Then there are the second-order effects: some part of the core of each tower did not participate in the progressive collapse, only to fall down later; large sections of exterior walls stayed in one piece to fall over at/near the end of crush-down; some of the top block of WTC 2 may well have broken off to fall separately. These effects can be approximately treated using the same one-dimensional models by estimating the masses involved and comparing the resulting total collapse time to visual and audio data. Poster shagster has done quite a bit of this and posted about it earlier.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 26 2007, 03:41 PM)
metamars
Why would the study of ANY nonexistent explosives event lead anywhere productive. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE ETC. ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX, NONE.
Two points:
First:
In point of fact, there lots of evidence for CD, and this has been known for a long time. So, your very question is misleading, for it's premise is a lie.
adoucette tried that lie long ago, and I noticed Benson disgraced himself by writing the same lie recently:
What's funny/sad about these more recent recycling of this Orwellian propaganda is that just recently, I posted links regarding new, "smoking gun" evidence of thermate.
Furthermore, (if memory serves correctly), the release of substantial rescue worker testimony regarding explosions also occurred after adoucette's first lying along these lines, but well before yours and Benson's lie.
I'm quite sure that the OCT "clown car" will have the last word on this subject, for their motivation to repetitively deceive exceeds that of the truth seekers to clarify, at least on this particular forum. However, just as there are people who will insist, until their dying breaths, that the world is flat and that the earth was created , literally, in 7 days and 7 nights, the relevance of the OCT myth promulgators in this tiny corner of cyber-space, to a serious approach to and understanding of reality, is negligible.
Second:
You missed the point entirely, as the investigation I sketched out may (or may not) make the CD hypothesis, as applied to the separation of column ends, more likely.
Such a line of inquiry could be reasonably pursued by a researcher who, nevertheless, believed that the concrete was pulverized not by CD, but rather by comminution from building debris impacts. Such a researcher would have to hold his/her nose, and calculate pulverisation from explosives. After the calculation, they can, and should, release their nose.
Speaking of concrete comminution, I believe a saw a reference to a new paper by Greening on the subject. If somebody could post a link, it would be appreciated.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
On a separate note, a poster at the stj911 forum reminded me that perimeter columns are bolted. I agreed that the paper I cited was not likely to tell us much about such a bolt failure, but related research (involving explosive effects across micro-fracture boundaries) even in unwelded steel may tell us something about the bolt failures.
I don't believe that bolts go away by saying "boo", either....
Why would the study of ANY nonexistent explosives event lead anywhere productive. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE ETC. ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX, NONE.
Two points:
First:
In point of fact, there lots of evidence for CD, and this has been known for a long time. So, your very question is misleading, for it's premise is a lie.
adoucette tried that lie long ago, and I noticed Benson disgraced himself by writing the same lie recently:
QUOTE
Since neither (1) nor (2) involve CD and there is no evidence of CD, I offer (1) and (2) as a good explanation.
( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=199714 )What's funny/sad about these more recent recycling of this Orwellian propaganda is that just recently, I posted links regarding new, "smoking gun" evidence of thermate.
Furthermore, (if memory serves correctly), the release of substantial rescue worker testimony regarding explosions also occurred after adoucette's first lying along these lines, but well before yours and Benson's lie.
I'm quite sure that the OCT "clown car" will have the last word on this subject, for their motivation to repetitively deceive exceeds that of the truth seekers to clarify, at least on this particular forum. However, just as there are people who will insist, until their dying breaths, that the world is flat and that the earth was created , literally, in 7 days and 7 nights, the relevance of the OCT myth promulgators in this tiny corner of cyber-space, to a serious approach to and understanding of reality, is negligible.
Second:
You missed the point entirely, as the investigation I sketched out may (or may not) make the CD hypothesis, as applied to the separation of column ends, more likely.
Such a line of inquiry could be reasonably pursued by a researcher who, nevertheless, believed that the concrete was pulverized not by CD, but rather by comminution from building debris impacts. Such a researcher would have to hold his/her nose, and calculate pulverisation from explosives. After the calculation, they can, and should, release their nose.
Speaking of concrete comminution, I believe a saw a reference to a new paper by Greening on the subject. If somebody could post a link, it would be appreciated.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
On a separate note, a poster at the stj911 forum reminded me that perimeter columns are bolted. I agreed that the paper I cited was not likely to tell us much about such a bolt failure, but related research (involving explosive effects across micro-fracture boundaries) even in unwelded steel may tell us something about the bolt failures.
I don't believe that bolts go away by saying "boo", either....
The exterior wall columns used construction bolts before the welders cam along to through weld, according to a post a bit back quoting Robertson.
However, not so far back, shagster linked us back to a page on which NEU-FONZE referenced literature which demonstrates that mechanical action is ten times more effective than explosives in comminuting brittle materials. He estimated than holes would have to be drilled to install 600 tonnes of TNT in each tower to obtain the observed comminution by explosives.
However, not so far back, shagster linked us back to a page on which NEU-FONZE referenced literature which demonstrates that mechanical action is ten times more effective than explosives in comminuting brittle materials. He estimated than holes would have to be drilled to install 600 tonnes of TNT in each tower to obtain the observed comminution by explosives.
forthetrees:
You know a lot of "experts", including scientists, engineers, politicians, etc, have made dubious statements about the collapse of the Twin Towers. This has often been done quite innocently and without any attempt to mislead. However, statements that were NOT made in scientific/engineering papers in refereed journals, should be treated with suspicion. And, by the way, more than 50 % of what you read on the internet is in this category.....
I am referring to statements such as:
* The buildings fell in 9 seconds
* The buildings (did/did not) fall into their own footprints
* The buildings were pulverized into 60 micron dust
* The steel (did/did not) melt
You have to be very careful in accepting the true meaning of such statements.
Look who was saying it and in what context.
Best of all, do your own (extensive!) research and make up your own mind!
You know a lot of "experts", including scientists, engineers, politicians, etc, have made dubious statements about the collapse of the Twin Towers. This has often been done quite innocently and without any attempt to mislead. However, statements that were NOT made in scientific/engineering papers in refereed journals, should be treated with suspicion. And, by the way, more than 50 % of what you read on the internet is in this category.....
I am referring to statements such as:
* The buildings fell in 9 seconds
* The buildings (did/did not) fall into their own footprints
* The buildings were pulverized into 60 micron dust
* The steel (did/did not) melt
You have to be very careful in accepting the true meaning of such statements.
Look who was saying it and in what context.
Best of all, do your own (extensive!) research and make up your own mind!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 27 2007, 01:34 AM)
However, statements that were NOT made in scientific/engineering papers in refereed journals, should be treated with suspicion.
Even statements that are made in peer-reviewed papers need to be treated with skepticism.
Just because somebody, even somebody famous, published a refereed paper does not make the contents immune from criticism...
Even statements that are made in peer-reviewed papers need to be treated with skepticism.
Just because somebody, even somebody famous, published a refereed paper does not make the contents immune from criticism...
metamars
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
I'm quite sure that the OCT "clown car" will have the last word on this subject, for their motivation to repetitively deceive exceeds that of the truth seekers to clarify, at least on this particular forum. However, just as there are people who will insist, until their dying breaths, that the world is flat and that the earth was created , literally, in 7 days and 7 nights, the relevance of the OCT myth promulgators in this tiny corner of cyber-space, to a serious approach to and understanding of reality, is negligible.
Yeah, our standards of what is accepted as valid are a lot stricter than the kooks are, tough. If you can't meet our standards maybe you should look for easier forums to fool. Your just not up to the task here, go back to the minors.
Grumpy
QUOTE
In point of fact, there lots of evidence for CD, and this has been known for a long time. So, your very question is misleading, for it's premise is a lie.
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In point of fact, there lots of evidence for CD, and this has been known for a long time. So, your very question is misleading, for it's premise is a lie. |
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
I'm quite sure that the OCT "clown car" will have the last word on this subject, for their motivation to repetitively deceive exceeds that of the truth seekers to clarify, at least on this particular forum. However, just as there are people who will insist, until their dying breaths, that the world is flat and that the earth was created , literally, in 7 days and 7 nights, the relevance of the OCT myth promulgators in this tiny corner of cyber-space, to a serious approach to and understanding of reality, is negligible.
Yeah, our standards of what is accepted as valid are a lot stricter than the kooks are, tough. If you can't meet our standards maybe you should look for easier forums to fool. Your just not up to the task here, go back to the minors.
Grumpy
QUOTE (einsteen+Apr 26 2007, 03:24 PM)
Forgive me buddy, this was just an impulsive post, don't take it to literal.... 
Oh, I wouldn’t. I just couldn’t resist since I seem to be a secular/atheist/evilutionists redneck.
Oh, I wouldn’t. I just couldn’t resist since I seem to be a secular/atheist/evilutionists redneck.
David B. Benson
Then what Robertson said is at varience with as constructed. The outer frames WERE welded into pieces, but were only bolted together during assembly, not through welded. The bolts failed when the outer frames were bent over as they fell, mostly by pulling through the steel or fracturing at the bends.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The exterior wall columns used construction bolts before the welders cam along to through weld, according to a post a bit back quoting Robertson.
Then what Robertson said is at varience with as constructed. The outer frames WERE welded into pieces, but were only bolted together during assembly, not through welded. The bolts failed when the outer frames were bent over as they fell, mostly by pulling through the steel or fracturing at the bends.
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 27 2007, 01:43 AM)
Even statements that are made in peer-reviewed papers need to be treated with skepticism.
Just because somebody, even somebody famous, published a refereed paper does not make the contents immune from criticism...
Good point.
I also suggest looking at the journal the paper is published in. Is it a well respected journal which impacts the scientific community? Their are journals of creation science because it could never publish in a real scientific journal. Are the papers in it only conspiracy theory papers. You have to ask yourself why? Have the people who wrote the papers tried to pass those same papers through a respected journal? Why not? Doesn't it mean the people who created the paper don't have any faith in it to begin with? Does the editor of the journal owe his position to the person who wrote a paper in it as with the scholar journal?
Anyone can make a journal...
http://www.jod911.com
Just because somebody, even somebody famous, published a refereed paper does not make the contents immune from criticism...
Good point.
I also suggest looking at the journal the paper is published in. Is it a well respected journal which impacts the scientific community? Their are journals of creation science because it could never publish in a real scientific journal. Are the papers in it only conspiracy theory papers. You have to ask yourself why? Have the people who wrote the papers tried to pass those same papers through a respected journal? Why not? Doesn't it mean the people who created the paper don't have any faith in it to begin with? Does the editor of the journal owe his position to the person who wrote a paper in it as with the scholar journal?
Anyone can make a journal...
http://www.jod911.com
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 27 2007, 01:33 AM)
The exterior wall columns used construction bolts before the welders cam along to through weld, according to a post a bit back quoting Robertson.
However, not so far back, shagster linked us back to a page on which NEU-FONZE referenced literature which demonstrates that mechanical action is ten times more effective than explosives in comminuting brittle materials. He estimated than holes would have to be drilled to install 600 tonnes of TNT in each tower to obtain the observed comminution by explosives.
David, I think you're referring to Robertson's statements about the truss connections.
However, not so far back, shagster linked us back to a page on which NEU-FONZE referenced literature which demonstrates that mechanical action is ten times more effective than explosives in comminuting brittle materials. He estimated than holes would have to be drilled to install 600 tonnes of TNT in each tower to obtain the observed comminution by explosives.
David, I think you're referring to Robertson's statements about the truss connections.
QUOTE
While that engineer had full access both to the drawings and to the site, it would seem that he neglected to look at either. In fact, the ‘two little bolts’ were erection bolts – with the final connection by complete penetration welds; the connection was designed to restrain the columns from buckling away from the building. At the level of the aircraft impact, for Tower A, we had designed the trusses and their connections for loads 27 times that of the normal practice, with ‘normal practice’ being defined as 2% of the axial force in the column, and 13 times for Tower B.
This article about the Citicorp building in New York City, http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500
tells how a design flaw was discovered back in 1978 that could have resulted in the destruction of the building by high winds. Imagine if the flaw had gone undetected and the building had survived for 30 years, only to be blown down in 2008 by hurricane force winds. The Internet would be abuzz with accusations of cover up and inside job, or statements like, when has any steel high rise building ever been destroyed by wind?
tells how a design flaw was discovered back in 1978 that could have resulted in the destruction of the building by high winds. Imagine if the flaw had gone undetected and the building had survived for 30 years, only to be blown down in 2008 by hurricane force winds. The Internet would be abuzz with accusations of cover up and inside job, or statements like, when has any steel high rise building ever been destroyed by wind?
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 27 2007, 11:26 AM)
This article about the Citicorp building in New York City, http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500
tells how a design flaw was discovered back in 1978 that could have resulted in the destruction of the building by high winds. Imagine if the flaw had gone undetected and the building had survived for 30 years, only to be blown down in 2008 by hurricane force winds. The Internet would be abuzz with accusations of cover up and inside job, or statements like, when has any steel high rise building ever been destroyed by wind?
Interesting article.
But if the building had collapsed, the authorities would have done a thorough forensic analysis of the debris and remains until they were damn sure they had found the root cause of the collapse. (the bolt-secured joints)
They could not have, as was done at WTC, carted off the steel at record speed without a proper investigation without a major outcry.
tells how a design flaw was discovered back in 1978 that could have resulted in the destruction of the building by high winds. Imagine if the flaw had gone undetected and the building had survived for 30 years, only to be blown down in 2008 by hurricane force winds. The Internet would be abuzz with accusations of cover up and inside job, or statements like, when has any steel high rise building ever been destroyed by wind?
Interesting article.
But if the building had collapsed, the authorities would have done a thorough forensic analysis of the debris and remains until they were damn sure they had found the root cause of the collapse. (the bolt-secured joints)
They could not have, as was done at WTC, carted off the steel at record speed without a proper investigation without a major outcry.
lozenge124
There was no major outcry because that did not happen. The debris was at Fresh Kills for months and was examined by thousands of outside investigators. And no amount of investigation would reveal things which simply do not exist, like explosives, thermite, nuclear bombs or ray guns from space. The proper investigation was completed and you just don't like the results, so you lie about the facts. It's what conspiracy nuts do
Grumpy
QUOTE
They could not have, as was done at WTC, carted off the steel at record speed without a proper investigation without a major outcry.
There was no major outcry because that did not happen. The debris was at Fresh Kills for months and was examined by thousands of outside investigators. And no amount of investigation would reveal things which simply do not exist, like explosives, thermite, nuclear bombs or ray guns from space. The proper investigation was completed and you just don't like the results, so you lie about the facts. It's what conspiracy nuts do
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 07:41 AM)
Interesting article.
But if the building had collapsed, the authorities would have done a thorough forensic analysis of the debris and remains until they were damn sure they had found the root cause of the collapse. (the bolt-secured joints)
They could not have, as was done at WTC, carted off the steel at record speed without a proper investigation without a major outcry.
BIG DIFFERENCE
In this case the CitiCorp building would have collapsed under conditions that it was CLEARLY SUPPOSED to handle.
The collapse of the WTC towers were NOT due to NORMAL conditions or for ones they were clearly designed to handle.
OF COURSE one would do a significantly different investigation, because the SITUATION would be TOTALLY different.
Troothers, of course want everyone to IGNORE the 767 at 500 Mph and the multilevel raging fires.
To the Troothers, the massive damaged caused by these jets and subsequent fires were apparently just used as a COVER for the later demolition of the towers by the previously hidden explosives within the building (or suitcase nukes, or beam weapons or Thermate or whatever bizarre thing they think of next).
The fact is that NO EVIDENCE of any explosives (or Nukes or Thermate etc) within the building have EVER been found (regardless of how much Metamars LIES about this)
Arthur
But if the building had collapsed, the authorities would have done a thorough forensic analysis of the debris and remains until they were damn sure they had found the root cause of the collapse. (the bolt-secured joints)
They could not have, as was done at WTC, carted off the steel at record speed without a proper investigation without a major outcry.
BIG DIFFERENCE
In this case the CitiCorp building would have collapsed under conditions that it was CLEARLY SUPPOSED to handle.
The collapse of the WTC towers were NOT due to NORMAL conditions or for ones they were clearly designed to handle.
