony Szamboti]

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle (cough! nanothermite cough!controlled demolition! cough!)

What a hypocrite.

The rate of change of velocity is acceleration. There was loss of acceleration relative to freefall, because of the structural resistance. There's your lost velocity Tony. You can't see it because it's too obvious for you.

You can't even get your terms right.

Right here you say there was loss of acceleration relative to freefall because of structural resistance and want to say that is velocity loss. That isn't a velocity loss. You can't lose velocity you never had due to a restricted acceleration.

An example of velocity loss would be if something was accelerating at 0.7g and after 12 feet it was moving at 23 feet/second and then hit an obstacle and transferred some of it's kinetic energy and slowed to 10 feet/second.

What you are describing is that the thing could not accelerate at a rate beyond 0.7g because of resistance.

These two situations are not the same.

[bill smith]

There you have it folks. Tony has safely tucked away the engineering community from his sacred knowledge by these logical contortions:

1) Most engineers haven't looked into it, but presumably would eagerly endorse Mr. Szamboti's pet theories, if they only had the chance.
2) They wouldn't dare contradict a government report, so it's pointless for Mr. Szamboti to send leading firms or experts his work for evaluation.

Either way, Tony hopes to inoculate himself from the obvious problem that the greater scientific and engineering communities are ignoring his theories. I guess it makes him feel better, but it does make him look rather foolish.

Maybe you should listen to what this Top European demolition expert has to say on the sbject of why many firms and individuals do not speak out in America. Just as Tony said actually if you didn't have your head in your sand..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 (loud volume)

[Tony Szamboti]

There you have it folks. Tony has safely tucked away the engineering community from his sacred knowledge by these logical contortions:

1) Most engineers haven't looked into it, but presumably would eagerly endorse Mr. Szamboti's pet theories, if they only had the chance.
2) They wouldn't dare contradict a government report, so it's pointless for Mr. Szamboti to send leading firms or experts his work for evaluation.

Either way, Tony hopes to inoculate himself from the obvious problem that the greater scientific and engineering communities are ignoring his theories. I guess it makes him feel better, but it does make him look rather foolish.

Not at all. A number of structural engineers have seen the paper. Dr. Bazant himself was sent a link to the paper as well as others. I obviously didn't write it to hide it, so your little silly taunt is proven to be just that.

[Tony Szamboti]

As has been explained to you before this applies only to a static condition in which the building is intact. How strong is a column once it's buckled? How strong is a column when you apply the same load outside of its vertical plane? Just why do you that accidental loads are so dangerous to built structures?

It isn't the strength of the column once it is buckling, it is the pre-buckling strength that accounts for a large part of the energy loss in deforming the columns.

The loads of the upper block weren't applied outside of it's vertical plane.

You seem fond of this assertion despite having having absolutely no basis for it. Since you seem to have your own practice of determining whether a load was present or not why don't you take a moment to explain it? What does one have to do to prove the existence of a dynamic load according the known architectural and engineering practices?

Deceleration of the impacting object beyond the rate of gravity and a velocity loss would prove a dynamic load took place. Otherwise the load can only be considered static.

[alienentity]

'What you are describing is that the thing could not accelerate at a rate beyond 0.7g because of resistance.

These two situations are not the same. '

Oh but they are. You just can't detect the small changes in velocity (due to limitations of video frame rates and resolution etc), so you pretend they didn't happen.

You employed a method in your missing jolt paper which failed to detect what you presumed was there. That's all.

Now if only you had proof positive of explosives, which you don't, you might be onto something. But even you admit that (in your own scenario) the explosions and their sounds would not be detectable, so can never be proven either.

I guess you'd be zero for two in that case.

Interesting how a lack of proof is interpreted so loosely by truthers - when they lack proof, they insist that it's irrelevant. But they argue the opposite when they view the conventional explanations. Small wonder the 9/11 'truth' community is floundering.

[alienentity]

Tony S wrote 'Dr. Bazant himself was sent a link to the paper as well as others'

Ah, so now you allow that the engineering community is not as ignorant of your theories as you implied. The problem is they haven't jumped on the truther bandwagon and endorsed you.

I understand. You're not getting any traction where it counts.(outside the truthersphere, that is)

[Tony Szamboti]

'What you are describing is that the thing could not accelerate at a rate beyond 0.7g because of resistance.

These two situations are not the same. '

Oh but they are. You just can't detect the small changes in velocity (due to limitations of video frame rates and resolution etc), so you pretend they didn't happen.

You employed a method in your missing jolt paper which failed to detect what you presumed was there. That's all.

Now if only you had proof positive of explosives, which you don't, you might be onto something. But even you admit that (in your own scenario) the explosions and their sounds would not be detectable, so can never be proven either.

I guess you'd be zero for two in that case.

Interesting how a lack of proof is interpreted so loosely by truthers - when they lack proof, they insist that it's irrelevant. But they argue the opposite when they view the conventional explanations. Small wonder the 9/11 'truth' community is floundering.

You are proving here, beyond any doubt, that you don't understand dynamic loads or kinetic energy transfer whatsoever.

If the collapse had been a natural event, the amount of energy loss which would have been incurred by the upper block, to just deform and buckle the columns on just the first floors on either side of the first collision, would have been about 87% of it's kinetic energy just prior to impact. That translates to a 75% velocity loss, so it wouldn't have been some undiscernable velocity loss we were looking for. If an impact capable of delivering the required energy had occurred, at a minimum, the upper block would have slowed from about 23 feet/second to about 5.5 feet/second and the video resolution and frame rate of 30 frames per second was more than up to that task.

You really should stop making a fool of yourself by trying to do that to me.

[Grizzly Bear]

It isn't the strength of the column once it is buckling, it is the pre-buckling strength that accounts for a large part of the energy loss in deforming the columns.

The loads of the upper block weren't applied outside of it's vertical plane.
I'll respond to this shortly. I'm working on a diagram for this. I'll comment on the other at the same time

[GlennB]

The amount of energy loss which would have been incurred by the upper block, to just deform and buckle the columns on just the first floors on either side of the first collision, was about 87% of it's kinetic energy just prior to impact. That translates to a 75% velocity loss, so it wouldn't have been some undiscernable velocity loss we were looking for.

Would this be based on simultaneous axial impact, column-on-column?

[alienentity]

You are proving here, beyond any doubt, that you don't understand dynamic loads or kinetic energy transfer whatsoever.

If the collapse had been a natural event, the amount of energy loss which would have been incurred by the upper block, to just deform and buckle the columns on just the first floors on either side of the first collision, would have been about 87% of it's kinetic energy just prior to impact. That translates to a 75% velocity loss, so it wouldn't have been some undiscernable velocity loss we were looking for. If an impact capable of delivering the required energy had occurred, at a minimum, the upper block would have slowed from about 23 feet/second to about 5.5 feet/second and the video resolution and frame rate of 30 frames per second was more than up to that task.

You really should stop making a fool of yourself by trying to do that to me.

You're (still) missing the point that your expectations are based on assumptions which can be argued are not the only valid set to apply, and in fact may be incorrect

and

that your sampling methods may have smoothed out the velocity changes you were looking for.

Either way, it fails to prove controlled demolition of any kind. It merely shows that you cannot find what you were looking for. That's not a big deal in science, it's just not proof of anything at this point.

If you guys didn't have a fixed conclusion (controlled demolition) you'd be far better off.

[Tony Szamboti]

Would this be based on simultaneous axial impact, column-on-column?

No, the amount of energy to deform and buckle the columns is what it is whenever it is done.

[alienentity]

Bazant created a simplified model of the collapse, which implied a deceleration 'jolt'. But from the outset the model was understood to be an approximation, not a literal depiction.

Mr. Szamboti has made the assumption that such a theoretical jolt would actually occur, and he set about to try to detect it. Having failed to detect it, he incorrectly assumes that the tower collapses weren't just simple gravity-driven events.

[Bluesky]

Sure....the perimeter column section appears to have been blown away from the building. The core was a mere remnant that lasted only seconds. So a crush down is an absolutely appropriate description..


The picture is of core columns. They lasted about a further month after the initial collapse... You are only a million liles away again

[GlennB]

No, the amount of energy to deform and buckle the columns is what it is whenever it is done.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear - I meant the 'velocity loss' (jolt) you expect to observe, not the total energy sink.
While you're here - higher up the thread I posted some photos regarding CD. One of them seems to easily disprove the claim that the 'spires' only consisted of central core columns as far as WTC1 is concerned. I'll next look at the photos/calculations for WTC2.

[bill smith]

The picture is of core columns. They lasted about a further month after the initial collapse... You are only a million liles away again

Is that so ? Do you have some pictures ?

[Grizzly Bear]

First part...