OF COURSE one would do a significantly different investigation, because the SITUATION would be TOTALLY different.
Troothers, of course want everyone to IGNORE the 767 at 500 Mph and the multilevel raging fires.
To the Troothers, the massive damaged caused by these jets and subsequent fires were apparently just used as a COVER for the later demolition of the towers by the previously hidden explosives within the building (or suitcase nukes, or beam weapons or Thermate or whatever bizarre thing they think of next).
The fact is that NO EVIDENCE of any explosives (or Nukes or Thermate etc) within the building have EVER been found (regardless of how much Metamars LIES about this)
Arthur
A good scientific investigation shouldn't start with a priori conclusions, when a building collapses - whether hit by a plane or not, it's important to find out why it collapsed by collecting as much data as possible. And remember, building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, yet the evidence suffered the same fate as WTC1 & 2.
We would be in a much better position to analyze the collapses if investigators had simply taken photographs of each steel component and taken some size measurements as well as a description of the ends (broken off at bolt, welds, sliced?). Of course, that this evidence doesn't exist makes it harder to evaluate the explosives hypothesis; but slowly evidence is trickling in - for example the videos metamars recently posted of Steven Jones' analysis of metal spheres in the WTC dust.
We would be in a much better position to analyze the collapses if investigators had simply taken photographs of each steel component and taken some size measurements as well as a description of the ends (broken off at bolt, welds, sliced?). Of course, that this evidence doesn't exist makes it harder to evaluate the explosives hypothesis; but slowly evidence is trickling in - for example the videos metamars recently posted of Steven Jones' analysis of metal spheres in the WTC dust.
lozenge124
You mean like assuming it was a CD and then trying to twist the evidence to fit??? The FBI, BATF and other agencies assumed there were explosives involved when they rushed to the scene. Only after the bomb/explosives sniffing dogs found no trace was that assumption abandoned(about three weeks)and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND THEN, NOR HAS ANY BEEN FOUND SINCE, by any one, anywhere on the WTC complex.
You mean like assuming it was a CD and then trying to twist the evidence to fit??? The FBI, BATF and other agencies assumed there were explosives involved when they rushed to the scene. Only after the bomb/explosives sniffing dogs found no trace was that assumption abandoned(about three weeks)and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND THEN, NOR HAS ANY BEEN FOUND SINCE, by any one, anywhere on the WTC complex.
when a building collapses - whether hit by a plane or not, it's important to find out why it collapsed by collecting as much data as possible
That is precisely what did happen.
WTC 7, like 3, 4, 5 and 6, was hit by the falling debris and burned for 7 1/2 hours fed by over 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The fire department determined the building was in danger of falling HOURS before it fell, due to the damage and fires.
WTC 7, like 3, 4, 5 and 6, was hit by the falling debris and burned for 7 1/2 hours fed by over 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The fire department determined the building was in danger of falling HOURS before it fell, due to the damage and fires.
We would be in a much better position to analyze the collapses if investigators had simply taken photographs of each steel component and taken some size measurements as well as a description of the ends (broken off at bolt, welds, sliced?). Of course, that this evidence doesn't exist makes it harder to evaluate the explosives hypothesis; but slowly evidence is trickling in - for example the videos metamars recently posted of Steven Jones' analysis of metal spheres in the WTC dust.
You mean photos like these??? This is the collection of not just photos, but of the actual pieces NIST kept for...(wait for it)...EVIDENCE(that you lie about not existing).
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...togallery?index 7
Steven Jones is a failed cold fusion physicist who has found another job selling snake oil to the gullible saps of the "troother" movement, he makes money only in direct relationship with how outrageous he can be without slipping over the edge like Judy Wood has done. HIS SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY IS NIL, he sold it for filthy lucre, but still, he is as close to a real scientist as the tin hatters have. Between metamars, Jones and newton we have 3/4 of the ingredients for a fruitcake.
Grumpy
QUOTE
A good scientific investigation shouldn't start with a priori conclusions,
You mean like assuming it was a CD and then trying to twist the evidence to fit??? The FBI, BATF and other agencies assumed there were explosives involved when they rushed to the scene. Only after the bomb/explosives sniffing dogs found no trace was that assumption abandoned(about three weeks)and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND THEN, NOR HAS ANY BEEN FOUND SINCE, by any one, anywhere on the WTC complex.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A good scientific investigation shouldn't start with a priori conclusions, |
You mean like assuming it was a CD and then trying to twist the evidence to fit??? The FBI, BATF and other agencies assumed there were explosives involved when they rushed to the scene. Only after the bomb/explosives sniffing dogs found no trace was that assumption abandoned(about three weeks)and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed. NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND THEN, NOR HAS ANY BEEN FOUND SINCE, by any one, anywhere on the WTC complex.
when a building collapses - whether hit by a plane or not, it's important to find out why it collapsed by collecting as much data as possible
That is precisely what did happen.
QUOTE
And remember, building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, yet the evidence suffered the same fate as WTC1 & 2.
WTC 7, like 3, 4, 5 and 6, was hit by the falling debris and burned for 7 1/2 hours fed by over 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The fire department determined the building was in danger of falling HOURS before it fell, due to the damage and fires.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And remember, building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, yet the evidence suffered the same fate as WTC1 & 2. |
WTC 7, like 3, 4, 5 and 6, was hit by the falling debris and burned for 7 1/2 hours fed by over 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The fire department determined the building was in danger of falling HOURS before it fell, due to the damage and fires.
We would be in a much better position to analyze the collapses if investigators had simply taken photographs of each steel component and taken some size measurements as well as a description of the ends (broken off at bolt, welds, sliced?). Of course, that this evidence doesn't exist makes it harder to evaluate the explosives hypothesis; but slowly evidence is trickling in - for example the videos metamars recently posted of Steven Jones' analysis of metal spheres in the WTC dust.
You mean photos like these??? This is the collection of not just photos, but of the actual pieces NIST kept for...(wait for it)...EVIDENCE(that you lie about not existing).
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...togallery?index 7
Steven Jones is a failed cold fusion physicist who has found another job selling snake oil to the gullible saps of the "troother" movement, he makes money only in direct relationship with how outrageous he can be without slipping over the edge like Judy Wood has done. HIS SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY IS NIL, he sold it for filthy lucre, but still, he is as close to a real scientist as the tin hatters have. Between metamars, Jones and newton we have 3/4 of the ingredients for a fruitcake.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 10:21 AM)
We would be in a much better position to analyze the collapses if investigators had simply taken photographs of each steel component and taken some size measurements as well as a description of the ends (broken off at bolt, welds, sliced?). Of course, that this evidence doesn't exist .....
Had SIMPLY taken pictures of EACH steel component????
They don't exist because the towers alone were made up of well over 20,000 different pieces of Steel beams. Beams that were, on average ~36 ft in length. Beams that you couldn't just pick up and turn over to take your pictures of.
There was NOTHING SIMPLE about anything to do with ALL of the STEEL.
Try to keep at least somewhat in touch with REALITY.
Arthur
Had SIMPLY taken pictures of EACH steel component????
They don't exist because the towers alone were made up of well over 20,000 different pieces of Steel beams. Beams that were, on average ~36 ft in length. Beams that you couldn't just pick up and turn over to take your pictures of.
There was NOTHING SIMPLE about anything to do with ALL of the STEEL.
Try to keep at least somewhat in touch with REALITY.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 27 2007, 05:40 PM)
Had SIMPLY taken pictures of EACH steel component????
They don't exist because the towers alone were made up of well over 20,000 different pieces of Steel beams. Beams that were, on average ~36 ft in length. Beams that you couldn't just pick up and turn over to take your pictures of.
There was NOTHING SIMPLE about anything to do with ALL of the STEEL.
Try to keep at least somewhat in touch with REALITY.
Arthur
Is it just me, or are adoucette's posts making less and less sense?
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
They don't exist because the towers alone were made up of well over 20,000 different pieces of Steel beams. Beams that were, on average ~36 ft in length. Beams that you couldn't just pick up and turn over to take your pictures of.
There was NOTHING SIMPLE about anything to do with ALL of the STEEL.
Try to keep at least somewhat in touch with REALITY.
Arthur
Is it just me, or are adoucette's posts making less and less sense?
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
lozenge124
Oh, it's just you, adoucette is making the same good common sense we have come to expect from him.
Oh, it's just you, adoucette is making the same good common sense we have come to expect from him.
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
In the case of flight 800 there was a NEED for such detailed reassembly in order to determine the cause of the explosion. In the case of the WTC buildings the cause was easily determined once explosives were completely ruled out. The steel was segregated and examined at Fresh Kills. Those pieces NIST could unambiguously identify as having been involved with the impacts and fires were kept, the rest was just scrap.
Again I would point you to the hangar at JFK where these item are still kept...
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=55
Grumpy
I'm pretty sure Ryan was referring to retribution in the temporal sense of this lifetime. In my view, the government is so corrupt and the people are so jaded and/or demoralized, that the chances of such "retribution" in the near future are not good. E.g., I heard a recent interview of Noam Chomsky (see democracynow.org) wherein he cited a poll that said that about 1/3 of Americans believe that the Bush Administration was behind 911, and don't care. (Unfortunately, he didn't give details.)
But pursuing retribution, per se, would not be a very enlightened attitude, now would it? Pursuing justice is the noble goal, not retribution, even if the results look the same to the guilty parties. And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change. We can't bring the dead back to life. And even if 10 or 20 people get thrown in jail for treason, if the system remains corrupt, what is to prevent another 911 from happening the very next day?
As for retribution in the long run, wherein one experiences the just fruits of one's actions, delivered by the Divine, or Divine Law, now that's a different matter. I think that you and I might agree that "God is not mocked." But I also believe that one can only learn from one's own experiences, which are fraught with errors. And furthermore, if one can't feel compassion and hope for evil-doers, one has not only missed the point of the New Testament, but will also lack compassion for oneself.
I would much prefer a South Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" approach to the murderers.
My original thought about retribution was concerning the eternal aspect (which is something everyone needs to consider).
I agree with everything in your post except for one small thing, your statement: "And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change". Regarding justice, God tells us from His word:
TO DO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE
IS DESIRED BY THE LORD MORE THAN SACRIFICE
But your insight into change is great. Yes, it is vital to learn from our mistakes and make appropriate changes, for with God's help, this is the very essence in controlling our lives.
Thanks, metamars.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
Rest easy, criticalthinker.
Your money and property are safe.
Only because we know he wouldn't pay up.
Otherwise he'd be bankrupt tomorrow.
Of course that assumes he has enough money to make it worth the effort.
But since most people who believe this BS have only a HS education, my guess is he doesn't.
Arthur
don't feed it!
QUOTE
Is it just me, or are adoucette's posts making less and less sense?
Oh, it's just you, adoucette is making the same good common sense we have come to expect from him.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it just me, or are adoucette's posts making less and less sense? |
Oh, it's just you, adoucette is making the same good common sense we have come to expect from him.
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
In the case of flight 800 there was a NEED for such detailed reassembly in order to determine the cause of the explosion. In the case of the WTC buildings the cause was easily determined once explosives were completely ruled out. The steel was segregated and examined at Fresh Kills. Those pieces NIST could unambiguously identify as having been involved with the impacts and fires were kept, the rest was just scrap.
Again I would point you to the hangar at JFK where these item are still kept...
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=55
Grumpy
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 23 2007, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE
(quicknthedead @ Apr 23 2007, 12:13 AM)
Thanks, metamars. Excellent piece by Kevin Ryan.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
Thanks, metamars. Excellent piece by Kevin Ryan.
Here is a cogent sentence he wrote: "Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution."
This is something they should dwell upon.
THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM
I'm pretty sure Ryan was referring to retribution in the temporal sense of this lifetime. In my view, the government is so corrupt and the people are so jaded and/or demoralized, that the chances of such "retribution" in the near future are not good. E.g., I heard a recent interview of Noam Chomsky (see democracynow.org) wherein he cited a poll that said that about 1/3 of Americans believe that the Bush Administration was behind 911, and don't care. (Unfortunately, he didn't give details.)
But pursuing retribution, per se, would not be a very enlightened attitude, now would it? Pursuing justice is the noble goal, not retribution, even if the results look the same to the guilty parties. And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change. We can't bring the dead back to life. And even if 10 or 20 people get thrown in jail for treason, if the system remains corrupt, what is to prevent another 911 from happening the very next day?
As for retribution in the long run, wherein one experiences the just fruits of one's actions, delivered by the Divine, or Divine Law, now that's a different matter. I think that you and I might agree that "God is not mocked." But I also believe that one can only learn from one's own experiences, which are fraught with errors. And furthermore, if one can't feel compassion and hope for evil-doers, one has not only missed the point of the New Testament, but will also lack compassion for oneself.
I would much prefer a South Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" approach to the murderers.
My original thought about retribution was concerning the eternal aspect (which is something everyone needs to consider).
I agree with everything in your post except for one small thing, your statement: "And more important than pursuing justice is pursuing change". Regarding justice, God tells us from His word:
TO DO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUSTICE
IS DESIRED BY THE LORD MORE THAN SACRIFICE
But your insight into change is great. Yes, it is vital to learn from our mistakes and make appropriate changes, for with God's help, this is the very essence in controlling our lives.
Thanks, metamars.
FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
QUOTE (criticalthinker+Apr 24 2007, 03:28 PM)
re: Palpatane
It does not matter how light or how thick an intact piece of concrete is!
When it compression fails it turns into sand sized particles.
If you want to turn them into a 50 micron sized powder, you must either grind it with abrasives, blow it up with explosives, or chemically react away the most of the concrete until only 50 micron sized particles are left.
I repeat - if anybody can figure out a way to turn an intact piece of concrete into a 50 micron sized powder in less than 15 seconds using gravity and weight alone, I will give everything I own to them, even though they would not need it, since they would have a billion dollar patent for replacing abrasives in industry!
Rest easy, criticalthinker.
Your money and property are safe.
It does not matter how light or how thick an intact piece of concrete is!
When it compression fails it turns into sand sized particles.
If you want to turn them into a 50 micron sized powder, you must either grind it with abrasives, blow it up with explosives, or chemically react away the most of the concrete until only 50 micron sized particles are left.
I repeat - if anybody can figure out a way to turn an intact piece of concrete into a 50 micron sized powder in less than 15 seconds using gravity and weight alone, I will give everything I own to them, even though they would not need it, since they would have a billion dollar patent for replacing abrasives in industry!
Rest easy, criticalthinker.
Your money and property are safe.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 12:45 PM)
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
They DIDN'T reconstruct the 747.
They mainly just placed pieces of its painted aluminum skin on a chickenwire frame.
They quickly focused in on the Center fuel tank and the majority of their effort then focused on that portion of the plane.
Even so it took about 200 people 2 months to do it and at a cost of $900,000.
Trying to get a complete photographic inventory of the steel from the WTC towers would have been a much larger project and certainly wouldn't have been worth that large of a percent of what NIST had to spend on the study.
Read NIST NCSTAR 1-3B Chapter 2 for an idea of how much effort went into it.
Arthur
They DIDN'T reconstruct the 747.
They mainly just placed pieces of its painted aluminum skin on a chickenwire frame.
They quickly focused in on the Center fuel tank and the majority of their effort then focused on that portion of the plane.
Even so it took about 200 people 2 months to do it and at a cost of $900,000.
Trying to get a complete photographic inventory of the steel from the WTC towers would have been a much larger project and certainly wouldn't have been worth that large of a percent of what NIST had to spend on the study.
Read NIST NCSTAR 1-3B Chapter 2 for an idea of how much effort went into it.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 27 2007, 02:16 PM)
Rest easy, criticalthinker.
Your money and property are safe.
Only because we know he wouldn't pay up.
Otherwise he'd be bankrupt tomorrow.
Of course that assumes he has enough money to make it worth the effort.
But since most people who believe this BS have only a HS education, my guess is he doesn't.
Arthur
Sonic booms?
I recently read a suggestion that (some of) the explosive sounds during the collapse of the towers was due to sonic booms generated by moving the acre of air rapidly out of the way of the crushing front. Towards the end of crush-down the crushing front was descending at about 50 m/s which gives only about 75 milliseconds to remove the air from one story. The argument is that some of this movement is supersonic, hence booms.