It isn't the strength of the column once it is buckling, it is the pre-buckling strength that accounts for a large part of the energy loss in deforming the columns.
But to begin with this assumes that we're working off a scenario in which none of the columns weren't weakened by any mechanisms. This isn't true for the impact and fire region where columns would have been been more susceptible due to a combination of the redistributed loads after impact and then the heat induced loss in strength resulting in even tighter reserve strength.

The loads of the upper block weren't applied outside of it's vertical plane.
At the point of collapse initiation they were, that's the point. Beyond initiation the remainder of the collapse can be blamed on this sort of mechanism.
I did a quick and dirty diagram to show it...

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png


2nd part


Deceleration of the impacting object beyond the rate of gravity and a velocity loss would prove a dynamic load took place. Otherwise the load can only be considered static.
Which refers only to the pre-collapse initiation conditions. The fire regions failed under the structure's static load from a combination of uneven load redistribution and loss of integrity from the fire. Everything beyond that point was dynamic because not only was the mass of the upper block moving, the impacts were not column to column. And nearly every column examined after the fact shows this clearly, that shear failure at the connections from -- in many cases -- angular load applications was responsible for them coming apart. The case you make about the deceleration being greater than gravity is correct but the net loss in velocity is entirely dependent upon the strength of the column along the axis it receives the load. This contact is taking place over such a small interval that the net loss in velocity is indistinguishable at the individual level.

[Bluesky]

In the marine structural field you have to consider dynamic loads from the beginning! The structure is located in the interface water/air and the water is moving - waves - which impose dynamic loads ... all the time. And they are of two types - the regular dynamic loads with frequency of the waves and the sudden impact ones - a rare freak wave impacting the structure. There is a third case - when two marine structures collide.

The latter is of interest for 911 research and with my 40+ years experience of marine structural design and damage analysis I would say that the top part of WTC 1 cannot possibly one way crush down the bottom part by imposing a dynamic load from the top. If the top part really tried to do it, the top part would first have been subject to a violent jolt and second to serious local failures to itself and then the destruction would have been arrested. No jolt is seen on any video and one reason is that the top part never imposes a dynamic load on the bottom part! The top part is actually destroyed locally so its roof is dropping, while the bottom part is still intact. A little later the bottom part is destroyed from top down by CD. No doubt about it.

I completely agree: the top part cannot crush the bottom part, but the top part can cause the bottom part to fail, as it did.

If the top part cuts connections that are critical, and causes the outer walls to blow out, and causes the internal core columns to be displaced sllightly leading to a failure of the stack joints, then a failure of the lower part occurs without crushing.

As one of the ae911truth's so called experts it is a pity that you only think of solid body action rather than local impacts. I suggest you keep to ships and leave buildings alone.

Try to remember the Titanic. A small mass of frozen water ( a material with small compression and tension capacity) impacts a large mass with an outer surface of thick steel. The frozen water impacting the steel causes enough damage to the ship to cause it to fail. Or try to remember the bullet analogy.

But then you like to keep spouting this nonsense, since you have heard sensible answers many times before...

[FineWine]

If you have something to debate by all means please bring it up with what you think supports your argument.

But just making inane pronouncements like the above is ridiculous.

I just can't understand why anyone would write something like this on a debating forum.


Yes, I understand your embarrassment at having been exposed. The nonsense you peddle is certainly foolish. I'll repeat: no one who works in demolition--no, not Bachmann, Schneider, nor Jowenko--thinks the collapses of the towers resembles controlled demolitions. The evidence for demolition is nonexistent, as you know.

Most of us can't understand why someone who claims to be an engineer is incapable of learning anything from other engineers. Heiwa clearly has serious problems. You, by contrast, appear sane.

What's your excuse?

[Tony Szamboti]

Bazant created a simplified model of the collapse, which implied a deceleration 'jolt'. But from the outset the model was understood to be an approximation, not a literal depiction.

Mr. Szamboti has made the assumption that such a theoretical jolt would actually occur, and he set about to try to detect it. Having failed to detect it, he incorrectly assumes that the tower collapses weren't just simple gravity-driven events.

What a ridiculous comment to make that I incorrectly assumed the tower collapses weren't just simple gravity-driven events.

Dr. Bazant said there would have been a jolt because he knew that was the only way the lower columns could be overloaded.

It is only psuedoscientists like you appear to be who would contemplate otherwise and now try to say he was only talking about an idealized situation that didn't happen.

Why don't you tell us how it could happen without a load amplification?

[Bluesky]

Is that so ? Do you have some pictures ?


look at thread 1673... they are the same photos that you said the core columns were crushed.

[Tony Szamboti]

First part...


But to begin with this assumes that we're working off a scenario in which none of the columns were weakened by any mechanisms. This isn't true for the impact and fire region where columns would have been been more susceptible due to a combination of the redistributed loads after impact and then the heat induced loss in strength resulting in even tighter reserve strength.


At the point of collapse initiation they were, that's the point. Beyond initiation the remainder of the collapse can be blamed on this sort of mechanism.
I did a quick and dirty diagram to show it...

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png


2nd part



Which refers only to the pre-collapse initiation conditions. The fire regions failed under the structure's static load from a combination of uneven load redistribution and loss of integrity from the fire. Everything beyond that point was dynamic because not only was the mass of the upper block moving, the impacts were not column to column. And nearly every column examined after the fact shows this clearly, that shear failure at the connections from -- in many cases -- angular load applications was responsible for them coming apart. The case you make about the deceleration being greater than gravity is correct but the net loss in velocity is entirely dependent upon the strength of the column along the axis it receives the load. This contact is taking place over such a small interval that the net loss in velocity is indistinguishable at the individual level.

The net loss in velocity would not be indistinguishable and there are no decelerations or losses of velocity for the 114 feet we measured the fall, so there were no dynamic loads. The velocity loss should have been very large at impacts between floors and yet the upper block of WTC 1 doesn't only not lose velocity but it actually gains velocity throughout the entire fall.

The buckling of the wall you show does not necessitate an out of plane fall. However, we do know the upper blocks tilted in both cases so one could try to make a case that there could be some out of plane forces. You haven't done that here yet. However, this cannot happen to all four sides of the towers with the amount of inertia involved. You are also showing the upper block of WTC 2 when we are discussing WTC 1.

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, I understand your embarrassment at having been exposed. The nonsense you peddle is certainly foolish. I'll repeat: no one who works in demolition--no, not Bachmann, Schneider, nor Jowenko--thinks the collapses of the towers resembles controlled demolitions. The evidence for demolition is nonexistent, as you know.

Most of us can't understand why someone who claims to be an engineer is incapable of learning anything from other engineers. Heiwa clearly has serious problems. You, by contrast, appear sane.

What's your excuse?

You sound like you are just saying this for me. Thanks, but I would really rather hear your take on how the collapses could have continued in a natural way without a dynamic load being involved.

[FineWine]

According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.


Yes, you certainly write nonsense. But it is more significant that you also tell outright lies. Many posters have wondered if your obtuseness outweighs your dishonesty. My impression is that you are equal parts fool and charlatan.

It is daring of you to pretend a real engineer, Bazant, suffers from the sort of muddle-headedness that makes you such a laughingstock. No, the real engineers don't believe in a superstrong 98th floor. They believe that the thirteen collapsing floors, all of them damaged to some degree, hit the floor below and added it to the total falling mass. The process was repeated until the building was gone.

"It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest."

This sentence proves that you are an incompetent. There are no "super" efforts by the bottom floor of the falling mass. Floors 99-110 do not float in midair.

Remember another question that you and your mindless parrot ran from? I'll ask it again:

You're seated confortably on the 97th floor. The top thirteen floors have given way and are headed in your direction. The 98th floor contains lightweight garden furniture, while the 99th floor contains metal printers' plates weighing several tons each. Are you lucky that it isn't the 98th floor that contains the heavy stuff?

Stop running away and answer me.

[FineWine]

You sound like you are just saying this for me. Thanks, but I would really rather hear your take on how the collapses could have continued in a natural way without a dynamic load being involved.

My "take" is of no consequence, as I am not an engineer. Several real engineers have explained your errors, yet you seem incapable of processing anything they write.

[Grizzly Bear]

There are no decelerations or losses of velocity for the 114 feet we measured the fall, so there were no dynamic loads. The velocity loss should have been very large at impacts between floors and yet the upper block of WTC 1 doesn't only not lose velocity but it actually gains velocity throughout the entire fall.

*sigh*
I even went as far as drawing a [albeit extremely dirty] force diagram to demonstrate the point... and you're still not understanding it... good grief... and why is a net velocity gain unusual if there's not sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating? This has been beyond lunacy the entire time.

[FineWine]

Would any of the real engineers here be kind enough to offer a few thoughts on my exchange with Heiwa from the previous page? Did he make any effort to address my question?

Thanks in advance.


Originally Posted by FineWine:

No, you're the one who knows nothing about tall buildings.

Let's pretend that directly below floor 97 is a solid mass of almost indestructible granite. We all agree that the collapsing mass, floors 98-110, gets arrested by this formidable obstacle. Please tell us how that helps save floor 97 from being crushed.

Don't run away, as Bill would. Don't babble incoherent gibberish in a futile attempt to deceive us into thinking you understand the question. Just stop and try to think.

Heiwa responded:

According Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! Floor 98 gathers the debris of floor 97 under itself and makes it into a solid mass of impacted debris??? Floor 97 was already pretty solid (concrete + steel but thin!) but it apparently becomes thinner and more solid. I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting. Floor 97 - compacted - also protects floor 98 from being damaged. Why that is necessary is not clear! Floor 98 is superstrong! And then floor 98 - still undamaged - with a compressed floor 97 gathered below it - continues to damage floor 96 in the same manner. What happens to the columns in between is not clear. And so on 97 times!

It is however clear that floors 99-110 do not participate at all in the super efforts of floor 98 exactly as Bazant & Co suggest. It is only floor 98 - superstrong (rigid according to Bazant) - bottom of part C - that one-way crushes down anything below. Floors 99 -110 above floor 98 just displace down peacefully. Evidently it is all nonsense.

It is a modified pancake theory - one pancake (no. 98) - crushes 97 pancakes below. And when super pancake no. 98 has crushed 97 pancakes below, pancake no. 98 decides to crush pancakes 99-110 above! Crush-up. LOL.

Actually my paper to be published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics describe the same Bazant nonsense in a more serious manner + math.

[Tony Szamboti]

*sigh*
I even went as far as drawing a [albeit extremely dirty] force diagram to demonstrate the point... and you're still not understanding it... good grief... and why is a net velocity gain unusual if there's not sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating? This has been beyond lunacy the entire time.

The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.

[Tony Szamboti]

My "take" is of no consequence, as I am not an engineer. Several real engineers have explained your errors, yet you seem incapable of processing anything they write.

Then it sounds like you don't have the ability to judge either and are simply taking sides for emotional reasons.

[Grizzly Bear]

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.

Since this claim is a repetition of cherry-picked data, you do not get to make that decision. I don't care how much you push this nonsense, and I have very little tolerance for people who cant comprehend data correctly. End of story. Not being able to read data from a report, or rather being able to parrot the same deliberate misrepresentation of data isn't something to take pride in.

[Furcifer]

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.


lol, really? At what temperature does steel begin to weaken?

[Grizzly Bear]

lol, really? At what temperature does steel begin to weaken?

This is from chapter 11 of Fundamentals of Building Construction (Edward Allen & Joseph Iano). Page 414 on the fourth edition.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/830/steel001.jpg

Another reference is avalable here (http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm) which is a bit more detailed

[FineWine]

Then it sounds like you don't have the ability to judge either and are simply taking sides for emotional reasons.


That's rather amusing coming from a "truther." You are wedded to an absurd conspiracy theory that has no points of contact with reality, and you are willing to subvert science to a bizarre political agenda. But I'm the one taking sides for emotional reasons.

No, I follow reason and evidence--you ignore both.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's rather amusing coming from a "truther." You are wedded to an absurd conspiracy theory that has no points of contact with reality, and you are willing to subvert science to a bizarre political agenda. But I'm the one taking sides for emotional reasons.

No, I follow reason and evidence--you ignore both.

On the contrary, the emotional tie, as far as being wedded to a particular theory, seems to be yours, as the natural collapse theory has no solid evidence to support itself.

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

The present official stories on the three building collapses are nothing more than pure unadulterated horse manure.

[Furcifer]

This is from chapter 11 of Fundamentals of Building Construction (Edward Allen & Joseph Iano). Page 414 on the fourth edition.


Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:

[tsig]

The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.

But you don't know what kind of explosives were used, how they were installed, when they were installed, how they were concealed or how they were detonated.

[aggle-rithm]

What don't you understand here?

I don't understand why you think that a structure designed to support twice the static load that it is expected to handle could support the same load while it is moving.


This is irrelevant. The effect of an impact can be seen afterwards by a velocity loss which is measureable.


Yes, we saw this in the collapse of the towers. When it hit the ground, it stopped moving.


I already wrote a paper on it. You need to read it.

All right. Which journal is it published in?

[tsig]

Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:

It was frio-nano thermite from the same manufacturer that makes hush-a-boom and invisicrete.

[Justin39640]

It was frio-nano thermite from the same manufacturer that makes hush-a-boom and invisicrete.

dont forget about the rebar made from transparent steel
lol

[Tony Szamboti]

Well Tony says there's no evidence of temperatures hot enough to weaken steel. No evidence what so ever. You'd think with all that thermite burning you'd have some evidence, but nope, Tony says no way.

Truthers are so convieniently ignorant of the most obvious things. :rolleyes:

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures, but the extremely high temperatures caused by thermite use wouldn't have helped either and it actually would have blown the cover. What a dilemma, but I can hear certain perpetrators saying don't worry well just use a computer instead of physical evidence and make it show the temperatures had to be very hot.

[Tony Szamboti]

But you don't know what kind of explosives were used, how they were installed, when they were installed, how they were concealed or how they were detonated.

Do I have to if I show the collapse could not be natural due to a lack of an amplified load?

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't understand why you think that a structure designed to support twice the static load that it is expected to handle could support the same load while it is moving.

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.

The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

[Grizzly Bear]

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

Through neglect in precedent studies, and misrepresentation of data from a report they're trying to prove was egregiously flawed itself. Let's not forget witness cherry picking, and general logical fallacies. That's exactly the way this 22 year old architecture student wants to be educated.

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.
Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.
You apparently missed all of that photographic documentation of the steel at Fresh Kills. You remember? The steel which engineers such as astaneh had the opportunity to examine before hand. Don't think I'm going to let that cherry pick of yours from the NIST report slide... that was rather unwarranted.

[aggle-rithm]

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all.


I agree. The show Life After People showed how a natural collapse would occur. It would require one or two centuries of neglect and exposure to the elements.

On 9/11, I believe there were a couple of plane crashes.

[FineWine]

On the contrary, the emotional tie, as far as being wedded to a particular theory, seems to be yours, as the natural collapse theory has no solid evidence to support itself.

A number of engineers have now shown this to be true and that the evidence is really that these were not natural collapses at all. In spite of this, all you can do is make negative comments with no discussion of the merits of the argument.

The present official stories on the three building collapses are nothing more than pure unadulterated horse manure.


You keep trying to sell the preposterous notion that there is serious debate in the engineering community over the validity of the science presented in the NIST reports. As you know perfectly well, there isn't. The engineers on this forum have shown you the errors you make, that your bizarre political agenda compels you to cling to. No engineers have cast doubts on impact/fire explanation of the collapses. Your snake oil about explosives is pure nonsense, based on nothing.

[aggle-rithm]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.


Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.


The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf


Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

[Heiwa]

I completely agree: the top part cannot crush the bottom part, but the top part can cause the bottom part to fail, as it did.

If the top part cuts connections that are critical, and causes the outer walls to blow out, and causes the internal core columns to be displaced sllightly leading to a failure of the stack joints, then a failure of the lower part occurs without crushing.

...

LOL. And what about the lower part cutting connections that are critical of the upper part? Anyway, the top part cannot cut connections that are critical or cause anything to blow out or displace slightly, etc. Similar structures in collision do not work like that.

[Heiwa]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

Try to crush a beer can by dropping another beer can on it.
.

[Tony Szamboti]

You're (still) missing the point that your expectations are based on assumptions which can be argued are not the only valid set to apply, and in fact may be incorrect

and

that your sampling methods may have smoothed out the velocity changes you were looking for.

Either way, it fails to prove controlled demolition of any kind. It merely shows that you cannot find what you were looking for. That's not a big deal in science, it's just not proof of anything at this point.

If you guys didn't have a fixed conclusion (controlled demolition) you'd be far better off.

Here is where you are out of bounds.

I originally bought Dr. Bazant's theory that there was a dynamic load and it wasn't until five years afterward, upon hearing theories that the towers were demolished, that I decided to look into it myself.

Had I seen evidence of a dynamic load in any way, I would said the amplified load Dr. Bazant theorized had to occur for a natural collapse is there. That's it, and you would have never heard anything from me on this. Unfortunately, there was no dynamic load, and without it it becomes obvious that something artificial was removing the strength of the columns and that those buildings were intentionally demolished.

Sorry to break it to you but that is the reality here.

[Furcifer]

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Careful, the overly sensitive types might consider this a personal attack. ;)



Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed?

Because there was so much of it. Not that hard to figure out.


The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

No, the weakening of joints by thermite would have been obvious to anyone. Especially the number of which you suggest was weakened. Your theory implicates everyone responsible for clean up being completely ignorant of the most obvious anomaly.


Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures.

lol, but it doesn't rule out the ultra high temperatures produced by thermite? That's brilliant, simply brilliant.

This theory is lame. Your deduction skills are even worse. Perhaps you should move on to something that isn't as easily shot down? There's so many gaps in the logic no one would buy it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

You would be surprised at how much the sledge hammer decelerates when it hits the can in order to smash it. You probably don't have the experience to understand what is happening. A sledge hammer is capable of applying hundreds of g's.

Oh, and in reference to your little dig on publishing the paper why don't you wait until to read it and then discuss the arguments, instead of prejudging it as it seems you already are.

[Tony Szamboti]

You keep trying to sell the preposterous notion that there is serious debate in the engineering community over the validity of the science presented in the NIST reports. As you know perfectly well, there isn't. The engineers on this forum have shown you the errors you make, that your bizarre political agenda compels you to cling to. No engineers have cast doubts on impact/fire explanation of the collapses. Your snake oil about explosives is pure nonsense, based on nothing.

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

[Bluesky]

Would any of the real engineers here be kind enough to offer a few thoughts on my exchange with Heiwa from the previous page? Did he make any effort to address my question?


No. He never makes any attempt to answer questions about impact angles, local damage or structural design, such as to consider the effect of stack column splices, or the bar joist connection.

His theory of crushing solid bodies has no relevance to tall building design or the WTC, and he seems to have invented a new theory about progressive collapse design that tells us that we dont have to bother.

But lets face it, he has posted 2,478 eposts with the same moronic mantra, and he usually gets about 5~20 response saying how stupid it is. So I dont think you are going to convince him any time soon.!

[phunk]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.


Unless of course the load wasn't straight down on the top of the column anymore, then you'd need much less load.

[Bluesky]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down



I think there are 29 who have serious doubts... and if they all write 2,700 posts each, then what fun is in store for us.!

[FineWine]

Try to crush a beer can by dropping another beer can on it.
.


How about dropping a 5-ton keg of beer onto a 15-ton keg?

We notice that you ran from my questions as usual.

[FineWine]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down. Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533


Have any those "engineers" who swallow the inside job idiocy ever worked on a tall building?

[FineWine]

Here is where you are out of bounds.

I originally bought Dr. Bazant's theory that there was a dynamic load and it wasn't until five years afterward, upon hearing theories that the towers were demolished, that I decided to look into it myself.

Had I seen evidence of a dynamic load in any way, I would said the amplified load Dr. Bazant theorized had to occur for a natural collapse is there. That's it, and you would have never heard anything from me on this. Unfortunately, there was no dynamic load, and without it it becomes obvious that something artificial was removing the strength of the columns and that those buildings were intentionally demolished.

Sorry to break it to you but that is the reality here.


Strange that no structural engineers who work on tall buildings buy what you peddle.

[aggle-rithm]

You would be surprised at how much the sledge hammer decelerates when it hits the can in order to smash it. You probably don't have the experience to understand what is happening. A sledge hammer is capable of applying hundreds of g's.


So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

[aggle-rithm]

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

So...a guy who claims to be a professor tells a story supposedly told to him by someone who claims to be a civil engineer, causing the professor, working outside his area of expertise, to look into it?

Sold me!

[Grizzly Bear]

So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

I did a really quick calculation a few months back, and I tried searching the forum for it without any success... but the estimate I got was something like 8g's, which for tower 1 was the equivalent of adding 80 stories to the static load of the upper block, and something like 232 stories for the south tower. At that macro scale no matter how you look at it the individual connections won't be able to take a load that significant. Especially since once the collapse started the columns were no longer aligned. Tony not only believes that there were no out-of-plane loads (which is friggin lunacy), but because there was no visible deceleration in the collapse progression there was no dynamic load.

The lack of a dynamic load claim is bizarre enough on its own (and this write up (http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/) comes closest to the point I've been trying to communicate), but I'm not quite sure how he expects to pass the latter off when it was clearly discernable that it was wrong: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png. Those lateral stiffness of the elements took into account the torsional effects of wind loads and were intended to keep the building straight, not have 30 story section introduce torsion to them through having the columns buckling. A column is as good as useless if the loads are being applied in any direction other than straight down.

[Furcifer]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down.

"a lot", lol sure Tony. If you came up with 20 I'd be surprised. And 20 isn't a lot, unless they all happen to be on the same bus at the same time. "a lot" would be 2000, now that's "a lot". You get 2000 engineers to express serious doubts then you've got a concern. Heck, if you got 100 PNG's to register here, anonymously, and say "We've got serious doubts" you've got my signature on the petition for a new investigation. 100 PNG's registered here saying they have doubts would consitute a movement.


Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Tell the ones you know to register here and post anonymously about the concerns they have. It would actually be interesting to see a discussion amongst engineers that disagree on 9/11, instead of the same thing over and over again from the ones here that have let their education, experience and expertise get the better of them.


Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

Nice, I see you've been reduced to folklore. lol.

[tsig]

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures, but the extremely high temperatures caused by thermite use wouldn't have helped either and it actually would have blown the cover. What a dilemma, but I can hear certain perpetrators saying don't worry well just use a computer instead of physical evidence and make it show the temperatures had to be very hot.

Do you often hear voices? Or are you an ex post facto mind reader?

[tsig]

Do I have to if I show the collapse could not be natural due to a lack of an amplified load?

It would help your case.

On one side I see planes disrupting the load bearing structure of the towers and fire weakening them until they could no longer hold themselves up on the other I see axioms, jolts and unknown amounts of unknown explosives planted by unknown people at some unknown time.

[tsig]

dont forget about the rebar made from transparent steel
lol

Would that be the 3" rebar on 4' centers coated with c4?

[tsig]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

You clearly underestimate the amount of work involved in the report. You have to first google then cut and paste and only then can you hit send.

[Heiwa]

So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

Isn't it? There is when you drop a beer can on another beer can. Easy to demonstrate. Actually, every time there is an impact, there should be a jolt.

[Furcifer]

Isn't it? There is when you drop a beer can on another beer can. Easy to demonstrate. Actually, every time there is an impact, there should be a jolt.

Do "jolts" have units or are they like radians? I bet I can find one if you tell me what they are.

[GlennB]

Unless of course the load wasn't straight down on the top of the column anymore, then you'd need much less load.

Nice try phunk, but the previous 50 attempts to get Tony to realise this also failed. He read Bazant, spotted the 'jolt' prediction and cannot move beyond it even though the reality of the collapse was dramatically different from the Bazant model.

[alienentity]

All of such truther quibbling and desperate speculation is moot when one considers the basic parameters of the WTC tower collapses, as agreed upon by most of the qualified engineers who investigated them - that once the upper blocks began to move, the kinetic energy was easily sufficient to continue the collapse of each tower.

There is no real dispute about this basic idea amongst those who really know what they're talking about. Tony's theories are distractions which attempt to obscure this basic reality, in order to build an artificial case for some other, US government-directed mass murder plot, which truthers are convinced happened.

The truther line of inquiry is not designed to lead to any scientific, empirical truth, but is an attempt to pin the entire blame of the 9/11 disaster squarely on your own government, with absolutely no concern for the damage such scapegoating can do.

It is, first and foremost a malicious and political agenda, not a scientific one. The truther doctrine is very clear: the government did it. Inside Job. The battle lines have been drawn by these people, and anyone who dares to stand in the way of official 9/11 'truth' is merely aiding the vast conspiracy, or is intimidated by it somehow.

There is no room for 'what if we're incorrect?' or such nuance of thought. Instead, the bludgeon of 9/11 'truth' informs all intellectual pursuits, including the work of lesser engineering hopefuls such as Mr. Szamboti. A great example of how powerful the truther doctrine is comes from Mr. Szamboti's insistence on controlled demolition involving thermite/thermate or nanothermite (take your pick), a mythical blend of substances which can act in any way truthers see fit - like a magic powder. Nevermind that it's never been demonstrated to perform the tasks they claim it did - its magic qualities overcome such objections.

Mr. Szamboti did not of course originate any of these ideas, but he believes in them to the point where he will not question whether they're actually true or not. At this point it doesn't matter - the doctrine overrides better judgment.

It's a terrible shame that such people are not just worshiping traditional gods but are instead on a revisionist witch hunt to excuse the real terrorists of 9/11 and pin the blame on a scapegoat. It's a return to the dark ages of thought, courtesy of the minions of 9/11 'truth'.

In 2009 already.

[bill smith]

I notice that some people seem to be distancing themselves from the Bazant hypothesis. It's worth remembering that the Bazant hypothesis is the only one in town other than the explosive demolition hypothesis

[bill smith]

It stands to reason that if there was no jolt that the core columns, upper nd lower did not meet. Therefore there was no real pressure to distort the fully braced upstanding core columns and the upper part must have impaled itself upon them. Given that there was no deceleration of the upper block either it must have been skewered by those columns as it continued to fall. Been gutted in other words.
The upstanding columns in the body of the upper block would have been kept vertical by that body and been protected from lateral forces that might break the welds.