Comments, please...
I recently read a suggestion that (some of) the explosive sounds during the collapse of the towers was due to sonic booms generated by moving the acre of air rapidly out of the way of the crushing front. Towards the end of crush-down the crushing front was descending at about 50 m/s which gives only about 75 milliseconds to remove the air from one story. The argument is that some of this movement is supersonic, hence booms.
Comments, please...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 27 2007, 10:10 PM)
Sonic booms?
I recently read a suggestion that (some of) the explosive sounds during the collapse of the towers was due to sonic booms generated by moving the acre of air rapidly out of the way of the crushing front. Towards the end of crush-down the crushing front was descending at about 50 m/s which gives only about 75 milliseconds to remove the air from one story. The argument is that some of this movement is supersonic, hence booms.
Comments, please...
David, some of these purported sounds occured 10-20 seconds before the collapse. Are you suggesting enough movement may have occurred prior to the collapse to cause these sounds? Also these sounds were heard in locations miles away, but not in locations hundreds of feet away.
I recently read a suggestion that (some of) the explosive sounds during the collapse of the towers was due to sonic booms generated by moving the acre of air rapidly out of the way of the crushing front. Towards the end of crush-down the crushing front was descending at about 50 m/s which gives only about 75 milliseconds to remove the air from one story. The argument is that some of this movement is supersonic, hence booms.
Comments, please...
David, some of these purported sounds occured 10-20 seconds before the collapse. Are you suggesting enough movement may have occurred prior to the collapse to cause these sounds? Also these sounds were heard in locations miles away, but not in locations hundreds of feet away.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 27 2007, 10:43 PM)
David, some of these purported sounds occured[sic] 10-20 seconds before the collapse. Are you suggesting enough movement may have occurred prior to the collapse to cause these sounds? Also these sounds were heard in locations miles away, but not in locations hundreds of feet away.
Not sonic booms, then. But there was ample interior deterioration occurring for some sounds to be produced. For example, partial floor collapses.
And I do not believe something heard miles away, but not nearby, had anything whatsoever to do with the towers.
Not sonic booms, then. But there was ample interior deterioration occurring for some sounds to be produced. For example, partial floor collapses.
And I do not believe something heard miles away, but not nearby, had anything whatsoever to do with the towers.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 27 2007, 02:16 AM)
metamars
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Yeah, our standards of what is accepted as valid are a lot stricter than the kooks are, tough. If you can't meet our standards maybe you should look for easier forums to fool. Your just not up to the task here, go back to the minors.
Grumpy
Whoa, look at this: Grumpy calling other people liars!!!! It is raining cats and dogs! Grumpy calls everyone else a kook, and all he can present as his "evidence" is a fraudulent NIST report and an uninformed public opinion. I truly hope Metamars and others will not fall for this pathetic tactic, as it has been used since the first pages of this and the Pentagon thread. Metemars is by far one of the most objective and fair posters on this thread. All Grumpy has brought to the table is colossal BS and name calling. Follow Grumpys' posts and you will see how weak his stance(s) truly are. I would offer the advice of ignoring his posts, but I'm sure he will be back under a different screen name, they always do.
Then you should have no trouble whatsoever showing us some of this alleged evidence. If you cannot you are simply a liar, and a very inept one at that.
Of course either you or the FBI,BATF, Bomb sniffing dogs, CD experts on the scene, rescue workers, firemen, etc. are lying because, to a man, they say there was no explosives evidence found.
As to what anyone says they heard, they are simply mistaken, misquoted or lying. There is absolutely no audio evidence of the sharp cracks explosives produce. Loud noises do not explosives indicate.
In short, metamars, you are lying if you say there has ever been ANY valid evidence of CD anywhere on the WTC site. No explosively cut columns, no explosives residues, no det cord remnants, no timers or detonators, no cutting charge channels, no ANYTHING to indicate the use of explosives.
I'm sick and tired of you tinhat wearing pseudoscietific cretins spreading your lies in this forum. They have whole forums out in the kookasphere where you can propose this kind of baseless crap all you like and have it be accepted, BUT NOT HERE. Here we require real evidence and so far you have produced none. So dud1 is just as credible as you are!!!
IT'S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Yeah, our standards of what is accepted as valid are a lot stricter than the kooks are, tough. If you can't meet our standards maybe you should look for easier forums to fool. Your just not up to the task here, go back to the minors.
Grumpy
Whoa, look at this: Grumpy calling other people liars!!!! It is raining cats and dogs! Grumpy calls everyone else a kook, and all he can present as his "evidence" is a fraudulent NIST report and an uninformed public opinion. I truly hope Metamars and others will not fall for this pathetic tactic, as it has been used since the first pages of this and the Pentagon thread. Metemars is by far one of the most objective and fair posters on this thread. All Grumpy has brought to the table is colossal BS and name calling. Follow Grumpys' posts and you will see how weak his stance(s) truly are. I would offer the advice of ignoring his posts, but I'm sure he will be back under a different screen name, they always do.
don't feed it!
Amazing how Grumpy can post stuff like this without upchucking on his keyboard from the overwhelming sense of shame and irony:
The only thing I can come up with is compensation trumps embarrassment.
QUOTE
Yeah, our standards of what is accepted as valid are a lot stricter than the kooks are, tough. If you can't meet our standards maybe you should look for easier forums to fool. Your just not up to the task here, go back to the minors.
The only thing I can come up with is compensation trumps embarrassment.
Oh look, RS is back.
Wonder what he has to say?
Nothing.
Again.
YAWN
Arthur
Wonder what he has to say?
Nothing.
Again.
YAWN
Arthur
David,
50 m/s is essentially free fall, is it not? My rudimentary math abilities put that at around 110mph, close enough to terminal velocity free fall speed in skydiving to call it even.
It means the crushing front moving down through the building was falling as fast as the air would allow, especially since the air was at least somewhat confined by the outer walls (as per the grumpster if I understood what he was saying a page or two ago), and therefore creating a bit more resistance than had the crushing mass been falling through unconstrained air like the materials on the outside of the building. I can see where that could make a lot of noise, but not a sonic boom. It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by the fact that this material could fall through a building as fast as it could fall through air. Those towers had to be some cheap ***, poorly built pieces of crap, no?
50 m/s is essentially free fall, is it not? My rudimentary math abilities put that at around 110mph, close enough to terminal velocity free fall speed in skydiving to call it even.
It means the crushing front moving down through the building was falling as fast as the air would allow, especially since the air was at least somewhat confined by the outer walls (as per the grumpster if I understood what he was saying a page or two ago), and therefore creating a bit more resistance than had the crushing mass been falling through unconstrained air like the materials on the outside of the building. I can see where that could make a lot of noise, but not a sonic boom. It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by the fact that this material could fall through a building as fast as it could fall through air. Those towers had to be some cheap ***, poorly built pieces of crap, no?
roves shill
So I can safely assume you are a tin hat wearing, no evidence finding, logic bereft, intelligence challenged and know nothing sack of fruitcake batter just like dad1, newton, metamars and Jones??? Not to mention notsoquick(really, don't mention "firetruck", he starts foaming at the mouth).
Your chosen name is only half right, you are a shill, but Osama is the one you guys are following and giving a free pass to when you call loyal Americans "in on it" or accuse us of being murderers. Talk about name calling!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
Whoa, look at this:... Blah, blah, blah
So I can safely assume you are a tin hat wearing, no evidence finding, logic bereft, intelligence challenged and know nothing sack of fruitcake batter just like dad1, newton, metamars and Jones??? Not to mention notsoquick(really, don't mention "firetruck", he starts foaming at the mouth).
Your chosen name is only half right, you are a shill, but Osama is the one you guys are following and giving a free pass to when you call loyal Americans "in on it" or accuse us of being murderers. Talk about name calling!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (forthetrees+Apr 27 2007, 11:22 PM)
50 m/s is essentially free fall, is it not?
It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
Terminal speed depends on several factors. For skydivers it is 54 m/s. For large iron spheres it is about 110 m/s. The towers never began to approach their own terminal speed.
I am sure that all the windows are blown out as soon as the crushing front enters that particular story, if not before. Near the beginning of the part 2 thread I worked out just how little it took to overpressurize each story to blow the windows.
The towers stood jus' fine for 30 years or so. But the towers were not designed to have large weights falling into them.
=============
To correct my previous post, each story contained about twelve acre-feet of air.
It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
Terminal speed depends on several factors. For skydivers it is 54 m/s. For large iron spheres it is about 110 m/s. The towers never began to approach their own terminal speed.
I am sure that all the windows are blown out as soon as the crushing front enters that particular story, if not before. Near the beginning of the part 2 thread I worked out just how little it took to overpressurize each story to blow the windows.
The towers stood jus' fine for 30 years or so. But the towers were not designed to have large weights falling into them.
=============
To correct my previous post, each story contained about twelve acre-feet of air.
QUOTE
forthetrees
No, it is about 2/3 of freefall.
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
It means the crushing front moving down through the building was falling as fast as the air would allow, especially since the air was at least somewhat confined by the outer walls (as per the grumpster if I understood what he was saying a page or two ago), and therefore creating a bit more resistance than had the crushing mass been falling through unconstrained air like the materials on the outside of the building. I can see where that could make a lot of noise, but not a sonic boom. It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by the fact that this material could fall through a building as fast as it could fall through air. Those towers had to be some cheap ***, poorly built pieces of crap, no?
Once again, the buildings fell at ~ 2/3 g, not as fast as through air. A good portion of the windows WERE blown out, and supersonic airflows are not out of the realm of the possible. The rubble falling inside the building was seen in many videos to be ahead of the main collapse front BECAUSE of the windows and debris being expelled in a progressive fashion preceeded the collapse front. Even the firemen who said it sounded like "boom,boom,boom..." gestured with their hands that they meant one floor falling on another(not, as misrepresented by "troothers", the explosion of bombs)
No buildings on Earth(outside those in a bunker) are built to withstand the kind of forces unleashed by that collapse. Once it passed through 1 floor the energy available was more than 10 times that required to continue, and with every second of further acceleration the situation only got worse.
Grumpy .
Even the firemen who said it sounded like "boom,boom,boom..." gestured with their hands that they meant one floor falling on another(not, as misrepresented by "troothers", the explosion of bombs)
Grumpy .
they specifically said "like detonations, ....boom,boom,boom, boom"
listen to this, people...the sound of an explosion at the towers on 911
listen to the firefighters yourself...like detonations(youtube link)
and then join the 'troothers' in the pursuit of justice!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| forthetrees 50 m/s is essentially free fall, is it not? |
No, it is about 2/3 of freefall.
QUOTE
My rudimentary math abilities put that at around 110mph, close enough to terminal velocity free fall speed in skydiving to call it even.
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My rudimentary math abilities put that at around 110mph, close enough to terminal velocity free fall speed in skydiving to call it even. |
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
It means the crushing front moving down through the building was falling as fast as the air would allow, especially since the air was at least somewhat confined by the outer walls (as per the grumpster if I understood what he was saying a page or two ago), and therefore creating a bit more resistance than had the crushing mass been falling through unconstrained air like the materials on the outside of the building. I can see where that could make a lot of noise, but not a sonic boom. It also seems that that much air getting pushed by that much mass that fast would blow out dozens, if not all, of the windows on each side of the building...not just the few of the here-n-there squib type things visible in the videos.
I continue to be amazed and perplexed by the fact that this material could fall through a building as fast as it could fall through air. Those towers had to be some cheap ***, poorly built pieces of crap, no?
Once again, the buildings fell at ~ 2/3 g, not as fast as through air. A good portion of the windows WERE blown out, and supersonic airflows are not out of the realm of the possible. The rubble falling inside the building was seen in many videos to be ahead of the main collapse front BECAUSE of the windows and debris being expelled in a progressive fashion preceeded the collapse front. Even the firemen who said it sounded like "boom,boom,boom..." gestured with their hands that they meant one floor falling on another(not, as misrepresented by "troothers", the explosion of bombs)
No buildings on Earth(outside those in a bunker) are built to withstand the kind of forces unleashed by that collapse. Once it passed through 1 floor the energy available was more than 10 times that required to continue, and with every second of further acceleration the situation only got worse.
Grumpy
.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 27 2007, 11:22 PM)
roves shill
So I can safely assume you are a tin hat wearing, no evidence finding, logic bereft, intelligence challenged and know nothing sack of fruitcake batter just like dad1, newton, metamars and Jones??? Not to mention notsoquick(really, don't mention "firetruck", he starts foaming at the mouth).
Your chosen name is only half right, you are a shill, but Osama is the one you guys are following and giving a free pass to when you call loyal Americans "in on it" or accuse us of being murderers. Talk about name calling!!!
Grumpy
squawk. grumpy wanna cracker?
"no evidence, squawk."
"NADA,ZILCH,NOTHING,SQUAWK!"
"tin hats, kooks, squawk!"
polly is a cracker.
the feces WILL(and is) hit(ting) the fan. killing a president is one thing, but killing an entire belief system is not so easy.
may america re-establish it's roots, and shirk the yoke of the oligarchy.
So I can safely assume you are a tin hat wearing, no evidence finding, logic bereft, intelligence challenged and know nothing sack of fruitcake batter just like dad1, newton, metamars and Jones??? Not to mention notsoquick(really, don't mention "firetruck", he starts foaming at the mouth).
Your chosen name is only half right, you are a shill, but Osama is the one you guys are following and giving a free pass to when you call loyal Americans "in on it" or accuse us of being murderers. Talk about name calling!!!
Grumpy
squawk. grumpy wanna cracker?
"no evidence, squawk."
"NADA,ZILCH,NOTHING,SQUAWK!"
"tin hats, kooks, squawk!"
polly is a cracker.
the feces WILL(and is) hit(ting) the fan. killing a president is one thing, but killing an entire belief system is not so easy.
may america re-establish it's roots, and shirk the yoke of the oligarchy.
Sonic boom calculation --- A particle of air just at the boundary between the core and the long trussed floor has to travel 18.3 meters to reach a window, assuming a straight line. (I assume that the air in the core escaped downwards through the voids in the core.) So to reach a window in 0.075 seconds requires an average speed of 244 m/s. The speed of sound at sea level is 344 m/s. Assuming a constant acceleration for the particle of air, ignoring compressibility and shock fronts, its maximum speed, at the window, would be 488 m/s, definitely supersonic.
So by this rough calculation, sonic booms are a possibility.
So by this rough calculation, sonic booms are a possibility.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 27 2007, 11:49 PM)
Even the firemen who said it sounded like "boom,boom,boom..." gestured with their hands that they meant one floor falling on another(not, as misrepresented by "troothers", the explosion of bombs)
Grumpy
. they specifically said "like detonations, ....boom,boom,boom, boom"
listen to this, people...the sound of an explosion at the towers on 911
listen to the firefighters yourself...like detonations(youtube link)
and then join the 'troothers' in the pursuit of justice!
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few firemen discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…
In the context of reading it on a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying “detonated” and “they had planned to take down a building”. They even say “Boom” to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they‟re saying, view their body language and consider the context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom…
then join the "troothers" in their sleazy attempts to misrepresent the truth
Grumpy
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…
In the context of reading it on a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying “detonated” and “they had planned to take down a building”. They even say “Boom” to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they‟re saying, view their body language and consider the context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom…
then join the "troothers" in their sleazy attempts to misrepresent the truth
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 28 2007, 12:33 AM)
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few firemen discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…
In the context of reading it on a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying “detonated” and “they had planned to take down a building”. They even say “Boom” to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they‟re saying, view their body language and consider the context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom…
then join the "troothers" in their sleazy attempts to misrepresent the truth
Grumpy
kettle, meet black. black, kettle.
oh, yeah. no hand wave for the explosion we hear clearly on the other video i linked to?
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out …
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det…
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom…
In the context of reading it on a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying “detonated” and “they had planned to take down a building”. They even say “Boom” to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they‟re saying, view their body language and consider the context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is “As if”. “As if they had planned to take down a building”. “It was as if as if they had detonated”. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom…
then join the "troothers" in their sleazy attempts to misrepresent the truth
Grumpy
kettle, meet black. black, kettle.
oh, yeah. no hand wave for the explosion we hear clearly on the other video i linked to?
newton
It's been five+ years, newton. Everyone has seen(and heard) all the videos, it's just too late in the game to be faking explosive sounds onto old videos and it be believed. If such sounds had been on the original they would have been on ALL of the videos, but they are not, just the doctored one you point us to. Besides, loud sounds do not explosives indicate, all explosives leave physical clues behind, except of course for that magical stuff the thermite fairies use, huh, newton.
Grumpy
QUOTE
oh, yeah. no hand wave for the explosion we hear clearly on the other video i linked to?
It's been five+ years, newton. Everyone has seen(and heard) all the videos, it's just too late in the game to be faking explosive sounds onto old videos and it be believed. If such sounds had been on the original they would have been on ALL of the videos, but they are not, just the doctored one you point us to. Besides, loud sounds do not explosives indicate, all explosives leave physical clues behind, except of course for that magical stuff the thermite fairies use, huh, newton.
Grumpy
QUOTE
newton,Apr 27 2007, 04:56 PM]
You said it, newton, this seems to be all we ever hear from Grumpy these days. You could have also mentioned his famous, "You're a liar!"
But here Grumpy is talking again about the buildings coming down.
So on that note, and I know this has been discussed before, below is a link to an item at 911research.com that shows the antenna on WTC1 going down into the building's core BEFORE the collapse occurs.
BUT THE NICE THING ABOUT THIS VIDEO IS YOU GET TO MOVE IT FRAME-BY-FRAME.
I don't know if this has been seen before on this forum, but I saw it for the first time last night, so I thought I'd share it.
Going frame-by-frame (and you can go back and forth), when you go from
frame 06 03:00
to
frame 07 03:15,
the antenna plunges unmistakably an estimated 10-feet into the building's core while the rest of the building sits there pretty as you please, not moving an inch.
Then on the next frame, 08 04:00, the rest of the building goes.
That little puppy of an antenna moved all by itself and "collapse initiation" hadn't even begun!?!
Say what?
{Golly, gee-whiz, Batman! Can we explain this?}
Don't say it was "the angle of the camera"; that won't work this time.
So go ahead, have some fun, play with the frames. Let's see you explain this away, this little tin-foil party favor sitting on top of your 9/11 OCT-a-cake.
(Be sure you use your best OCT-a-wuss program algorithm when you do it.)
If this has been hashed over before, no matter; I'd still like to look at your "explanations".
Tell you what. I'll start. My explanation is...ka-pow explosion!.
Here's the link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
Thanks.
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
BUT I SAY TO YOU
BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD
AND OBSERVE IT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| newton,Apr 27 2007, 04:56 PM] (Grumpy @ Apr 27 2007, 11:22 PM) roves shill So I can safely assume you are a tin hat wearing, no evidence finding, logic bereft, intelligence challenged and know nothing sack of fruitcake batter just like dad1, newton, metamars and Jones??? Not to mention notsoquick(really, don't mention "firetruck", he starts foaming at the mouth). Your chosen name is only half right, you are a shill, but Osama is the one you guys are following and giving a free pass to when you call loyal Americans "in on it" or accuse us of being murderers. Talk about name calling!!! Grumpy cool.gif squawk. grumpy wanna cracker? "no evidence, squawk." "NADA,ZILCH,NOTHING,SQUAWK!" "tin hats, kooks, squawk!" polly is a cracker. the feces WILL(and is) hit(ting) the fan. killing a president is one thing, but killing an entire belief system is not so easy. may america re-establish it's roots, and shirk the yoke of the oligarchy. |
You said it, newton, this seems to be all we ever hear from Grumpy these days. You could have also mentioned his famous, "You're a liar!"
But here Grumpy is talking again about the buildings coming down.
So on that note, and I know this has been discussed before, below is a link to an item at 911research.com that shows the antenna on WTC1 going down into the building's core BEFORE the collapse occurs.
BUT THE NICE THING ABOUT THIS VIDEO IS YOU GET TO MOVE IT FRAME-BY-FRAME.
I don't know if this has been seen before on this forum, but I saw it for the first time last night, so I thought I'd share it.
Going frame-by-frame (and you can go back and forth), when you go from
frame 06 03:00
to
frame 07 03:15,
the antenna plunges unmistakably an estimated 10-feet into the building's core while the rest of the building sits there pretty as you please, not moving an inch.
Then on the next frame, 08 04:00, the rest of the building goes.
That little puppy of an antenna moved all by itself and "collapse initiation" hadn't even begun!?!
Say what?
{Golly, gee-whiz, Batman! Can we explain this?}
Don't say it was "the angle of the camera"; that won't work this time.
So go ahead, have some fun, play with the frames. Let's see you explain this away, this little tin-foil party favor sitting on top of your 9/11 OCT-a-cake.
(Be sure you use your best OCT-a-wuss program algorithm when you do it.)
If this has been hashed over before, no matter; I'd still like to look at your "explanations".
Tell you what. I'll start. My explanation is...ka-pow explosion!.
Here's the link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
Thanks.
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
BUT I SAY TO YOU
BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD
AND OBSERVE IT
Q-n-D --- As has been explained many times, the top block of WTC 1 tilted to the south, away from the camera. About 8 degrees of arc. Not much, is it? But the antenna tower, in the center of the building, makes that 8 degrees visible.
Simple geometry...
Simple geometry...
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 05:45 PM)
Is it just me, or are adoucette's posts making less and less sense?
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
If the TWA Flight 800 disaster had occurred in daylight over New York City in front of thousands of witnesses, and the whole event was caught on video tape, then all of the missile theories could be laid to rest, and the cause would have been narrowed down to system failures or sabotage. An additional comparison to the WTC events would be the documentation of the root cause the disaster. In the case of the twin towers, the obvious root cause was the plane impacts and the resultant damage to the towers. In the case of Flight 800, an on board video record of the crew cabin and baggage hold would have provided similar insight.
Unfortunately, accident reconstruction for a 100 story skyscraper is not comparable to aircraft examples. I'm not sure if this has been done, but you could take a pair of decommissioned 747s at a cost of $100k a piece, and do a live destructive test of each explosion scenario. What a bargain. Now if we could only get some representative designs of the trade towers towed out to the desert for testing.
If investigators were able to reconstruct TWA800 after it exploded and fell to the bottom of the Atlantic, you'd think they'd be able to do some kind of inventory of the WTC steel. Even just knowing the lengths would have been useful.
If the TWA Flight 800 disaster had occurred in daylight over New York City in front of thousands of witnesses, and the whole event was caught on video tape, then all of the missile theories could be laid to rest, and the cause would have been narrowed down to system failures or sabotage. An additional comparison to the WTC events would be the documentation of the root cause the disaster. In the case of the twin towers, the obvious root cause was the plane impacts and the resultant damage to the towers. In the case of Flight 800, an on board video record of the crew cabin and baggage hold would have provided similar insight.
Unfortunately, accident reconstruction for a 100 story skyscraper is not comparable to aircraft examples. I'm not sure if this has been done, but you could take a pair of decommissioned 747s at a cost of $100k a piece, and do a live destructive test of each explosion scenario. What a bargain. Now if we could only get some representative designs of the trade towers towed out to the desert for testing.
QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 28 2007, 02:13 AM)
Unfortunately, accident reconstruction for a 100 story skyscraper is not comparable to aircraft examples. I'm not sure if this has been done, but you could take a pair of decommissioned 747s at a cost of $100k a piece, and do a live destructive test of each explosion scenario. What a bargain. Now if we could only get some representative designs of the trade towers towed out to the desert for testing.
Flying 747's into a building model or reconstruction would be one hell of an experiment for sure. But personally, I'd be satisfied with seeing anyone achieve a "progressive" collapse on a scale model of the WTC or even a computer model with the initial conditions/damage of their choice (with prerequisite that the lower 80 floors or so must be intact). In spite of all the E1/Bazant Zhou etc hand-waving in this forum, it's extremely hard to get any structure to exhibit this kind of behavior in a gravity driven collapse.
Jim Hoffman at 911 research actually has a challenge on exactly this at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html (as I've mentioned before, but noone has yet taken it up)
Flying 747's into a building model or reconstruction would be one hell of an experiment for sure. But personally, I'd be satisfied with seeing anyone achieve a "progressive" collapse on a scale model of the WTC or even a computer model with the initial conditions/damage of their choice (with prerequisite that the lower 80 floors or so must be intact). In spite of all the E1/Bazant Zhou etc hand-waving in this forum, it's extremely hard to get any structure to exhibit this kind of behavior in a gravity driven collapse.
Jim Hoffman at 911 research actually has a challenge on exactly this at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html (as I've mentioned before, but noone has yet taken it up)
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 27 2007, 08:53 PM)
And 9/11 WAS an inside job.
What is friggin amazing is though EVERY ONE of Not so Quick's supposed "proofs" of inside involvement has been shown to be FALSE he is STILL, even in the TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, convinced that it was in fact, an inside job.
Which means that he is simply trying to peddle another of his unfounded beliefs, this one is simply the "9/11 Religion".
lol:
I can almost hear him now: "Praise be to St Atta" as he passes the collection plate amongst a motley collection of HS dropouts wearing Loose Change Version 4 T-shirts.
Arthur
What is friggin amazing is though EVERY ONE of Not so Quick's supposed "proofs" of inside involvement has been shown to be FALSE he is STILL, even in the TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, convinced that it was in fact, an inside job.
Which means that he is simply trying to peddle another of his unfounded beliefs, this one is simply the "9/11 Religion".
lol:
I can almost hear him now: "Praise be to St Atta" as he passes the collection plate amongst a motley collection of HS dropouts wearing Loose Change Version 4 T-shirts.
Arthur
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 09:52 PM)
But personally, I'd be satisfied with seeing anyone achieve a "progressive" collapse on a scale model of the WTC or even a computer model with the initial conditions/damage of their choice (with prerequisite that the lower 80 floors or so must be intact).
Get used to disappointment.
Gravity doesn't scale.
Arthur
Get used to disappointment.
Gravity doesn't scale.
Arthur
David & Grumps,
you guys said:
For large iron spheres it is about 110 m/s. The towers never began to approach their own terminal speed.
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
==========
OK, fine. But first of all I have to ask if you are saying that the material in the collapes wave was shaped like a sphere? If so, then the furthest/lowest point would be in the middle of the bottom side which would have it ripping through the core first & fastest...through the strongest part of the building which was undamaged until hit by the collapese wave, and progressively growing in size and strength. I don't think that's what you've been describing with all the equations.
My impression is that you guys have been describing each successive floor dropping down onto the floor beneath it...pancake like, but not really a pancake collapse. So I fail to see where the example of an iron sphere applies to the situation we are discussing. If you took that same iron sphere and flattened it out to the thickness and area of the floor pans, it probably won't have the same termial velocity as it would as a compact sphere. And, especially not if the air beneath it were constrained to some extent by a surface/tube around it which restricted how fast the air beneath it could escape.
If that's the case, then you have to talk about the entire surface area of the falling mass, not just it's weight. So, how does a ship made out of steel float, anyway? Drop an iron sphere in water and it'll sink everytime. Therefore, anything made out of iron cannot float. Oh wait, iron boats do float.
At terminal velocity, air resistance equals the pull of gravity and an object cannot fall any faster...unless something changes - like its orientation. A balled up piece of paper will fall faster than a flat piece of paper even though they both weigh exactly the same. I guess in physics terms you'd say they both have the same mass. (that's about the extent of my knowledge of physics...just wanted to work it into a post)
Grumps has pointed out to me that this collapse mass was contained within the outer walls which did not fall to their positions outside the footprint until after the collapes wave had passed. If you are going to work on some equations to determine how fast the collapse mass was falling relative to terminal velocity, don't you have to factor in the additional air pressure created by the fact that the air below the collapse wave was contained?
If I pull the plunger out of a bicycle air pump and drop it, will it fall at the same rate as it will when I place it back in the pump cylinder? I don't think so.
Grumps suggested the other day that I google: shotgun to understand how a loose mass could behave like a solid mass. I found that an interesting suggestion and did so. The main thing I came away with is that with the towers' collapse we have gravity as an energy source. A gravity powered shotgun just doesn't have the same impact as one powered by oh say...some sort of explosion. So...I probably missed the point you wanted me to get with that one.
you guys said:
For large iron spheres it is about 110 m/s. The towers never began to approach their own terminal speed.
You are aware, are you not, that the terminal velocity of a piece of steel is MUCH faster than the terminal velocity of a human in a spread Eagle position??? It has to do with the density/surface ratio, air density and aerodynamic coefficient(flat plate~ 1.0, fighter plane in a dive~.15). The rubble falling from the towers was nowhere near terminal velocity for such dense materials.
==========
OK, fine. But first of all I have to ask if you are saying that the material in the collapes wave was shaped like a sphere? If so, then the furthest/lowest point would be in the middle of the bottom side which would have it ripping through the core first & fastest...through the strongest part of the building which was undamaged until hit by the collapese wave, and progressively growing in size and strength. I don't think that's what you've been describing with all the equations.
My impression is that you guys have been describing each successive floor dropping down onto the floor beneath it...pancake like, but not really a pancake collapse. So I fail to see where the example of an iron sphere applies to the situation we are discussing. If you took that same iron sphere and flattened it out to the thickness and area of the floor pans, it probably won't have the same termial velocity as it would as a compact sphere. And, especially not if the air beneath it were constrained to some extent by a surface/tube around it which restricted how fast the air beneath it could escape.
If that's the case, then you have to talk about the entire surface area of the falling mass, not just it's weight. So, how does a ship made out of steel float, anyway? Drop an iron sphere in water and it'll sink everytime. Therefore, anything made out of iron cannot float. Oh wait, iron boats do float.
At terminal velocity, air resistance equals the pull of gravity and an object cannot fall any faster...unless something changes - like its orientation. A balled up piece of paper will fall faster than a flat piece of paper even though they both weigh exactly the same. I guess in physics terms you'd say they both have the same mass. (that's about the extent of my knowledge of physics...just wanted to work it into a post)
Grumps has pointed out to me that this collapse mass was contained within the outer walls which did not fall to their positions outside the footprint until after the collapes wave had passed. If you are going to work on some equations to determine how fast the collapse mass was falling relative to terminal velocity, don't you have to factor in the additional air pressure created by the fact that the air below the collapse wave was contained?
If I pull the plunger out of a bicycle air pump and drop it, will it fall at the same rate as it will when I place it back in the pump cylinder? I don't think so.
Grumps suggested the other day that I google: shotgun to understand how a loose mass could behave like a solid mass. I found that an interesting suggestion and did so. The main thing I came away with is that with the towers' collapse we have gravity as an energy source. A gravity powered shotgun just doesn't have the same impact as one powered by oh say...some sort of explosion. So...I probably missed the point you wanted me to get with that one.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 28 2007, 03:02 AM)
Get used to disappointment.
Gravity doesn't scale.
Arthur
Poor excuse because you can build the structure out of your choice of materials. Are you saying the E1 calculations everyone here is so fond of only work on a certain grand scale? You should be able to build a structure so that the energy required to pulverize 1-floor is much lower than the kinetic energy of the upper block falling through one floor distance (or however large a distance you choose for your initial conditions). But of course the problem as always is that the lower structure will absorb the energy as a whole, not just one floor at a time.
And it's no excuse at all for not being able to produce a computer model that exhibits this behavior.
Gravity doesn't scale.
Arthur
Poor excuse because you can build the structure out of your choice of materials. Are you saying the E1 calculations everyone here is so fond of only work on a certain grand scale? You should be able to build a structure so that the energy required to pulverize 1-floor is much lower than the kinetic energy of the upper block falling through one floor distance (or however large a distance you choose for your initial conditions). But of course the problem as always is that the lower structure will absorb the energy as a whole, not just one floor at a time.
And it's no excuse at all for not being able to produce a computer model that exhibits this behavior.
forthetrees
The point is that with two shotguns with an equal load, one of shot and one with a slug, the muzzle energy is the same whether the mass is shot or a solid slug.
The point about the DENSITY/SURFACE ratio and AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENT is not that the resultant rubble is ball shaped, but that the rubble has a much higher terminal velocity than the human body in spread Eagle will have, and that this mass was still accelerating when it hit the ground. A steel boat floats because it is(overall) less dense than the water it displaces. This is not true of a solid rod of steel so it goes straight to the bottom.