[Tony Szamboti]

I did a really quick calculation a few months back, and I tried searching the forum for it without any success... but the estimate I got was something like 8g's, which for tower 1 was the equivalent of adding 80 stories to the static load of the upper block, and something like 232 stories for the south tower. At that macro scale no matter how you look at it the individual connections won't be able to take a load that significant. Especially since once the collapse started the columns were no longer aligned. Tony not only believes that there were no out-of-plane loads (which is friggin lunacy), but because there was no visible deceleration in the collapse progression there was no dynamic load.

The lack of a dynamic load claim is bizarre enough on its own (and this write up (http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/) comes closest to the point I've been trying to communicate), but I'm not quite sure how he expects to pass the latter off when it was clearly discernable that it was wrong: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png. Those lateral stiffness of the elements took into account the torsional effects of wind loads and were intended to keep the building straight, not have 30 story section introduce torsion to them through having the columns buckling. A column is as good as useless if the loads are being applied in any direction other than straight down.

The write up you link to is a bogus example. Had the five pennies been dropped into the empty jar on the paper they would not have caused the paper to fail. While there would be an amplified load, there is also something not being explained that is allowing the seeming failure with far less weight, and that is that the shear area of the paper was much smaller when the pennies were dropped by themselves, so the stress on the paper was much higher, more for that reason than the dynamic load. The five dropped pennies are not applying more load than the jar full of pennies at all.

From what you say you are an engineering student. What discipline? If you are mechanical or civil you should have figured this out, if you have already had strength of materials and stress analysis courses.

You are right that the collapse of the towers would have required something like an 8g amplification of the upper block's load. How much would the upper block have to decelerate in feet or meters/second/second to apply an 8g amplification of it's load? If the velocity loss needed to supply the kinetc energy for deforming and buckling the columns on either side of the collision is approximately 17 feet/second what would be the duration of the impulse?

[Tony Szamboti]

All of such truther quibbling and desperate speculation is moot when one considers the basic parameters of the WTC tower collapses, as agreed upon by most of the qualified engineers who investigated them - that once the upper blocks began to move, the kinetic energy was easily sufficient to continue the collapse of each tower.

There is no real dispute about this basic idea amongst those who really know what they're talking about. Tony's theories are distractions which attempt to obscure this basic reality, in order to build an artificial case for some other, US government-directed mass murder plot, which truthers are convinced happened.

The truther line of inquiry is not designed to lead to any scientific, empirical truth, but is an attempt to pin the entire blame of the 9/11 disaster squarely on your own government, with absolutely no concern for the damage such scapegoating can do.

It is, first and foremost a malicious and political agenda, not a scientific one. The truther doctrine is very clear: the government did it. Inside Job. The battle lines have been drawn by these people, and anyone who dares to stand in the way of official 9/11 'truth' is merely aiding the vast conspiracy, or is intimidated by it somehow.

There is no room for 'what if we're incorrect?' or such nuance of thought. Instead, the bludgeon of 9/11 'truth' informs all intellectual pursuits, including the work of lesser engineering hopefuls such as Mr. Szamboti. A great example of how powerful the truther doctrine is comes from Mr. Szamboti's insistence on controlled demolition involving thermite/thermate or nanothermite (take your pick), a mythical blend of substances which can act in any way truthers see fit - like a magic powder. Nevermind that it's never been demonstrated to perform the tasks they claim it did - its magic qualities overcome such objections.

Mr. Szamboti did not of course originate any of these ideas, but he believes in them to the point where he will not question whether they're actually true or not. At this point it doesn't matter - the doctrine overrides better judgment.

It's a terrible shame that such people are not just worshiping traditional gods but are instead on a revisionist witch hunt to excuse the real terrorists of 9/11 and pin the blame on a scapegoat. It's a return to the dark ages of thought, courtesy of the minions of 9/11 'truth'.

In 2009 already.

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Why do you leave important pieces of information like that out? Or is it that you just don't know that is important?

I am not on a witch hunt for scapegoats at all, but for whoever actually set up those buildings for demolition and pulled the triggers on them. That is a hunt for identifying the real terrorists/perpetrators who weren't in the planes that flew into the buildings, because science shows it was not aircraft damage and fires that took down those buildings. The planes were nothing more than causal ruses designed to fool people into thinking they were the cause and blaming others.

[GlennB]

..... the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.



You might want to ponder that statement of yours for a while ....

[NobbyNobbs]

100 PNG's registered here saying they have doubts would consitute a movement.



Nah, that's just an organization.

If they walked in, sang a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", and walked out, now that would be a movement.

[funk de fino]

The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.

Not only clueless but a flagrant liar.

[funk de fino]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.

The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Even a layman can see that paper is junk. Even more so after seeing it trashed on this forum.

The top section of each buidling was skewed, get over it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Not only clueless but a flagrant liar.

I would hope you realize that you are the real liar here. Although it is possible that you just don't know and are willing to go out on a limb based on your beliefs.

You have not shown anything, in any way whatsoever, that what I am saying here is untrue.

[Tony Szamboti]

Even a layman can see that paper is junk. Even more so after seeing it trashed on this forum.

The top section of each buidling was skewed, get over it.

It is obvious that you have no clue, with your simple minded attempt to just say the top section of each building was skewed and that is the answer to why there was no deceleration and velocity loss of the top section.

[GlennB]

Even a layman can see that paper is junk.

A few early samples from the "paper" below. It's "spot the science" time :

This was a necessary jolt. Without it the required work could not have been done.

Unsubtantiated assertion. If my car accelerates across a field of corn stubble, it does work to knock the stubble out of the way. My overall acceleration in a given time might be exactly the same without the stubble but if I have to knock a sapling out of the way. The former scenario results in no detectable jolt, the latter a big one.
Your statement above is scientifically unfounded, yet it sits up there at the top of your 'paper', very pleased with itself. It's a fine case of false premise, a quicksand on which the rest of your paper is built.

These designations actually underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more massive per story.

Ah ! So there was heat-weakening after all! I thought you said there wasn't ? And the difference in steel dimensions from one storey to the next was non-existent or very small. The buildings tapered gradually in that sense.

I started to analyse more of that essay of yours, but it was pointless.

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't it? There is when you drop a beer can on another beer can. Easy to demonstrate. Actually, every time there is an impact, there should be a jolt.

Where was the jolt when the airliners collided with the towers? There are many videos of it. Perhaps you could point me to one that demonstrates a jolt when the plane hits.

[aggle-rithm]

Those lateral stiffness of the elements took into account the torsional effects of wind loads and were intended to keep the building straight, not have 30 story section introduce torsion to them through having the columns buckling. A column is as good as useless if the loads are being applied in any direction other than straight down.

It doesn't make much sense to design the buildings any other way, especially given the extreme economy with which skyscrapers are built.* I can just imagine the engineers in project meetings: "So, what happens when the columns swivel to a 45-degree angle? We have to be ready for that."

The answer to that would be "make sure you have plenty of insurance".

(In Life After People, which I mentioned earlier, it was predicted that the skyline of New York City would slowly regress backwards in time, with the newer skyscrapers collapsing first, and the old concrete monsters from the thirties falling last.)

[aggle-rithm]

I would hope you realize that you are the real liar here. Although it is possible that you just don't know and are willing to go out on a limb based on your beliefs.

You have not shown anything, in any way whatsoever, that what I am saying here is untrue.

Only if you don't consider "wrong" to be "untrue".

It's possible that someone could be wrong and believe he is right; in that case I wouldn't say he is lying, just wrong.

Heiwa is clearly lying, bill smith is simply wrong. I'm not sure about you.

[funk de fino]

I would hope you realize that you are the real liar here. Although it is possible that you just don't know and are willing to go out on a limb based on your beliefs.

You have not shown anything, in any way whatsoever, that what I am saying here is untrue.

You are lying as I have proved you have lied. You claimed that NIST did not mention the two pieces of steel which were attacked by the liquid slag. You have not read the entire report or you would have know this is false.

This is a blatant lie and I can prove it.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

Care to take a wager on the above?

[funk de fino]

It is obvious that you have no clue, with your simple minded attempt to just say the top section of each building was skewed and that is the answer to why there was no deceleration and velocity loss of the top section.

Your dolt paper relies on the simplified column on column scenario. This did not happen in real life. Your political claptrap is clouding your engineering.

What aerospace projects are you involved in Tony?

[aggle-rithm]

It stands to reason that if there was no jolt that the core columns, upper nd lower did not meet. Therefore there was no real pressure to distort the fully braced upstanding core columns and the upper part must have impaled itself upon them. Given that there was no deceleration of the upper block either it must have been skewered by those columns as it continued to fall. Been gutted in other words.
The upstanding columns in the body of the upper block would have been kept vertical by that body and been protected from lateral forces that might break the welds.