As for air resistance in a pancake collapse, I doubt that the rubble falling inside the intact lower section did so with any regularity or precision being more individual pieces rather than an intact "piston"(and thus my point about there being little difference in the energy transfer of a single block or of billions of individual pieces, the floors would fail anyway). The escaping air probably was responsible for a lot of the dust seen after collapse.
That is what NIST did, they just ended their sim after the point where it became inevitable for the collapse to continue.
Grumpy
The point is that with two shotguns with an equal load, one of shot and one with a slug, the muzzle energy is the same whether the mass is shot or a solid slug.
The point about the DENSITY/SURFACE ratio and AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENT is not that the resultant rubble is ball shaped, but that the rubble has a much higher terminal velocity than the human body in spread Eagle will have, and that this mass was still accelerating when it hit the ground. A steel boat floats because it is(overall) less dense than the water it displaces. This is not true of a solid rod of steel so it goes straight to the bottom.
As for air resistance in a pancake collapse, I doubt that the rubble falling inside the intact lower section did so with any regularity or precision being more individual pieces rather than an intact "piston"(and thus my point about there being little difference in the energy transfer of a single block or of billions of individual pieces, the floors would fail anyway). The escaping air probably was responsible for a lot of the dust seen after collapse.
QUOTE
And it's no excuse at all for not being able to produce a computer model that exhibits this behavior.
That is what NIST did, they just ended their sim after the point where it became inevitable for the collapse to continue.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 27 2007, 10:14 PM)
Poor excuse because you can build the structure out of your choice of materials.
Its not just the materials that's the problem, its also the relationship between the mass of the floors in relation to the interfloor distance.
Consider a quarter scale building.
While the vertical distance is 1/4th the floor size has shrunk by a factor of 16.
Consider the impact of this 1/16th size floor falling 1/4 the distance, the KE is now 1/64th the original.
Sure now you start to compensate by changing materials, so you will make the floor 8 times as dense, but now the 1/4 size columns can't hold the scale tower up as their DCR goes up by 8.
And so on and so on.
All in all I'd say that any attempt to make a scale model, even as "small" as 1/4 size would be doomed because so much would have to change to keep the ratios the same that you would no longer be comparing a similar building. Even so, a 1/4 scale WTC tower would be a very large building, and also why Jim Hoffman's challenge is BOGUS but apparently impresses people with low intelligence.
Which is why computer models were used.
But modeling beyond the point of initial failure would be very difficult (for many reasons) and that effort is simply not justified as it is a POINTLESS excercise whose ONLY purpose would be to ATTEMPT to satisfy those that are not able to comprehend the fact that, YES, once collapse ensued gravity alone was more than sufficient to bring down the towers.
Arthur
Its not just the materials that's the problem, its also the relationship between the mass of the floors in relation to the interfloor distance.
Consider a quarter scale building.
While the vertical distance is 1/4th the floor size has shrunk by a factor of 16.
Consider the impact of this 1/16th size floor falling 1/4 the distance, the KE is now 1/64th the original.
Sure now you start to compensate by changing materials, so you will make the floor 8 times as dense, but now the 1/4 size columns can't hold the scale tower up as their DCR goes up by 8.
And so on and so on.
All in all I'd say that any attempt to make a scale model, even as "small" as 1/4 size would be doomed because so much would have to change to keep the ratios the same that you would no longer be comparing a similar building. Even so, a 1/4 scale WTC tower would be a very large building, and also why Jim Hoffman's challenge is BOGUS but apparently impresses people with low intelligence.
Which is why computer models were used.
But modeling beyond the point of initial failure would be very difficult (for many reasons) and that effort is simply not justified as it is a POINTLESS excercise whose ONLY purpose would be to ATTEMPT to satisfy those that are not able to comprehend the fact that, YES, once collapse ensued gravity alone was more than sufficient to bring down the towers.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 27 2007, 07:04 PM)
Q-n-D --- As has been explained many times, the top block of WTC 1 tilted to the south, away from the camera. About 8 degrees of arc. Not much, is it? But the antenna tower, in the center of the building, makes that 8 degrees visible.
Simple geometry...
I said don't use that bogus answer, David (well, it is pretty close to "angle of the camera").
Tell you what. Prove it to me, the 8 degrees arc of tilt. Give me a link or something and I will check it out.
Thanks.
IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE ARE MANY DWELLING PLACES
IF IT WERE NOT SO I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU
FOR I GO TO PREPARE A PLACE FOR YOU
Simple geometry...
I said don't use that bogus answer, David (well, it is pretty close to "angle of the camera").
Tell you what. Prove it to me, the 8 degrees arc of tilt. Give me a link or something and I will check it out.
Thanks.
IN MY FATHER'S HOUSE ARE MANY DWELLING PLACES
IF IT WERE NOT SO I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU
FOR I GO TO PREPARE A PLACE FOR YOU
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 27 2007, 07:55 PM)
What is friggin amazing is though EVERY ONE of Not so Quick's supposed "proofs" of inside involvement has been shown to be FALSE he is STILL, even in the TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, convinced that it was in fact, an inside job.
Which means that he is simply trying to peddle another of his unfounded beliefs, this one is simply the "9/11 Religion".
lol:
I can almost hear him now: "Praise be to St Atta" as he passes the collection plate amongst a motley collection of HS dropouts wearing Loose Change Version 4 T-shirts.
Arthur
"St Atta"...now that reminds me of all the hard work Daniel Hopsicker has done in uncovering evidence about Atta down in Florida before 9/11, boozing it up with the ladies and all that.
Not much in line with his upcoming suicide mission for Allah. Of course, there is more, but you're not really into evidence, are you, Arthur?
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/91112.html
Oh well, you are worth quoting...
"Yawn."
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
Which means that he is simply trying to peddle another of his unfounded beliefs, this one is simply the "9/11 Religion".
lol:
I can almost hear him now: "Praise be to St Atta" as he passes the collection plate amongst a motley collection of HS dropouts wearing Loose Change Version 4 T-shirts.
Arthur
"St Atta"...now that reminds me of all the hard work Daniel Hopsicker has done in uncovering evidence about Atta down in Florida before 9/11, boozing it up with the ladies and all that.
Not much in line with his upcoming suicide mission for Allah. Of course, there is more, but you're not really into evidence, are you, Arthur?
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/91112.html
Oh well, you are worth quoting...
"Yawn."
HE RESTORES MY SOUL
Oh, so Quick, now you are claiming it WASN'T Atta and friends flying the planes?
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 28 2007, 12:40 AM)
I said don't use that bogus answer, David (well, it is pretty close to "angle of the camera").
Tell you what. Prove it to me, the 8 degrees arc of tilt. Give me a link or something and I will check it out.
The NIST report explains this fact.
But since YOU are claiming it didn't tilt then YOU need to find a video from the EAST of WEST that shows that it is NOT TILTING.
Have fun.
Look out for FireTrucks.
Arthur
Tell you what. Prove it to me, the 8 degrees arc of tilt. Give me a link or something and I will check it out.
The NIST report explains this fact.
But since YOU are claiming it didn't tilt then YOU need to find a video from the EAST of WEST that shows that it is NOT TILTING.
Have fun.
Look out for FireTrucks.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 27 2007, 10:59 PM)
Oh, so Quick, now you are claiming it WASN'T Atta and friends flying the planes?
Arthur
No, Arthur. Study up and you can learn all about Mr. Atta.
The point is he didn't square-up very well for a suicidal bomber. There is more, but you will have to plow through it like the rest of us if you want to know more.
BTW, message to DBB, don't bother with my first request for information on the 8 degrees tilt. I did a quick search and found this is mentioned in NISTNCSTAR 1-6...however, the NIST says it is based upon "photographic evidence" from other views than north.
Well, I need a link to this photographic evidence, please.
But so far, all I seem to find on this is along these lines:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart...158547&Disp=All
I and many others don't buy NIST's 'explanation' of a tilting illusion. Yes, the antenna did tip slightly to the south and then to the east. But the apparent foreshortening relates to the angle according to a sinusoidal law. You need quite a high tilt angle to produce an appreciable 'downward motion'. At 10 degrees tilt, the antenna would still appear to be cos (10 degrees) = 0.9848 of its 'original' length. So a point twenty feet above the roofline, for example, would only appear to 'descend' by 3.6 inches. And the early FEMA studies concluded, from video evidence (taken from the north) that the core failed first. So has one of your experts made a mistake, or have you disqualified FEMA from your select group?
I don't believe NIST either; I need proof of something that goes against what my own two eyes see.
As it is right now, based upon the proof seen in the frame-by-frame viewing, THE ANTENNA FELL FIRST INTO THE CORE, AND THEN THE BUILDING WENT...no ands, ifs, or buts.
When this photographic evidence is produced that NIST claims can overcome this (i.e., more is needed than just the "good word" of NIST), I will be more than happy to look at it.
Thanks.
SO THEN FAITH COMETH BY HEARING
AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD
Arthur
No, Arthur. Study up and you can learn all about Mr. Atta.
The point is he didn't square-up very well for a suicidal bomber. There is more, but you will have to plow through it like the rest of us if you want to know more.
BTW, message to DBB, don't bother with my first request for information on the 8 degrees tilt. I did a quick search and found this is mentioned in NISTNCSTAR 1-6...however, the NIST says it is based upon "photographic evidence" from other views than north.
Well, I need a link to this photographic evidence, please.
But so far, all I seem to find on this is along these lines:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart...158547&Disp=All
QUOTE
I and many others don't buy NIST's 'explanation' of a tilting illusion. Yes, the antenna did tip slightly to the south and then to the east. But the apparent foreshortening relates to the angle according to a sinusoidal law. You need quite a high tilt angle to produce an appreciable 'downward motion'. At 10 degrees tilt, the antenna would still appear to be cos (10 degrees) = 0.9848 of its 'original' length. So a point twenty feet above the roofline, for example, would only appear to 'descend' by 3.6 inches. And the early FEMA studies concluded, from video evidence (taken from the north) that the core failed first. So has one of your experts made a mistake, or have you disqualified FEMA from your select group?
I don't believe NIST either; I need proof of something that goes against what my own two eyes see.
As it is right now, based upon the proof seen in the frame-by-frame viewing, THE ANTENNA FELL FIRST INTO THE CORE, AND THEN THE BUILDING WENT...no ands, ifs, or buts.
When this photographic evidence is produced that NIST claims can overcome this (i.e., more is needed than just the "good word" of NIST), I will be more than happy to look at it.
Thanks.
SO THEN FAITH COMETH BY HEARING
AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 27 2007, 11:07 PM)
The NIST report explains this fact.
But since YOU are claiming it didn't tilt then YOU need to find a video from the EAST of WEST that shows that it is NOT TILTING.
Have fun.
Look out for FireTrucks.
Arthur
You need to get some sleep. "EAST of WEST"?
{Now why does that sound like a movie? Never mind.}
No, I don't have to find a video EAST or WEST so I can know that NIST is telling the "troof". Why? Because I don't believe NIST on this.
Sorry, these mystery videos are going to have to come from the OCTs camp -- put up or shut up.
If nobody can produce, then I will continue believing my own eyes anyday of the week over NIST on this.
And yes, Arthur, please stay out of the street. Watch out for those fire trucks because you can't see them at all.
CASTING ALL YOUR CARES UPON HIM
BECAUSE HE CARES FOR YOU
But since YOU are claiming it didn't tilt then YOU need to find a video from the EAST of WEST that shows that it is NOT TILTING.
Have fun.
Look out for FireTrucks.
Arthur
You need to get some sleep. "EAST of WEST"?
{Now why does that sound like a movie? Never mind.}
No, I don't have to find a video EAST or WEST so I can know that NIST is telling the "troof". Why? Because I don't believe NIST on this.
Sorry, these mystery videos are going to have to come from the OCTs camp -- put up or shut up.
If nobody can produce, then I will continue believing my own eyes anyday of the week over NIST on this.
And yes, Arthur, please stay out of the street. Watch out for those fire trucks because you can't see them at all.
CASTING ALL YOUR CARES UPON HIM
BECAUSE HE CARES FOR YOU
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 02:52 AM)
Flying 747's into a building model or reconstruction would be one hell of an experiment for sure.
I was referring to the decommissioned 747s in relation to the Flight 800 scenarios.
QUOTE
But personally, I'd be satisfied with seeing anyone achieve a "progressive" collapse on a scale model of the WTC or even a computer model with the initial conditions/damage of their choice (with prerequisite that the lower 80 floors or so must be intact).
As for WTC models, unless you can put a scale model into a centrifuge, or fly the model to Uranus, the simulation won't work. Like Arthur mentioned, you can't scale gravity. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But personally, I'd be satisfied with seeing anyone achieve a "progressive" collapse on a scale model of the WTC or even a computer model with the initial conditions/damage of their choice (with prerequisite that the lower 80 floors or so must be intact). |
As for WTC models, unless you can put a scale model into a centrifuge, or fly the model to Uranus, the simulation won't work. Like Arthur mentioned, you can't scale gravity.
In spite of all the E1/Bazant Zhou etc hand-waving in this forum, it's extremely hard to get any structure to exhibit this kind of behavior in a gravity driven collapse.
In spite of all the E1/Bazant Zhou etc hand-waving in this forum, it's extremely hard to get any structure to exhibit this kind of behavior in a gravity driven collapse.
Newton gave us a fine example of a progressive collapse in his rotten bathroom example a few pages back.
i was reading about typical fires in the bronx.
it is known by firemen, that the bathrooms are dangerous. years of water leakage rot the floor joists under bathrooms.
one firemen told of a story where he went into a bathroom on the sixth floor, and it collapsed.
OF COURSE, it PAUSED momentarily at every floor, as an ACTUAL 'pancake collapse' occured.
he simply walked away, completely unharmed.
QUOTE (newton+ Apr 25 2007, 12:37 AM)
i was reading about typical fires in the bronx.
it is known by firemen, that the bathrooms are dangerous. years of water leakage rot the floor joists under bathrooms.
one firemen told of a story where he went into a bathroom on the sixth floor, and it collapsed.
OF COURSE, it PAUSED momentarily at every floor, as an ACTUAL 'pancake collapse' occured.
he simply walked away, completely unharmed.
QUOTE ( lozenge124+ Apr 28 2007, 03:14 AM)
Poor excuse because you can build the structure out of your choice of materials. Are you saying the E1 calculations everyone here is so fond of only work on a certain grand scale? You should be able to build a structure so that the energy required to pulverize 1-floor is much lower than the kinetic energy of the upper block falling through one floor distance (or however large a distance you choose for your initial conditions). But of course the problem as always is that the lower structure will absorb the energy as a whole, not just one floor at a time.
There are any number of live models of representative energies and connection strengths that could be constructed to demonstrate different aspects of the WTC collapses. What exactly would you like demonstrated? Like the live NIST truss fire tests, any system can be made to fail by simulating the expected conditions in the towers. I seriously doubt that some modified complete scale model could simulate what actually happened in the towers. The more detailed computer simulation suggested by NIST might satisfy some of the CT population, but whatever the level of simulation, the hardcore CTs will never accept it.
notsoquick
Aren't you the one who continues to see firetrucks in the back window of BMWs??? Your eyes are the LAST thing you should be putting your trust in. Praying won't help, go see an optometrist(or a psychiatrist, or both)
Aren't you the one who continues to see firetrucks in the back window of BMWs??? Your eyes are the LAST thing you should be putting your trust in. Praying won't help, go see an optometrist(or a psychiatrist, or both)
Sorry, these mystery videos are going to have to come from the OCTs camp -- put up or shut up.
Sorry, you showed that you are a lost cause long ago, we don't care what you continue to think, we are safe in assuming anything you think is just wrong, faked or simply a lie.(sort of like Rush Limbaugh).
Grumpy
QUOTE
I will continue believing my own eyes anyday of the week over NIST on this.