Whatever you do, don't google "Zeno's Paradox". It'll blow your mind, man.

[aggle-rithm]

What aerospace projects are you involved in Tony?

I would like to know that, too.

"The wings couldn't have fallen off; there was no jolt."

[aggle-rithm]

Your statement above is scientifically unfounded, yet it sits up there at the top of your 'paper', very pleased with itself. It's a fine case of false premise, a quicksand on which the rest of your paper is built.


At least he didn't call it an "axiom".

[Reactor drone]

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Why do you leave important pieces of information like that out? Or is it that you just don't know that is important?



Do you think it is possible that the kinetic energy lost in breaking the column to floor connections might result in a reduction in acceleration but still leave an overall positive acceleration of the upper section of the building and ever increasing velocity?

I think the problem is you've committed to a very high energy method of column deformation which is leading you to overstate its negative impact on the building's acceleration.

The idea that there should be a negative acceleration rather than just a reduced positive acceleration and therefore a reduction in velocity is a flawed assumption.

[tfk]

Sorry, you cannot ignore the 96 floors below floor 97, total of which makes up part A (connected to ground), when floors 98-110 (part C) drop on floor 97.

.
Cripes, Anders. You ARE "sorry".

I didn't "ignore" any floors. I said, "And then Floors 110 thru 98 crush Floor 97. And then Floors 110 thru 97 crush Floor 96 ..."

Do you see that "..." at the end of the sentence?? All those other floors are built in there. But if you are so clueless that you need it spelled out for you, here ya go. Ready?

Floors 110 thru 98 crush down Floor 97
Floors 110 thru 97 crush down Floor 96
Floors 110 thru 96 crush down Floor 95
Floors 110 thru 95 crush down Floor 94
Floors 110 thru 94 crush down Floor 93
Floors 110 thru 93 crush down Floor 92
Floors 110 thru 92 crush down Floor 91
Floors 110 thru 91 crush down Floor 90
Floors 110 thru 90 crush down Floor 89
Floors 110 thru 89 crush down Floor 88
Floors 110 thru 88 crush down Floor 87
Floors 110 thru 87 crush down Floor 86
Floors 110 thru 86 crush down Floor 85
Floors 110 thru 85 crush down Floor 84
Floors 110 thru 84 crush down Floor 83
Floors 110 thru 83 crush down Floor 82
Floors 110 thru 82 crush down Floor 81
Floors 110 thru 81 crush down Floor 80
Floors 110 thru 80 crush down Floor 79
Floors 110 thru 79 crush down Floor 78
Floors 110 thru 78 crush down Floor 77
Floors 110 thru 77 crush down Floor 76
Floors 110 thru 76 crush down Floor 75
Floors 110 thru 75 crush down Floor 74
Floors 110 thru 74 crush down Floor 73
Floors 110 thru 73 crush down Floor 72
Floors 110 thru 72 crush down Floor 71
Floors 110 thru 71 crush down Floor 70
Floors 110 thru 70 crush down Floor 69
Floors 110 thru 69 crush down Floor 68
Floors 110 thru 68 crush down Floor 67
Floors 110 thru 67 crush down Floor 66
Floors 110 thru 66 crush down Floor 65
Floors 110 thru 65 crush down Floor 64
Floors 110 thru 64 crush down Floor 63
Floors 110 thru 63 crush down Floor 62
Floors 110 thru 62 crush down Floor 61
Floors 110 thru 61 crush down Floor 60
Floors 110 thru 60 crush down Floor 59
Floors 110 thru 59 crush down Floor 58
Floors 110 thru 58 crush down Floor 57
Floors 110 thru 57 crush down Floor 56
Floors 110 thru 56 crush down Floor 55
Floors 110 thru 55 crush down Floor 54
Floors 110 thru 54 crush down Floor 53
Floors 110 thru 53 crush down Floor 52
Floors 110 thru 52 crush down Floor 51
Floors 110 thru 51 crush down Floor 50
Floors 110 thru 50 crush down Floor 49
Floors 110 thru 49 crush down Floor 48
Floors 110 thru 48 crush down Floor 47
Floors 110 thru 47 crush down Floor 46
Floors 110 thru 46 crush down Floor 45
Floors 110 thru 45 crush down Floor 44
Floors 110 thru 44 crush down Floor 43
Floors 110 thru 43 crush down Floor 42
Floors 110 thru 42 crush down Floor 41
Floors 110 thru 41 crush down Floor 40
Floors 110 thru 40 crush down Floor 39
Floors 110 thru 39 crush down Floor 38
Floors 110 thru 38 crush down Floor 37
Floors 110 thru 37 crush down Floor 36
Floors 110 thru 36 crush down Floor 35
Floors 110 thru 35 crush down Floor 34
Floors 110 thru 34 crush down Floor 33
Floors 110 thru 33 crush down Floor 32
Floors 110 thru 32 crush down Floor 31
Floors 110 thru 31 crush down Floor 30
Floors 110 thru 30 crush down Floor 29
Floors 110 thru 29 crush down Floor 28
Floors 110 thru 28 crush down Floor 27
Floors 110 thru 27 crush down Floor 26
Floors 110 thru 26 crush down Floor 25
Floors 110 thru 25 crush down Floor 24
Floors 110 thru 24 crush down Floor 23
Floors 110 thru 23 crush down Floor 22
Floors 110 thru 22 crush down Floor 21
Floors 110 thru 21 crush down Floor 20
Floors 110 thru 20 crush down Floor 19
Floors 110 thru 19 crush down Floor 18
Floors 110 thru 18 crush down Floor 17
Floors 110 thru 17 crush down Floor 16
Floors 110 thru 16 crush down Floor 15
Floors 110 thru 15 crush down Floor 14
Floors 110 thru 14 crush down Floor 13
Floors 110 thru 13 crush down Floor 12
Floors 110 thru 12 crush down Floor 11
Floors 110 thru 11 crush down Floor 10
Floors 110 thru 10 crush down Floor 9
Floors 110 thru 9 crush down Floor 8
Floors 110 thru 8 crush down Floor 7
Floors 110 thru 7 crush down Floor 6
Floors 110 thru 6 crush down Floor 5
Floors 110 thru 5 crush down Floor 4
Floors 110 thru 4 crush down Floor 3
Floors 110 thru 3 crush down Floor 2
Floors 110 thru 2 crush down Floor 1
Floors 110 thru 99 crush down Floor 98
Floors 110 thru 100 crush down Floor 99
Floors 110 thru 101 crush down Floor 100
Floors 110 thru 102 crush down Floor 101
Floors 110 thru 103 crush down Floor 102
Floors 110 thru 104 crush down Floor 103
Floors 110 thru 105 crush down Floor 104
Floors 110 thru 106 crush down Floor 105
Floors 110 thru 107 crush down Floor 106
Floors 110 thru 108 crush down Floor 107
Floors 110 thru 109 crush down Floor 108
Floors 109 & 110 are torn apart by momentum and column splay.

How tedious...

Happy now??

Why do I suspect ... "not"?


Actually, it is only floor 98 that impacts floor 97 assuming that all columns (and furniture) between floors 97-98 have been suddenly removed. Floors 99-110 do not impact anything! They are far above floor 98 and only connected to floor 98 via columns.

.
You have "assumed" yourself into technical oblivion.

"... assuming all columns & furniture have been suddenly removed ..." You are joking, right..?!!

Only in little Anders World are these things "beamed out" of the towers.

In the real world, the stub end of the columns crash down ...

But then again, I explained ALL of this, in detail, here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226 .

You had a chance to answer it there. And you rudely, and cowardly, ran away from the discussion. You STILL have a chance to answer it. You simply have to START addressing the issues in my post.


So what element breaks when floor 98 impacts floor 97? The columns below floor 97 or the columns above floor 98?

.
See post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226


Tip! The columns above floor 98 are weaker than the columns below floor 97 for obvious reasons.

.
EVERY SINGLE "tip" that you've given to anyone has turned out to be a broken down nag that never got out of the gate. This one is no different.

There is, BTW, zero SIGNIFICANT difference between the columns on any two adjacent floors. (2/3rds of the columns are SHARED by adjacent floors. 1/3rd of the columns BARELY change in dimension at any single juncture.)

There IS a significant difference between the columns on floors that are 6 or 12 stories apart.


Additional question: Wouldn't you expect a jolt when floor 98 impacts floor 97, i.e. part C is slowed down when meeting this resistance that part A makes up?

.
No, I would not expect a SIGNIFICANT jolt. By the engineering definition of "significant". That is, measurable with the equipment in place (i.e., video cameras .5 to 1 mile away).

There would be a jolt if a semi-truck hit your body doing 80 mph. It is unlikely in the extreme that a camera pointed at the rear of the semi would detect the jolt. Even tho it is there.
___

Your game is up, Anders.