Aren't you the one who continues to see firetrucks in the back window of BMWs??? Your eyes are the LAST thing you should be putting your trust in. Praying won't help, go see an optometrist(or a psychiatrist, or both)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I will continue believing my own eyes anyday of the week over NIST on this. |
Aren't you the one who continues to see firetrucks in the back window of BMWs??? Your eyes are the LAST thing you should be putting your trust in. Praying won't help, go see an optometrist(or a psychiatrist, or both)
Sorry, these mystery videos are going to have to come from the OCTs camp -- put up or shut up.
Sorry, you showed that you are a lost cause long ago, we don't care what you continue to think, we are safe in assuming anything you think is just wrong, faked or simply a lie.(sort of like Rush Limbaugh).
Grumpy
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 28 2007, 02:25 AM)
If nobody can produce, then I will continue believing my own eyes anyday of the week over NIST on this.
Nope, you still won't believe NIST even when shown the photos.
You were shown it was the third brake light on a BMW and you STILL claim its a fire truck.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
But so you can no longer claim you WEREN'T shown the pictures of the ROTATION of the top block:
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Sect 6-2 WTC 1 Structural observations.
Pay particular attention to Fig 6-7, 6-9 and 6-11
Arthur
Nope, you still won't believe NIST even when shown the photos.
You were shown it was the third brake light on a BMW and you STILL claim its a fire truck.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
But so you can no longer claim you WEREN'T shown the pictures of the ROTATION of the top block:
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Sect 6-2 WTC 1 Structural observations.
Pay particular attention to Fig 6-7, 6-9 and 6-11
Arthur
@Capracus
Well like I said, a computer model wouldn't have any such problems; but let me rephrase that - I'd be interested in seeing someone build ANY structure and have it undergo a "progressive collapse" under gravity forces alone just to see what kind of special features the model would have to have. It's actually very difficult to get a structure to do this in particular if it has a continuously welded or bolted vertical structure.
Well like I said, a computer model wouldn't have any such problems; but let me rephrase that - I'd be interested in seeing someone build ANY structure and have it undergo a "progressive collapse" under gravity forces alone just to see what kind of special features the model would have to have. It's actually very difficult to get a structure to do this in particular if it has a continuously welded or bolted vertical structure.
Newton gave us a fine example of a progressive collapse in his rotten bathroom example a few pages back.
My understanding of what Newton was referring to was a scenario where a floor falls on top of another floor in cascading fashion, but the overall building remained standing. This is similar to the Ronan point apartment complex where cantilever balcony structures collapsed "progressively" following a gas-leak explosion:
But again, the section that collapsed was not part of the support structure of the building.
Incredibly, this is the first example of progressive collapse mentioned in the Bazant Verdure paper in spite of the fact that the building remained standing - this surely indicates how rare these things actually are. Again, the difficult part is getting the vertical support structure of the building to collapse progressively.
I am not suggesting this will prove anything either way, I am just interested in seeing a structure model/computer whatever exhibit a progressive collapse to satisfy my physical curiosity. I think it would give some insight into how hard it is to actually get this to happen.
BTW, message to DBB, don't bother with my first request for information on the 8 degrees tilt. I did a quick search and found this is mentioned in NISTNCSTAR 1-6...however, the NIST says it is based upon "photographic evidence" from other views than north.
Well, I need a link to this photographic evidence, please.
I too would like to see this photographic or video evidence of the tilting of the top block. I have heard about it many times but never actually seen it. David, have you actually seen this evidence or are you just reproducing what NIST says?
As rare as buildings being damaged to the extent caused by being hit by 767s at 500 mph I'd suspect.
As rare as buildings being damaged to the extent caused by being hit by 767s at 500 mph I'd suspect.
the difficult part is getting the vertical support structure of the building to collapse progressively.
Not so hard if you fly a 767 into the building at 500 MPH and then let it burn out of control.
Arthur
The average DCR for the core columns in WTC 1 was 0.86, the exterior columns were 0.7 (so much for the BS about 2000%), the Spandrels were but 0.3 and the hat truss was between .23 & .45.
engineering record is BS?
whatever, pope arthurs.
QUOTE
As for WTC models, unless you can put a scale model into a centrifuge, or fly the model to Uranus, the simulation won't work. Like Arthur mentioned, you can't scale gravity.
Well like I said, a computer model wouldn't have any such problems; but let me rephrase that - I'd be interested in seeing someone build ANY structure and have it undergo a "progressive collapse" under gravity forces alone just to see what kind of special features the model would have to have. It's actually very difficult to get a structure to do this in particular if it has a continuously welded or bolted vertical structure.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for WTC models, unless you can put a scale model into a centrifuge, or fly the model to Uranus, the simulation won't work. Like Arthur mentioned, you can't scale gravity. |
Well like I said, a computer model wouldn't have any such problems; but let me rephrase that - I'd be interested in seeing someone build ANY structure and have it undergo a "progressive collapse" under gravity forces alone just to see what kind of special features the model would have to have. It's actually very difficult to get a structure to do this in particular if it has a continuously welded or bolted vertical structure.
Newton gave us a fine example of a progressive collapse in his rotten bathroom example a few pages back.
My understanding of what Newton was referring to was a scenario where a floor falls on top of another floor in cascading fashion, but the overall building remained standing. This is similar to the Ronan point apartment complex where cantilever balcony structures collapsed "progressively" following a gas-leak explosion:
But again, the section that collapsed was not part of the support structure of the building.
Incredibly, this is the first example of progressive collapse mentioned in the Bazant Verdure paper in spite of the fact that the building remained standing - this surely indicates how rare these things actually are. Again, the difficult part is getting the vertical support structure of the building to collapse progressively.
QUOTE
There are any number of live models of representative energies and connection strengths that could be constructed to demonstrate different aspects of the WTC collapses. What exactly would you like demonstrated? Like the live NIST truss fire tests, any system can be made to fail by simulating the expected conditions in the towers. I seriously doubt that some modified complete scale model could simulate what actually happened in the towers. The more detailed computer simulation suggested by NIST might satisfy some of the CT population, but whatever the level of simulation, the hardcore CTs will never accept it.
I am not suggesting this will prove anything either way, I am just interested in seeing a structure model/computer whatever exhibit a progressive collapse to satisfy my physical curiosity. I think it would give some insight into how hard it is to actually get this to happen.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 28 2007, 12:03 AM)
BTW, message to DBB, don't bother with my first request for information on the 8 degrees tilt. I did a quick search and found this is mentioned in NISTNCSTAR 1-6...however, the NIST says it is based upon "photographic evidence" from other views than north.
Well, I need a link to this photographic evidence, please.
I too would like to see this photographic or video evidence of the tilting of the top block. I have heard about it many times but never actually seen it. David, have you actually seen this evidence or are you just reproducing what NIST says?
QUOTE
this surely indicates how rare these things actually are
As rare as buildings being damaged to the extent caused by being hit by 767s at 500 mph I'd suspect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| this surely indicates how rare these things actually are |
As rare as buildings being damaged to the extent caused by being hit by 767s at 500 mph I'd suspect.
the difficult part is getting the vertical support structure of the building to collapse progressively.
Not so hard if you fly a 767 into the building at 500 MPH and then let it burn out of control.
Arthur
QUOTE (eigenvalue+Apr 28 2007, 05:40 PM)
I too would like to see this photographic or video evidence of the tilting of the top block. I have heard about it many times but never actually seen it. David, have you actually seen this evidence or are you just reproducing what NIST says?
Arthur just previously posted the exact figures in NCSTAR1-6 which illustrate the tilt.
Arthur just previously posted the exact figures in NCSTAR1-6 which illustrate the tilt.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 03:14 AM)
And it's no excuse at all for not being able to produce a computer model that exhibits this behavior.
Greening produced a computer model.
I produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
shagster produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
Bazant & Verdure produced a computer model.
I reproduced the B & V crush-down model and validated it.
Greening produced a computer model.
I produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
shagster produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
Bazant & Verdure produced a computer model.
I reproduced the B & V crush-down model and validated it.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 08:14 PM)
Greening produced a computer model.
I produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
shagster produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
Bazant & Verdure produced a computer model.
I produced a variant of the B & V model and validated it.
Read more carefully DBB!
We are talking about a real physical structure (scaled down) or an FEA type computer model, not simply a computer implementation of some equations that may or may not apply.
I produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
shagster produced a computer model (a variant of Greening's).
Bazant & Verdure produced a computer model.
I produced a variant of the B & V model and validated it.
Read more carefully DBB!
We are talking about a real physical structure (scaled down) or an FEA type computer model, not simply a computer implementation of some equations that may or may not apply.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 08:21 PM)
... an FEA type computer model, not simply a computer implementation of some equations that may or may not apply.
You do understand that FEAs are done using constitutive laws which may or may not apply?
The Greening and B & V approach uses only Newton's laws together with the conservation of energy and momentum.
Do you really think those may or may not apply?
You do understand that FEAs are done using constitutive laws which may or may not apply?
The Greening and B & V approach uses only Newton's laws together with the conservation of energy and momentum.
Do you really think those may or may not apply?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 08:25 PM)
You do understand that FEAs are done using constitutive laws which may or may not apply?
The Greening and B & V approach uses only Newton's laws together with the conservation of energy and momentum.
Do you really think those may or may not apply?
If you do not understand the computer challenge, then stick to the physical one. Build a structure that exhibits a progressive collapse. I refer you to Jim Hoffman's site which explains it fully http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
Excuses were thrown up that a progressive collapse will only occur in a large scale structure much too big to be built by a single person. So I suggested building the thing virtually as a computer model, getting around the size restriction. Clear?
The Greening and B & V approach uses only Newton's laws together with the conservation of energy and momentum.
Do you really think those may or may not apply?
If you do not understand the computer challenge, then stick to the physical one. Build a structure that exhibits a progressive collapse. I refer you to Jim Hoffman's site which explains it fully http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
Excuses were thrown up that a progressive collapse will only occur in a large scale structure much too big to be built by a single person. So I suggested building the thing virtually as a computer model, getting around the size restriction. Clear?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 08:32 PM)
So I suggested building the thing virtually as a computer model, getting around the size restriction. Clear?
Yes. But you did not specify that it had to be an FEA model.
Which, in my now-rather-expert opinion, is pointless.
The Greening/B&V style laws for crush-down are
(1) entirely basic physics,
(2) agree with data for the first few seconds,
(3) thus adequately explain the major features of progressive collapse.
Got it now?
Yes. But you did not specify that it had to be an FEA model.
Which, in my now-rather-expert opinion, is pointless.
The Greening/B&V style laws for crush-down are
(1) entirely basic physics,
(2) agree with data for the first few seconds,
(3) thus adequately explain the major features of progressive collapse.
Got it now?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 09:05 PM)
Yes. But you did not specify that it had to be an FEA model.
Which, in my now-rather-expert opinion, is pointless.
The Greening/B&V style laws for crush-down are
(1) entirely basic physics,
(2) agree with data for the first few seconds,
(3) thus adequately explain the major features of progressive collapse.
Got it now?
B&V/Greening is just a theory. Building a structure (virtual or real) that exhibits a progressive collapse (and thus follows the B&V Greening equations) is actually quite difficult, basic physics or not - thus the challenge.
Which, in my now-rather-expert opinion, is pointless.
The Greening/B&V style laws for crush-down are
(1) entirely basic physics,
(2) agree with data for the first few seconds,
(3) thus adequately explain the major features of progressive collapse.
Got it now?
B&V/Greening is just a theory. Building a structure (virtual or real) that exhibits a progressive collapse (and thus follows the B&V Greening equations) is actually quite difficult, basic physics or not - thus the challenge.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 09:12 PM)
B&V/Greening is just a theory. Building a structure (virtual or real) that exhibits a progressive collapse (and thus follows the B&V Greening equations) is actually quite difficult, basic physics or not - thus the challenge.
Greening/B&V is just a theory in precisely the same sense that Newton's Laws are just a theory.
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
Greening/B&V is just a theory in precisely the same sense that Newton's Laws are just a theory.
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
QUOTE (forthetrees+Apr 28 2007, 03:04 AM)
So I fail to see where the example of an iron sphere applies to the situation we are discussing.
It doesn't. Neither does a skydiver. The only point was that terminal speed varies. See the entry on terminal velocity in Wikipedia. Note the dependence on mass and area. That's enough to understand that the terminal speed of a 500,000 tonne tower with a 6.5:1 aspect ratio will be very, very high.
Air resistance during the collapse is actually quite interesting, it turns out. It may well play a role in slowing the collapse during the latter portions. While currently being studied, it is still only a secondary effect.
And to be precise for the record, a one meter in diameter iron sphere has a terminal speed of 116 m/s...
It doesn't. Neither does a skydiver. The only point was that terminal speed varies. See the entry on terminal velocity in Wikipedia. Note the dependence on mass and area. That's enough to understand that the terminal speed of a 500,000 tonne tower with a 6.5:1 aspect ratio will be very, very high.
Air resistance during the collapse is actually quite interesting, it turns out. It may well play a role in slowing the collapse during the latter portions. While currently being studied, it is still only a secondary effect.
And to be precise for the record, a one meter in diameter iron sphere has a terminal speed of 116 m/s...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 09:37 PM)
Greening/B&V is just a theory in precisely the same sense that Newton's Laws are just a theory.
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
There is a very large difference between Greening/B&V and Newton. The B&V/Greening equations only apply to a progressive collapse. In most cases when you drop a large weight onto a structure you will not obtain a progressive collapse. Newton's laws apply in all cases.
The B&V/Greening equations are a posteriori in the sense that they do not tell you if the collapse will be "progressive" or not. The question here is should a gravity driven collapse of the WTC have been "progressive" or not. The CT'ers claim no, a progressive collapse is only possible with explosives. The OCT'ers claim that yes, a progressive collapse was so inevitable that it is not even necessary to model it, or provide visualizations of a computer model of the collapse.
That is why I find Hoffman's challenge interesting. It is hard to build something that will collapse in this progressive manner. In most cases it won't, and B&V/Greening will not apply.
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
There is a very large difference between Greening/B&V and Newton. The B&V/Greening equations only apply to a progressive collapse. In most cases when you drop a large weight onto a structure you will not obtain a progressive collapse. Newton's laws apply in all cases.
The B&V/Greening equations are a posteriori in the sense that they do not tell you if the collapse will be "progressive" or not. The question here is should a gravity driven collapse of the WTC have been "progressive" or not. The CT'ers claim no, a progressive collapse is only possible with explosives. The OCT'ers claim that yes, a progressive collapse was so inevitable that it is not even necessary to model it, or provide visualizations of a computer model of the collapse.
That is why I find Hoffman's challenge interesting. It is hard to build something that will collapse in this progressive manner. In most cases it won't, and B&V/Greening will not apply.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 05:01 PM)
It is hard to build something that will collapse in this progressive manner.
Probably true.
First of all, because gravity doesn't scale you really need 12 ft between floors.
But to model a progressive collapse like in the towers one probably needs a minimum of 6 floors, so one would be dealing with a 72 foot tall structure.
Now you can then scale the masses of the structure down, but regardless you have to load those core columns so they are carrying 50% of the load (equiv to 15 times the mass of a single floor) and those loads have to result in Column DCRs that are in the range of 2.
You will quickly find that to get THIS MUCH weight on the columns you will need a fairly well engineered (and very costly) structure.
Personally I don't know anyone with enough money that is also DUMB enough to waste it on such an undertaking.
Arthur
Probably true.
First of all, because gravity doesn't scale you really need 12 ft between floors.
But to model a progressive collapse like in the towers one probably needs a minimum of 6 floors, so one would be dealing with a 72 foot tall structure.
Now you can then scale the masses of the structure down, but regardless you have to load those core columns so they are carrying 50% of the load (equiv to 15 times the mass of a single floor) and those loads have to result in Column DCRs that are in the range of 2.
You will quickly find that to get THIS MUCH weight on the columns you will need a fairly well engineered (and very costly) structure.
Personally I don't know anyone with enough money that is also DUMB enough to waste it on such an undertaking.
Arthur
lozenge124
Says who??? A meteorite is a large weight and one a hundred feet wide would not only knock those buildings down but leave a smoking glass lined crater where that part of NY used to be. That's one of the things about Newton and his laws of gravity and motion you can be sure of. How often has an airliner full of fuel been rammed into a skyscraper???
Oh, that would be a total of two times in FOREVER!!!