You KNOW that you are wrong. You have PROVEN to us that you know you are wrong by the care with which you choose the questions that you WILL answer & discuss (the few that you've gotten correct) versus the questions that you WILL NOT answer or discuss. The latter group you ignore completely or reply with your vacuous "read my paper".

You see, Anders, people do NOT need a technical background to easily read - and understand - your evasiveness. You can only bs them for so long.

Tom

[tfk]

So YOU said, quote:

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

un-quote.

LOL!

Part C is going to gather debris ... ! LLOL.

A solid mass of impacted debris ... LLLLLLOL!

This lower solid mass of debris ... protects the upper Part C ... Hilarious.

Sorry Tom! You don't know anything about structures and what happens when you drop a part C on a part A of same structure. Haven't you ever dropped something?

THIS is your idea of constructing an engineering argument?

You'd be laughed out of any competent group of engineers.

With lots of "LLLLLOL"s behind you as you left the room...

Try again to construct counter-arguments that are worthy of a freshman engineering student.

These fail.

Tom

[tfk]

Tony,

Tony,

Thank you for answering my previous questions. This leads to progress, I believe. (I'm busy today. I'll be able to respond later.)

Please answer precisely. Engineering terms.

What, exactly, determines the instantaneous magnitude of the acceleration?

What, exactly, determines the sequence (i.e., the timing) of the successive accelerations?

Tom

Instantaneous acceleration is the derivative of the velocity or dV/dT at a given point.

If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that we measure distance vs. time of the roof's fall. This is then differentiated to find velocity at each measurement point using

Vn = Dn-Dn-1/Tn-Tn-1 where D is distance and T is time.

With the velocity known at each point in the overall measurement time it can be graphed. Acceleration and deceleration are the derivative of velocity and thus comprise the slope of the velocity curve. If the slope is positive that is acceleration, if it is negative that is deceleration.

In the case of WTC 1's upper block fall there is no negative slope in the velocity curve and the velocity was increasing continuously, there was no deceleration.
.
Please read my questions.

I've told you already that I am a 56 year old mechanical engineer.

By what delusions of grandeur do you think that I need you to explain to me what "acceleration" is????

I asked you a specific set of questions.

You answered NONE of them.

Please try again. Please try to answer the questions that I ask.

By "What, exactly ..." I mean "What physical occurrences in the collapsing buildings ..."

Tom

[newton3376]

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss.

You truthers have been corrected time and time again...

The buildings fell near free fall speed.....not at free fall speed....

But ignoring that for a moment....please tell us in your estimation how much "deceleration and velocity loss" there should have been (BTW I find your wording to be very strange since in this case deceleration implies a loss in instantaneous velocity so saying "deceleration and velocity loss" seems unnecessarily wordy).

Please show your calculations for the "deceleration and velocity loss".....

Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

That's a really stupid comment......especially if you claim to be an engineer....

So if I fire a 9mm at a piece of paper and the bullet goes through the paper but we don't measure any velocity loss in the bullet then no kinetic energy was transferred?

So where exactly does the bullet get the energy to break the paper if it isn't kinetic?


Someone please please tell me this guy doesn't claim to be an engineer....

[FineWine]

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Why do you leave important pieces of information like that out? Or is it that you just don't know that is important?

I am not on a witch hunt for scapegoats at all, but for whoever actually set up those buildings for demolition and pulled the triggers on them. That is a hunt for identifying the real terrorists/perpetrators who weren't in the planes that flew into the buildings, because science shows it was not aircraft damage and fires that took down those buildings. The planes were nothing more than causal ruses designed to fool people into thinking they were the cause and blaming others.


There were no explosives of any kind in the twin towers. Not a single demolition expert takes your absurd myth seriously.

[tfk]

Hello hello T.

I don't suppose ypu have a clue where the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh reinforcing is gone either ? Well, considering that you don't know much about structures I suppose that more cannot be expected. Toaster design is a different area of ngineering anyway I suppose though here is some mesh involved I believe.

Yes, bill. I know EXACTLY where the 3/4th of a square mile of mesh reinforcing has gone. It has gone nowhere.

This whole charade is nothing but you, publicly fondling yourself. It's gotten the rest of us rather uncomfortable, frankly.

BTW, engineers DO design toasters. Anyone, engineer or not, that has actually designed anything & brought it to market knows 10,000x more than you do about ALL of these subjects.

Have a little respect for toaster designers.

Last note. To show you (what everyone else but you understands) what a techno-buffoon you are ...

You said that there was "some" mesh there. But too little "by dozens of orders of magnitude". Which is exactly what I commented on that prompted your strutting reply.

Let's assume that there is just ONE FOOT of your mesh visible.

ONE dozen "orders of magnitude" would mean 1012 feet of mesh. This is sufficient mesh to reach from the earth to the moon and back. About 4000 TIMES.

TWO dozen orders of magnitude would be 1024 feet.
This is enough to reach the nearest star Proxima Centuri, and back.
About 8 million times.

Still think you are missing "dozens of orders of magitude", dummy?

Do you even have enough understanding to be embarrassed by your silly attempt at technobabble?

Just curious.

Tom

[FineWine]

.
Cripes, Anders. You ARE "sorry".

I didn't "ignore" any floors. I said, "And then Floors 110 thru 98 crush Floor 97. And then Floors 110 thru 97 crush Floor 96 ..."

Do you see that "..." at the end of the sentence?? All those other floors are built in there. But if you are so clueless that you need it spelled out for you, here ya go. Ready?

Floors 110 thru 98 crush down Floor 97
Floors 110 thru 97 crush down Floor 96
Floors 110 thru 96 crush down Floor 95
Floors 110 thru 95 crush down Floor 94
Floors 110 thru 94 crush down Floor 93
Floors 110 thru 93 crush down Floor 92
Floors 110 thru 92 crush down Floor 91
Floors 110 thru 91 crush down Floor 90
Floors 110 thru 90 crush down Floor 89
Floors 110 thru 89 crush down Floor 88
Floors 110 thru 88 crush down Floor 87
Floors 110 thru 87 crush down Floor 86
Floors 110 thru 86 crush down Floor 85
Floors 110 thru 85 crush down Floor 84
Floors 110 thru 84 crush down Floor 83
Floors 110 thru 83 crush down Floor 82
Floors 110 thru 82 crush down Floor 81
Floors 110 thru 81 crush down Floor 80
Floors 110 thru 80 crush down Floor 79
Floors 110 thru 79 crush down Floor 78
Floors 110 thru 78 crush down Floor 77
Floors 110 thru 77 crush down Floor 76
Floors 110 thru 76 crush down Floor 75
Floors 110 thru 75 crush down Floor 74
Floors 110 thru 74 crush down Floor 73
Floors 110 thru 73 crush down Floor 72
Floors 110 thru 72 crush down Floor 71
Floors 110 thru 71 crush down Floor 70
Floors 110 thru 70 crush down Floor 69
Floors 110 thru 69 crush down Floor 68
Floors 110 thru 68 crush down Floor 67
Floors 110 thru 67 crush down Floor 66
Floors 110 thru 66 crush down Floor 65
Floors 110 thru 65 crush down Floor 64
Floors 110 thru 64 crush down Floor 63
Floors 110 thru 63 crush down Floor 62
Floors 110 thru 62 crush down Floor 61
Floors 110 thru 61 crush down Floor 60
Floors 110 thru 60 crush down Floor 59
Floors 110 thru 59 crush down Floor 58
Floors 110 thru 58 crush down Floor 57
Floors 110 thru 57 crush down Floor 56
Floors 110 thru 56 crush down Floor 55
Floors 110 thru 55 crush down Floor 54
Floors 110 thru 54 crush down Floor 53
Floors 110 thru 53 crush down Floor 52
Floors 110 thru 52 crush down Floor 51
Floors 110 thru 51 crush down Floor 50
Floors 110 thru 50 crush down Floor 49
Floors 110 thru 49 crush down Floor 48
Floors 110 thru 48 crush down Floor 47
Floors 110 thru 47 crush down Floor 46
Floors 110 thru 46 crush down Floor 45
Floors 110 thru 45 crush down Floor 44
Floors 110 thru 44 crush down Floor 43
Floors 110 thru 43 crush down Floor 42
Floors 110 thru 42 crush down Floor 41
Floors 110 thru 41 crush down Floor 40
Floors 110 thru 40 crush down Floor 39
Floors 110 thru 39 crush down Floor 38
Floors 110 thru 38 crush down Floor 37
Floors 110 thru 37 crush down Floor 36
Floors 110 thru 36 crush down Floor 35
Floors 110 thru 35 crush down Floor 34
Floors 110 thru 34 crush down Floor 33
Floors 110 thru 33 crush down Floor 32
Floors 110 thru 32 crush down Floor 31
Floors 110 thru 31 crush down Floor 30
Floors 110 thru 30 crush down Floor 29
Floors 110 thru 29 crush down Floor 28
Floors 110 thru 28 crush down Floor 27
Floors 110 thru 27 crush down Floor 26
Floors 110 thru 26 crush down Floor 25
Floors 110 thru 25 crush down Floor 24
Floors 110 thru 24 crush down Floor 23
Floors 110 thru 23 crush down Floor 22
Floors 110 thru 22 crush down Floor 21
Floors 110 thru 21 crush down Floor 20
Floors 110 thru 20 crush down Floor 19
Floors 110 thru 19 crush down Floor 18
Floors 110 thru 18 crush down Floor 17
Floors 110 thru 17 crush down Floor 16
Floors 110 thru 16 crush down Floor 15
Floors 110 thru 15 crush down Floor 14
Floors 110 thru 14 crush down Floor 13
Floors 110 thru 13 crush down Floor 12
Floors 110 thru 12 crush down Floor 11
Floors 110 thru 11 crush down Floor 10
Floors 110 thru 10 crush down Floor 9
Floors 110 thru 9 crush down Floor 8
Floors 110 thru 8 crush down Floor 7
Floors 110 thru 7 crush down Floor 6
Floors 110 thru 6 crush down Floor 5
Floors 110 thru 5 crush down Floor 4
Floors 110 thru 4 crush down Floor 3
Floors 110 thru 3 crush down Floor 2
Floors 110 thru 2 crush down Floor 1
Floors 110 thru 99 crush down Floor 98
Floors 110 thru 100 crush down Floor 99
Floors 110 thru 101 crush down Floor 100
Floors 110 thru 102 crush down Floor 101
Floors 110 thru 103 crush down Floor 102
Floors 110 thru 104 crush down Floor 103
Floors 110 thru 105 crush down Floor 104
Floors 110 thru 106 crush down Floor 105
Floors 110 thru 107 crush down Floor 106
Floors 110 thru 108 crush down Floor 107
Floors 110 thru 109 crush down Floor 108
Floors 109 & 110 are torn apart by momentum and column splay.