And of those two times how many times did the building suffer a progressive collapse???
Oh, that would be two times too!!!
I don't know what kind of math you are using to calculate that buildings, in most cases, don't fall down when a large weight drops on them, but the history tells us THAT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE THE WEIGHT OF ONE AIRCRAFT FULL OF FUEL RAM THEM AT 500 MPH ALWAYS FALL DOWN. Though we only have a small sample to work with, but there seems to be a trend developing here.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The B&V/Greening equations only apply to a progressive collapse. In most cases when you drop a large weight onto a structure you will not obtain a progressive collapse.
Says who??? A meteorite is a large weight and one a hundred feet wide would not only knock those buildings down but leave a smoking glass lined crater where that part of NY used to be. That's one of the things about Newton and his laws of gravity and motion you can be sure of. How often has an airliner full of fuel been rammed into a skyscraper???
Oh, that would be a total of two times in FOREVER!!!
And of those two times how many times did the building suffer a progressive collapse???
Oh, that would be two times too!!!
I don't know what kind of math you are using to calculate that buildings, in most cases, don't fall down when a large weight drops on them, but the history tells us THAT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE THE WEIGHT OF ONE AIRCRAFT FULL OF FUEL RAM THEM AT 500 MPH ALWAYS FALL DOWN. Though we only have a small sample to work with, but there seems to be a trend developing here.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 10:01 PM)
There is a very large difference between Greening/B&V and Newton. The B&V/Greening equations only apply to a progressive collapse. ... Newton's laws apply in all cases.
... It is hard to build something that will collapse in this progressive manner. ...
True and false!
Structural engineers are have a difficult time attempting to design structures which will withstand, say truck bombs, without undergoing disproportionate collapse (that being perhaps a better term than progressive collapse.) Innovative connections and new design rules are required.
The vast majority of the world's stock of large structures, steel or concrete, will undergo progressive collapse once sufficiently damaged. Ordinary wood framed structures are so heavily overbuilt to withstand wind and snow loads that progressive collapse is rather unlikely. (There are very few 6+ story wood framed structures.)
... It is hard to build something that will collapse in this progressive manner. ...
True and false!
Structural engineers are have a difficult time attempting to design structures which will withstand, say truck bombs, without undergoing disproportionate collapse (that being perhaps a better term than progressive collapse.) Innovative connections and new design rules are required.
The vast majority of the world's stock of large structures, steel or concrete, will undergo progressive collapse once sufficiently damaged. Ordinary wood framed structures are so heavily overbuilt to withstand wind and snow loads that progressive collapse is rather unlikely. (There are very few 6+ story wood framed structures.)
@adoucette
It doesn't have to be a scale model of the WTC. From Hoffman's challenge:
He has some other conditions like being able to withstand a 100mph crosswind, but just what is mentioned above should be possible though not all that easy.
I've messed around with straws and toothpicks, with a relatively large weight in the top block and it seems for best results you have to join them at an angle at each floor to try and impart some horizontal component out of the vertically descending block. If you place the straws/toothpicks vertically they tend to react as one large unit and do not behave progressively "floor by floor". (The difficulty in comprehending the WTC progressive collapse is that the perimeter and core columns were also vertical)
It doesn't have to be a scale model of the WTC. From Hoffman's challenge:
QUOTE
require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.
Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.
Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.
He has some other conditions like being able to withstand a 100mph crosswind, but just what is mentioned above should be possible though not all that easy.
I've messed around with straws and toothpicks, with a relatively large weight in the top block and it seems for best results you have to join them at an angle at each floor to try and impart some horizontal component out of the vertically descending block. If you place the straws/toothpicks vertically they tend to react as one large unit and do not behave progressively "floor by floor". (The difficulty in comprehending the WTC progressive collapse is that the perimeter and core columns were also vertical)
...
DCR: Demand to Capacity Ratio
There is a standard formula to calculate the DCR for members and also for connections.
A specification for multi-story steel framed building design (for buildings only a few stories high) states that the engineer is to calculate the DCR for all members and connections and then do the following:
If any DCR is greater than 1.10, redesign to reduce the DCR and recalculate for the whole structure.
If any DCR is less than 0.90, either redesign to increase the DCR and recalculate or else document why the extra strength is considered necessary.
However, in NIST's wind load study for the towers, the % of members with a DCR greater than 1.05 is reported. Either NIST is being typically conservative or the rules are more stringent for skyscrapers or both...
There is a standard formula to calculate the DCR for members and also for connections.
A specification for multi-story steel framed building design (for buildings only a few stories high) states that the engineer is to calculate the DCR for all members and connections and then do the following:
If any DCR is greater than 1.10, redesign to reduce the DCR and recalculate for the whole structure.
If any DCR is less than 0.90, either redesign to increase the DCR and recalculate or else document why the extra strength is considered necessary.
However, in NIST's wind load study for the towers, the % of members with a DCR greater than 1.05 is reported. Either NIST is being typically conservative or the rules are more stringent for skyscrapers or both...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 07:42 PM)
DCR: Demand to Capacity Ratio
There is a standard formula to calculate the DCR for members and also for connections.
A specification for multi-story steel framed building design (for buildings only a few stories high) states that the engineer is to calculate the DCR for all members and connections and then do the following:
If any DCR is greater than 1.10, redesign to reduce the DCR and recalculate for the whole structure.
If any DCR is less than 0.90, either redesign to increase the DCR and recalculate or else document why the extra strength is considered necessary.
However, in NIST's wind load study for the towers, the % of members with a DCR greater than 1.05 is reported. Either NIST is being typically conservative or the rules are more stringent for skyscrapers or both...
Fo the DCRs that are over unity, that is only when NIST was doing the BASELINE model and using the DESIGN LIVE LOAD.
This is substantially more than actual live load on 9/11 (and the one used in the global model)
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Section E-4 Baseline Performance Demand/Capactiy Ratios
In my previous post I mentioned a DCR of 2 for the core columns. I was thinking of twice the capacity but as you point out that would be stated as 0.5 not 2.
my bad.
One of the things I've learned over the last year or so while discussing the towers is that the normal load on the steel columns is FAR HIGHER than I ever imagined.
I read CT'ers talk about the "towers should have put up more resistance" but they seem to ignore the fact that the towers, as built and then occupied, are quite near the capacity of the steel structure to support them. The safety factors have to do with excess live loads and even with this margin, tend to be just a fraction of the total dead and normal live loads. Its clear that engineers try to keep steel usage to only that which is required and don't overbuild. The fact is the most serious source of excess load the towers were designed for was lateral loads caused by the wind, not vertical loads.
The average DCR for the core columns in WTC 1 was 0.86, the exterior columns were 0.7 (so much for the BS about 2000%), the Spandrels were but 0.3 and the hat truss was between .23 & .45.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Sec 4.2.2 Demand/Capacity Ratios.
Arthur
There is a standard formula to calculate the DCR for members and also for connections.
A specification for multi-story steel framed building design (for buildings only a few stories high) states that the engineer is to calculate the DCR for all members and connections and then do the following:
If any DCR is greater than 1.10, redesign to reduce the DCR and recalculate for the whole structure.
If any DCR is less than 0.90, either redesign to increase the DCR and recalculate or else document why the extra strength is considered necessary.
However, in NIST's wind load study for the towers, the % of members with a DCR greater than 1.05 is reported. Either NIST is being typically conservative or the rules are more stringent for skyscrapers or both...
Fo the DCRs that are over unity, that is only when NIST was doing the BASELINE model and using the DESIGN LIVE LOAD.
This is substantially more than actual live load on 9/11 (and the one used in the global model)
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Section E-4 Baseline Performance Demand/Capactiy Ratios
In my previous post I mentioned a DCR of 2 for the core columns. I was thinking of twice the capacity but as you point out that would be stated as 0.5 not 2.
my bad.
One of the things I've learned over the last year or so while discussing the towers is that the normal load on the steel columns is FAR HIGHER than I ever imagined.
I read CT'ers talk about the "towers should have put up more resistance" but they seem to ignore the fact that the towers, as built and then occupied, are quite near the capacity of the steel structure to support them. The safety factors have to do with excess live loads and even with this margin, tend to be just a fraction of the total dead and normal live loads. Its clear that engineers try to keep steel usage to only that which is required and don't overbuild. The fact is the most serious source of excess load the towers were designed for was lateral loads caused by the wind, not vertical loads.
The average DCR for the core columns in WTC 1 was 0.86, the exterior columns were 0.7 (so much for the BS about 2000%), the Spandrels were but 0.3 and the hat truss was between .23 & .45.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Sec 4.2.2 Demand/Capacity Ratios.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 29 2007, 01:23 AM)
The average DCR for the core columns in WTC 1 was 0.86, the exterior columns were 0.7 (so much for the BS about 2000%), the Spandrels were but 0.3 and the hat truss was between .23 & .45.
engineering record is BS?
whatever, pope arthurs.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 10:32 PM)
The vast majority of the world's stock of large structures, steel or concrete, will undergo progressive collapse once sufficiently damaged.
That's quite a wide-ranging statement! Do you have anything to back it up?
Again, if progressive collapses are so straightforward, the challenge should be easy to fulfill.
That's quite a wide-ranging statement! Do you have anything to back it up?
Again, if progressive collapses are so straightforward, the challenge should be easy to fulfill.
QUOTE (newton+Apr 28 2007, 09:32 PM)
engineering record is BS?
No, but the quote is STILL WRONG.
There were NO DCRs in the towers that low.
In fact there WERE elements of the External Column structure which had OVER UNITY DCRS.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Fig 4-3 pg 71.
Arthur
No, but the quote is STILL WRONG.
There were NO DCRs in the towers that low.
In fact there WERE elements of the External Column structure which had OVER UNITY DCRS.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Fig 4-3 pg 71.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 28 2007, 02:37 PM)
Greening/B&V is just a theory in precisely the same sense that Newton's Laws are just a theory.
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
Greening&BV is not a theory in the sense of Newton's laws.
Greening&BV is an unvalidated hypothesis that rests on several assumptions that have not been checked.
You listed these yourself many posts ago....
Greening/B&V is a virtual structure! Or rather, applicable to any one-dimensional virtual structure.
It is an abstract virtual structure, the more so for B&V wherein everything is homogenized.
So your challenge has been met, in an abstract manner.
Why does this not satisfy you?
Greening&BV is not a theory in the sense of Newton's laws.
Greening&BV is an unvalidated hypothesis that rests on several assumptions that have not been checked.
You listed these yourself many posts ago....
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 28 2007, 05:40 PM)
@adoucette
It doesn't have to be a scale model of the WTC. From Hoffman's challenge:
He has some other conditions like being able to withstand a 100mph crosswind, but just what is mentioned above should be possible though not all that easy.
I've messed around with straws and toothpicks, with a relatively large weight in the top block and it seems for best results you have to join them at an angle at each floor to try and impart some horizontal component out of the vertically descending block. If you place the straws/toothpicks vertically they tend to react as one large unit and do not behave progressively "floor by floor". (The difficulty in comprehending the WTC progressive collapse is that the perimeter and core columns were also vertical)
Except you won't convince ANYONE of ANYTHING if you make your model out of toothpics or straws.
Besides Hoffman effectively ruled any "slight" structure out by the 100 mph requirement.
That means the structure has to be strong.
Which means you need sufficient floor height in order to build up sufficient KE to sustain the collapse.
Which means, as I pointed out before, you are into a SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE.
Which is why no one is likely to take Hoffman up on his challenge.
Arthur
It doesn't have to be a scale model of the WTC. From Hoffman's challenge:
He has some other conditions like being able to withstand a 100mph crosswind, but just what is mentioned above should be possible though not all that easy.
I've messed around with straws and toothpicks, with a relatively large weight in the top block and it seems for best results you have to join them at an angle at each floor to try and impart some horizontal component out of the vertically descending block. If you place the straws/toothpicks vertically they tend to react as one large unit and do not behave progressively "floor by floor". (The difficulty in comprehending the WTC progressive collapse is that the perimeter and core columns were also vertical)
Except you won't convince ANYONE of ANYTHING if you make your model out of toothpics or straws.
Besides Hoffman effectively ruled any "slight" structure out by the 100 mph requirement.
That means the structure has to be strong.
Which means you need sufficient floor height in order to build up sufficient KE to sustain the collapse.
Which means, as I pointed out before, you are into a SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE.
Which is why no one is likely to take Hoffman up on his challenge.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 28 2007, 08:01 AM)
Nope, you still won't believe NIST even when shown the photos.
You are right, I can not believe NIST even when shown the photos, and below explains why.
You were shown it was the third brake light on a BMW and you STILL claim its a fire truck.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
But so you can no longer claim you WEREN'T shown the pictures of the ROTATION of the top block:
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Sect 6-2 WTC 1 Structural observations.
Pay particular attention to Fig 6-7, 6-9 and 6-11
Arthur
I looked at the photos you list.
Each one of them (6- 7, 9, 11) shows the antenna tilting after the smoke expulsions burst on Floor 98, which occurred after the upper building-block began to fall.
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
NIST's explanation for the antenna seen falling first is not only unconvincing, it is wrong.
Therefore, the antenna, falling first into the core, could only have been due to explosions (which is indicative of CD, which is indicative of 9/11 being an inside job).
DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD
AND HE WILL GIVE YOU THE DESIRES OF YOUR HEART
You are right, I can not believe NIST even when shown the photos, and below explains why.
QUOTE
You were shown it was the third brake light on a BMW and you STILL claim its a fire truck.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
But so you can no longer claim you WEREN'T shown the pictures of the ROTATION of the top block:
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Sect 6-2 WTC 1 Structural observations.
Pay particular attention to Fig 6-7, 6-9 and 6-11
Arthur
I looked at the photos you list.
Each one of them (6- 7, 9, 11) shows the antenna tilting after the smoke expulsions burst on Floor 98, which occurred after the upper building-block began to fall.
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
NIST's explanation for the antenna seen falling first is not only unconvincing, it is wrong.
Therefore, the antenna, falling first into the core, could only have been due to explosions (which is indicative of CD, which is indicative of 9/11 being an inside job).
DELIGHT YOURSELF IN THE LORD
AND HE WILL GIVE YOU THE DESIRES OF YOUR HEART
notsoquick
Wrong, as usual.
Wrong, as usual.
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
Wrong, again.
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
Therefore, the antenna, falling first into the core, could only have been due to explosions (which is indicative of CD, which is indicative of 9/11 being an inside job).
Really, really wrong. The only thing about you that is accurate is that you are consistent(consistently wrong).
The only true statement in your whole post, too bad adoucette made it and not you.
We are STILL justified in assuming every word you say is a lie. Christianity, it seems, is just a facade you hide behind. You sure don't keep the Commandments(especially the one about "false witness")
Grumpy
Yes it does, and that fact is at the heart of the art of skydiving. By varying body configuration/orientation, skydivers are able to use variations in terminal velocity speeds to adjust their positions relative to each other both horizontally and vertically. Back in my day, we worked to put groups of 8 & 10 people together in formations. The current world record is 400 or so. Quite a feat.
So, of course I agree with your statement. Yet the calculated values used to state that the collapse mass was not falling at or near free fall speed (for its mass and area) do not take into account the variable of the confined/restricted air space within the outer walls of the tower. Therefore a "free fall" terminal velocity of the collapse wave would be lower/slower than the same mass/area falling through unrestricted air.
The point being, of course, that the intact portion of the towers below the impact areas offered virtually no resistance at all in slowing the collapse wave. To continue to use a terminal velocity value which doesn't account for the essentially denser air in the confined space in which the collapse wave was moving is misleading and inaccurate.
NIST does appear to have chosen badly, as it was their job to explain away this "antenna first" flap beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was instead due to the tilt, BUT AT THIS THEY FAILED.
They would have put forth their best, conclusive evidence to stop / shore-up a major crack in the OCT.
But the answer is they had nothing better to work with.
You entirely miss the mission of NIST.
It was not to explain the "Antenna First" flap.
There is no FLAP except among the nutters.
NIST does show pictures taken from OTHER directions than from the North, which DO show the top block with the antenna TILTING to the South.
So OF COURSE a 2 DIMENSIONAL video taken PARALLEL to the direction of tilt will give a DISTORTED view.