How tedious...

Happy now??

Why do I suspect ... "not"?


.
You have "assumed" yourself into technical oblivion.

"... assuming all columns & furniture have been suddenly removed ..." You are joking, right..?!!

Only in little Anders World are these things "beamed out" of the towers.

In the real world, the stub end of the columns crash down ...

But then again, I explained ALL of this, in detail, here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226 .

You had a chance to answer it there. And you rudely, and cowardly, ran away from the discussion. You STILL have a chance to answer it. You simply have to START addressing the issues in my post.


.
See post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226


.
EVERY SINGLE "tip" that you've given to anyone has turned out to be a broken down nag that never got out of the gate. This one is no different.

There is, BTW, zero SIGNIFICANT difference between the columns on any two adjacent floors. (2/3rds of the columns are SHARED by adjacent floors. 1/3rd of the columns BARELY change in dimension at any single juncture.)

There IS a significant difference between the columns on floors that are 6 or 12 stories apart.


.
No, I would not expect a SIGNIFICANT jolt. By the engineering definition of "significant". That is, measurable with the equipment in place (i.e., video cameras .5 to 1 mile away).

There would be a jolt if a semi-truck hit your body doing 80 mph. It is unlikely in the extreme that a camera pointed at the rear of the semi would detect the jolt. Even tho it is there.
___

Your game is up, Anders.

You KNOW that you are wrong. You have PROVEN to us that you know you are wrong by the care with which you choose the questions that you WILL answer & discuss (the few that you've gotten correct) versus the questions that you WILL NOT answer or discuss. The latter group you ignore completely or reply with your vacuous "read my paper".

You see, Anders, people do NOT need a technical background to easily read - and understand - your evasiveness. You can only bs them for so long.

Tom


I have repeatedly asked Heiwa to tell me if it matters whether the lowest floor of the collapsing mass contains the lightweight garden furniture and the floor above contains the heavy printers' plates or the contents of those two floors are reversed. Am I correct in assuming that his idiotic interpretation of the collapses depends on only the lowest falling floor hitting the floor below. The upper collapsing floors just float harmlessly in midair, adding neither mass nor momentum.

I have asked Heiwa how it would help protect the 97th floor if, as floors 98-110 crashed down it, floors 1-96 were a solid block of granite. He refuses to respond, except to babble incoherently about irrelevancies.

Am I being unfair to Heiwa?

[tfk]

Anders,


According [to] Tom floor 98 doesn't really crush (sic) floor 97! ... I do not understand what Tom is really suggesting.

.
Look, you ignorant, pompous, rude jerk.

You are DAMNED right that you do not know what I am saying.

I INVITED you into a discussion with me for the precise purpose of explaining to you what I am saying. You RUDELY ignored all of my attempts to discuss the issues.

So please refrain from your typically fumbling, incompetent attempt to interpret what I have said until after you have cleared them with me.

Your interpretation here is 100% wrong.

I guess ignorance is bliss, eh, Anders.

LOL.

Tom

[tfk]

I have repeatedly asked Heiwa to tell me if it matters whether the lowest floor of the collapsing mass contains the lightweight garden furniture and the floor above contains the heavy printers' plates or the contents of those two floors are reversed. Am I correct in assuming that his idiotic interpretation of the collapses depends on only the lowest falling floor hitting the floor below. The upper collapsing floors just float harmlessly in midair, adding neither mass nor momentum.

I have asked Heiwa how it would help protect the 97th floor if, as floors 98-110 crashed down it, floors 1-96 were a solid block of granite. He refuses to respond, except to babble incoherently about irrelevancies.

Am I being unfair to Heiwa?

FW,

You have to consider the PATHWAY that the forces (i.e., from weight & momentum) take in order to be transmitted from one component to another. These forces have to be transmitted thru physically touching components.

Heiwa is right that the upper floors do not transmit their weight & momentum DIRECTLY. Since they are not DIRECTLY touching floor 97. But the upper floors DO connect to the support columns and the support columns DO impact on Floor 97. So, ALL of the upper floors DO transmit both their weight & momentum to Floor 97 THRU the support columns. Actually thru approximately 1/2 the core & external columns.

Heiwa is right that the lower column stubs will also impact on the underside of floor 98. This is a version of the hunter with a spear, allowing the lion to charge him, burying the back end of the spear in the ground, and allowing the lion's momentum to impale itself on the end of the spear. (My hat's off to ANYONE who has ever pulled off this stunt...)

So there WILL be a mutual destruction of both Floors 97 & 98.

But after that first floor's destruction, the picture changes.

As I tried to explain here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226 , there are some subtle effects that cause the destruction to not be symmetric, up vs. down. This symmetic destruction is the core of Heiwa's (incorrect) contention.

There are two components that are responsible for the destruction of the floors: the column stubs and the mass of the debris that has been broken free in the crush zone. The column stubs are only significant during the 97th & 98th floor's destruction. After that, lateral forces simply sweep the column stubs aside.

The descending mass is all that matters. And as I tried to show, that mass of debris will collect at the bottom of the descending (& growing) upper body. And it will interleaf and connect to the upper blocks columns. And therefore that layer of debris will transmit the weight of the entire upper block (by virtue of its connection to the columns) and protect the upper block from further destruction.

As I tried to explain in that post, by the time the crush zone reaches any given floor, that floor has ALREADY had 2/3rds of it supports ripped apart. With this level of destruction, it has already been turned for the most part into loosely connected debris. Much of it already falling.

A piece of free falling debris, descending at 10 mph, puts far, far less impact on the 50 mph descending mass than that same piece of debris would have if it had been stationary & firmly fixed to its supports. This is a large part of the reason for the asymmetric destruction.

So, to answer your question, the placement of lawn chairs & lead plates is, of course, irrelevant to the ultimate fate of the universe.

You have been GROSSLY unfair to Heiwa, FW. You've expected him to discuss the issues with honesty and maturity.

How COULD you...? :rolleyes:

Tom

[GlennB]

That's a really stupid comment......especially if you claim to be an engineer....

So if I fire a 9mm at a piece of paper and the bullet goes through the paper but we don't measure any velocity loss in the bullet then no kinetic energy was transferred?

So where exactly does the bullet get the energy to break the paper if it isn't kinetic?

A doofus you are. Explained it, already Tony has.

It goes like this -
The building was carefully CD'd just as collapse initiated. The lack of 'jolt' proves this. Thus, the upper block expended no kinetic energy in breaking the lower block as the latter was already falling. The fact that upper block fell at well less than g acceleration means that .. er... well, it just means SOMETHING OK ???? Maybe he'll write a 'paper' about it, you Bush-loving shill-sheeple.

Someone please please tell me this guy doesn't claim to be an engineer....


I'm afraid I have some bad news for you, Mr newton3376 ......