So OF COURSE nutters will SEIZE on this as EVIDENCE of something SINISTER.
The NUTTIEST of this bunch will claim its PROOF of CD.
But there is no evidence of CD.
There is no evidence of explosives going off.
In fact a CLOSE EXAMINATION of the Video that QntD linked to will show that there is NO MOVEMENT of the tower below the impact point.
So any damage to the core is at or above the impact point.
Which pretty much rules out CD.
Further, though the site claims that the movement of the antenna is visible in frame 6, and the facade not till frame 8, careful analysis shows that you can see the facade is moving in frame 7. When you consider that if you display that video in a 6.5"x5.5" window, that 1 mm = 30", you also realize that movements less than ~ a foot are below the resolution of the video.
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
QUOTE
Each one of them (6- 7, 9, 11) shows the antenna tilting after the smoke expulsions burst on Floor 98, which occurred after the upper building-block began to fall.
Wrong, as usual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Each one of them (6- 7, 9, 11) shows the antenna tilting after the smoke expulsions burst on Floor 98, which occurred after the upper building-block began to fall. |
Wrong, as usual.
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
Wrong, again.
QUOTE
NIST's explanation for the antenna seen falling first is not only unconvincing, it is wrong.
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NIST's explanation for the antenna seen falling first is not only unconvincing, it is wrong. |
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
Therefore, the antenna, falling first into the core, could only have been due to explosions (which is indicative of CD, which is indicative of 9/11 being an inside job).
Really, really wrong. The only thing about you that is accurate is that you are consistent(consistently wrong).
QUOTE
You were shown it was the third brake light on a BMW and you STILL claim its a fire truck.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
So its pretty clear you have NO INTEREST in the TRUTH.
The only true statement in your whole post, too bad adoucette made it and not you.
We are STILL justified in assuming every word you say is a lie. Christianity, it seems, is just a facade you hide behind. You sure don't keep the Commandments(especially the one about "false witness")
Grumpy
QUOTE
The only point was that terminal speed varies.
Yes it does, and that fact is at the heart of the art of skydiving. By varying body configuration/orientation, skydivers are able to use variations in terminal velocity speeds to adjust their positions relative to each other both horizontally and vertically. Back in my day, we worked to put groups of 8 & 10 people together in formations. The current world record is 400 or so. Quite a feat.
So, of course I agree with your statement. Yet the calculated values used to state that the collapse mass was not falling at or near free fall speed (for its mass and area) do not take into account the variable of the confined/restricted air space within the outer walls of the tower. Therefore a "free fall" terminal velocity of the collapse wave would be lower/slower than the same mass/area falling through unrestricted air.
The point being, of course, that the intact portion of the towers below the impact areas offered virtually no resistance at all in slowing the collapse wave. To continue to use a terminal velocity value which doesn't account for the essentially denser air in the confined space in which the collapse wave was moving is misleading and inaccurate.
forthetrees
Not by enough to matter much. It was at one atmosphere at the beginning, the compression would not be sufficiently contained to produce anything but limited overpressure(vented quickly when the windows blow), Inertia of the air(caught between floors) would produce momentary high velocity flows(possibly supersonic). All of this is minor compared to the energy available and would not show up until the collapse was underway.
Grumpy
QUOTE
So, of course I agree with your statement. Yet the calculated values used to state that the collapse mass was not falling at or near free fall speed (for its mass and area) do not take into account the variable of the confined/restricted air space within the outer walls of the tower. Therefore a "free fall" terminal velocity of the collapse wave would be lower/slower than the same mass/area falling through unrestricted air.
Not by enough to matter much. It was at one atmosphere at the beginning, the compression would not be sufficiently contained to produce anything but limited overpressure(vented quickly when the windows blow), Inertia of the air(caught between floors) would produce momentary high velocity flows(possibly supersonic). All of this is minor compared to the energy available and would not show up until the collapse was underway.
Grumpy
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 28 2007, 09:53 PM)
Each one of them (6- 7, 9, 11) shows the antenna tilting after the smoke expulsions burst on Floor 98, which occurred after the upper building-block began to fall.
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
QnD,
I have looked over the NIST photos and the 911research sequence. Your assessment
looks correct to me. The first NIST photo is at a point after the expulsion of smoke
which places it later in the 911research sequence, after first the antenna and then the
top are seen to move. Strictly speaking, this just says that NIST may have chosen badly
with the photos elected to show the point. For myself, after seeing the 911research
sequence, I find it very unlikely that a top block tilt coincidental with the first antenna
movement can be demonstrated. Of course, this is very accessible data and one should
look at the photos for themselves and come to their own conclusion. On this they do
not need my help (or yours or Grumpy's or arthur's ....).
However, the antenna is seen falling first in the frame-by-frame analysis, and this happened before the tilting and Floor 98 smoke expulsions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html
QnD,
I have looked over the NIST photos and the 911research sequence. Your assessment
looks correct to me. The first NIST photo is at a point after the expulsion of smoke
which places it later in the 911research sequence, after first the antenna and then the
top are seen to move. Strictly speaking, this just says that NIST may have chosen badly
with the photos elected to show the point. For myself, after seeing the 911research
sequence, I find it very unlikely that a top block tilt coincidental with the first antenna
movement can be demonstrated. Of course, this is very accessible data and one should
look at the photos for themselves and come to their own conclusion. On this they do
not need my help (or yours or Grumpy's or arthur's ....).
there is no question. the antenna begins to drop first, and 911 research has pointed it out perfectly.
the downward movement is seen in relation to the roofline. if there was any tilting, the roofline would move, too.
maybe no one needs help, and they should look for themselves. i just wanted to put in my vote.
the lies cannot stand.
the downward movement is seen in relation to the roofline. if there was any tilting, the roofline would move, too.
maybe no one needs help, and they should look for themselves. i just wanted to put in my vote.
the lies cannot stand.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 29 2007, 05:34 AM)
notsoquick
Wrong, as usual.
Wrong, again.
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
Really, really wrong. The only thing about you that is accurate is that you are consistent(consistently wrong).
The only true statement in your whole post, too bad adoucette made it and not you.
We are STILL justified in assuming every word you say is a lie. Christianity, it seems, is just a facade you hide behind. You sure don't keep the Commandments(especially the one about "false witness")
Grumpy
Still blind as a bat...
But not really. You and doc respond like a shills...ergo...
But I am not posting to you.
I post for those with open minds, and you and NIST are wrong on this (as usual).
THY WORD HAVE I HID IN MY HEART
THAT I MIGHT NOT SIN AGAINST THEE
Wrong, as usual.
Wrong, again.
No, it is correct, you are wrong.
Really, really wrong. The only thing about you that is accurate is that you are consistent(consistently wrong).
The only true statement in your whole post, too bad adoucette made it and not you.
We are STILL justified in assuming every word you say is a lie. Christianity, it seems, is just a facade you hide behind. You sure don't keep the Commandments(especially the one about "false witness")
Grumpy
Still blind as a bat...
But not really. You and doc respond like a shills...ergo...
But I am not posting to you.
I post for those with open minds, and you and NIST are wrong on this (as usual).
THY WORD HAVE I HID IN MY HEART
THAT I MIGHT NOT SIN AGAINST THEE
QUOTE (eigenvalue+Apr 29 2007, 09:50 AM)
QnD,
I have looked over the NIST photos and the 911research sequence. Your assessment
looks correct to me. The first NIST photo is at a point after the expulsion of smoke
which places it later in the 911research sequence, after first the antenna and then the
top are seen to move. Strictly speaking, this just says that NIST may have chosen badly with the photos elected to show the point. For myself, after seeing the 911research sequence, I find it very unlikely that a top block tilt coincidental with the first antenna movement can be demonstrated. Of course, this is very accessible data and one should look at the photos for themselves and come to their own conclusion. On this they do not need my help (or yours or Grumpy's or arthur's ....).
NIST does appear to have chosen badly, as it was their job to explain away this "antenna first" flap beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was instead due to the tilt, BUT AT THIS THEY FAILED.
They would have put forth their best, conclusive evidence to stop / shore-up a major crack in the OCT.
But the answer is they had nothing better to work with.
Thanks, eigenvalue.
OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN
HALLOWED BE THY NAME
I have looked over the NIST photos and the 911research sequence. Your assessment
looks correct to me. The first NIST photo is at a point after the expulsion of smoke
which places it later in the 911research sequence, after first the antenna and then the
top are seen to move. Strictly speaking, this just says that NIST may have chosen badly with the photos elected to show the point. For myself, after seeing the 911research sequence, I find it very unlikely that a top block tilt coincidental with the first antenna movement can be demonstrated. Of course, this is very accessible data and one should look at the photos for themselves and come to their own conclusion. On this they do not need my help (or yours or Grumpy's or arthur's ....).
NIST does appear to have chosen badly, as it was their job to explain away this "antenna first" flap beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was instead due to the tilt, BUT AT THIS THEY FAILED.
They would have put forth their best, conclusive evidence to stop / shore-up a major crack in the OCT.
But the answer is they had nothing better to work with.
Thanks, eigenvalue.
OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN
HALLOWED BE THY NAME
notsoquick
Yes, consistency is your only redeeming value.
Grumpy
Yes, consistency is your only redeeming value.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Apr 29 2007, 10:14 AM)
there is no question. the antenna begins to drop first, and 911 research has pointed it out perfectly.
the downward movement is seen in relation to the roofline. if there was any tilting, the roofline would move, too.
maybe no one needs help, and they should look for themselves. i just wanted to put in my vote.
the lies cannot stand.
Thanks for your post, newton.
And a special thanks for your continual effort for the truth about 9/11 over such a long period of time at this forum. I appreciate you more than I can adequately express.
reasonwhy comes to mind also; you two are incredible and very much appreciated!
THY KINGDOM COME THY WILL BE DONE
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
the downward movement is seen in relation to the roofline. if there was any tilting, the roofline would move, too.
maybe no one needs help, and they should look for themselves. i just wanted to put in my vote.
the lies cannot stand.
Thanks for your post, newton.
And a special thanks for your continual effort for the truth about 9/11 over such a long period of time at this forum. I appreciate you more than I can adequately express.
reasonwhy comes to mind also; you two are incredible and very much appreciated!
THY KINGDOM COME THY WILL BE DONE
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Apr 29 2007, 12:30 PM)
NIST does appear to have chosen badly, as it was their job to explain away this "antenna first" flap beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was instead due to the tilt, BUT AT THIS THEY FAILED.
They would have put forth their best, conclusive evidence to stop / shore-up a major crack in the OCT.
But the answer is they had nothing better to work with.
You entirely miss the mission of NIST.
It was not to explain the "Antenna First" flap.
There is no FLAP except among the nutters.
NIST does show pictures taken from OTHER directions than from the North, which DO show the top block with the antenna TILTING to the South.
So OF COURSE a 2 DIMENSIONAL video taken PARALLEL to the direction of tilt will give a DISTORTED view.
So OF COURSE nutters will SEIZE on this as EVIDENCE of something SINISTER.
The NUTTIEST of this bunch will claim its PROOF of CD.
But there is no evidence of CD.
There is no evidence of explosives going off.
In fact a CLOSE EXAMINATION of the Video that QntD linked to will show that there is NO MOVEMENT of the tower below the impact point.
So any damage to the core is at or above the impact point.
Which pretty much rules out CD.
Further, though the site claims that the movement of the antenna is visible in frame 6, and the facade not till frame 8, careful analysis shows that you can see the facade is moving in frame 7. When you consider that if you display that video in a 6.5"x5.5" window, that 1 mm = 30", you also realize that movements less than ~ a foot are below the resolution of the video.
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Apr 29 2007, 12:14 PM)
there is no question. the antenna begins to drop first, and 911 research has pointed it out perfectly.
Nope.
The Antenna is 100 ft from the roof line, it will show more apparent motion than the roofline.
If 911 research has evidence than they simply have to show a frame by frame analysis taken from a direction that is not parallel to the tilt of the tower.
Arthur
Nope.
The Antenna is 100 ft from the roof line, it will show more apparent motion than the roofline.
If 911 research has evidence than they simply have to show a frame by frame analysis taken from a direction that is not parallel to the tilt of the tower.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 29 2007, 11:11 AM)
You entirely miss the mission of NIST.
It was not to explain the "Antenna First" flap.
There is no FLAP except among the nutters.
NIST does show pictures taken from OTHER directions than from the North, which DO show the top block with the antenna TILTING to the South.
So OF COURSE a 2 DIMENSIONAL video taken PARALLEL to the direction of tilt will give a DISTORTED view.
So OF COURSE nutters will SEIZE on this as EVIDENCE of something SINISTER.
The NUTTIEST of this bunch will claim its PROOF of CD.
But there is no evidence of CD.
There is no evidence of explosives going off.
In fact a CLOSE EXAMINATION of the Video that QntD linked to will show that there is NO MOVEMENT of the tower below the impact point.
So any damage to the core is at or above the impact point.
Which pretty much rules out CD.
Further, though the site claims that the movement of the antenna is visible in frame 6, and the facade not till frame 8, careful analysis shows that you can see the facade is moving in frame 7. When you consider that if you display that video in a 6.5"x5.5" window, that 1 mm = 30", you also realize that movements less than ~ a foot are below the resolution of the video.
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
Blah, blah, blah...Yawn...
LOOKING UNTO JESUS
THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH
It was not to explain the "Antenna First" flap.
There is no FLAP except among the nutters.
NIST does show pictures taken from OTHER directions than from the North, which DO show the top block with the antenna TILTING to the South.
So OF COURSE a 2 DIMENSIONAL video taken PARALLEL to the direction of tilt will give a DISTORTED view.
So OF COURSE nutters will SEIZE on this as EVIDENCE of something SINISTER.
The NUTTIEST of this bunch will claim its PROOF of CD.
But there is no evidence of CD.
There is no evidence of explosives going off.
In fact a CLOSE EXAMINATION of the Video that QntD linked to will show that there is NO MOVEMENT of the tower below the impact point.
So any damage to the core is at or above the impact point.
Which pretty much rules out CD.
Further, though the site claims that the movement of the antenna is visible in frame 6, and the facade not till frame 8, careful analysis shows that you can see the facade is moving in frame 7. When you consider that if you display that video in a 6.5"x5.5" window, that 1 mm = 30", you also realize that movements less than ~ a foot are below the resolution of the video.
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
Blah, blah, blah...Yawn...
LOOKING UNTO JESUS
THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH
I didn't expect you'd have much to say about this.
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
Considering the amount of tilt TO THE SOUTH (directly away from the video) that is CLEARLY shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Fig 6-7 - middle picture, and the fact that that amount of tilt didn't happen INSTANTANEOUSLY, it is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with seeing the movement of the antenna ONE FRAME before movement of the building is seen, in a video taken PARALLEL to the motion of the tower.
Arthur
QUOTE (eigenvalue+Apr 29 2007, 03:16 AM)
Greening&BV is not a theory in the sense of Newton's laws.
Greening&BV is an unvalidated hypothesis that rests on several assumptions that have not been checked.
You listed these yourself many posts ago....
The assumptions have been checked and the crush-down equations validated.
It is a theory in the sense that not all details are considered. That is true of Newton's laws as well.
Greening&BV is an unvalidated hypothesis that rests on several assumptions that have not been checked.
You listed these yourself many posts ago....
The assumptions have been checked and the crush-down equations validated.
It is a theory in the sense that not all details are considered. That is true of Newton's laws as well.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Apr 29 2007, 02:59 AM)
That's quite a wide-ranging statement! Do you have anything to back it up?
Collapsed structures include
Pyramid at Meidum
Goch Cathedral
Venice Campenile
Pavia Civic Center
New World Hotel, Singapore
2000 Commonwealth Ave. tower, Boston
Ronan Points Apartments, UK
Murrah Federal Building, OK
many, many structures due to earthquakes in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico,
etc., etc.
Collapsed structures include
Pyramid at Meidum
Goch Cathedral
Venice Campenile
Pavia Civic Center
New World Hotel, Singapore
2000 Commonwealth Ave. tower, Boston
Ronan Points Apartments, UK
Murrah Federal Building, OK
many, many structures due to earthquakes in Armenia, Turkey, Mexico,
etc., etc.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.