QUOTE (forthetrees+May 7 2007, 08:02 PM)
Anyway, FYI/FWIW:
http://www.brightpathweb.net/ae911/index.html
FWIW? IMO, nadda, nil, zip, nichevo.
For a Grumpy points out, there is no evidence of explosives.
Worse, there is no evidence of 'pools of molten metal' at Ground Zero, etc.
These people are deluding themselves (and others)...
http://www.brightpathweb.net/ae911/index.html
FWIW? IMO, nadda, nil, zip, nichevo.
For a Grumpy points out, there is no evidence of explosives.
Worse, there is no evidence of 'pools of molten metal' at Ground Zero, etc.
These people are deluding themselves (and others)...
QUOTE (adoucette+May 7 2007, 07:56 PM)
The main blast is at 18 seconds, though no movement is seen in the video till 19 seconds.
The top hits at the 25 second mark.
So collapse time is between 6 and 7 seconds.
Arthur
well, the first blast is at 11 seconds. are ya deef?
even if i accept your time marks, it still fell slower than WTC7.
Forthetrees, you will notice under TECHNICAL ARTICLES that there are NONE.
So while it CLAIMS that: "There is however a growing body of solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 experts as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST. "
It is curiously LACKING any display of this "growing body of solid evidence .... that casts grave doubt upon ... the offical reports by ... NIST."
Typical.
Of course they do allow for DONATIONS.
Arthur
So while it CLAIMS that: "There is however a growing body of solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 experts as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST. "
It is curiously LACKING any display of this "growing body of solid evidence .... that casts grave doubt upon ... the offical reports by ... NIST."
Typical.
Of course they do allow for DONATIONS.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+May 7 2007, 03:21 PM)
well, the first blast is at 11 seconds. are ya deef?
even if i accept your time marks, it still fell slower than WTC7.
Nope, I looked at multiple videos of that and the first blasts are taking out parts of the structure higher up.
See for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM...related&search=
It DIDN'T fall slower than WTC 7, you just want to count the time of the North curtain wall, but from the time the Penthouse sank into the building the entire collapse took ~ 18 seconds.
Arthur
even if i accept your time marks, it still fell slower than WTC7.
Nope, I looked at multiple videos of that and the first blasts are taking out parts of the structure higher up.
See for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM...related&search=
It DIDN'T fall slower than WTC 7, you just want to count the time of the North curtain wall, but from the time the Penthouse sank into the building the entire collapse took ~ 18 seconds.
Arthur
Comparing hypotheses via likelihood ratios --- It is usual practice in comparing hypothesis H to hypothesis K using evidence (measured data) E to use the logarithm to the base 10 of the likelihood ratio,
LL(H,K,E) = log10(P[E|H)/P[E|K))
where P[E|H] and P[E|K] are the probabilities of the evidence, E, given the hypotheses H and K, respectively. (While a pure number, A. Turing and I.J. Good choose the name ban for LL(H,K,E).)
We assume each datum in the evidence contains random error which we take as independent normally distributed errors with known mean determined by the hypothesis and a common (estimated) variance.
So P[E|H] = P[E_1|H]P[E_2|H]...P[E_n|H] and similarly for hypothesis K.
Using NEU-FONZE's data, E, for the drop of WTC 1 a best unbiased estimate of the variance was obtained. The square root of the variance is said to be the standard deviation and the value is 0.37 meters, somewhat greater than NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.2 meters, but not worrisomely larger.
Hypothesis H is B&V's crush-down equation.
Hypothesis K is free-fall.
LL(H,K,E) = 5.6 bans
It is generally thought that a fraction of a ban suffices to accept H and reject K as explaining the data, although there is some controversy about whether 0.2 bans suffices. In this, notice that one ban states that the weight of the evidence supports H ten times as much as it supports K.
So 5.6 bans says that the weight of the evidence supports H about 400,000 times as much as it supports K. So we can be quite sure the WTC 1 did not fall in free-fall.
LL(H,K,E) = log10(P[E|H)/P[E|K))
where P[E|H] and P[E|K] are the probabilities of the evidence, E, given the hypotheses H and K, respectively. (While a pure number, A. Turing and I.J. Good choose the name ban for LL(H,K,E).)
We assume each datum in the evidence contains random error which we take as independent normally distributed errors with known mean determined by the hypothesis and a common (estimated) variance.
So P[E|H] = P[E_1|H]P[E_2|H]...P[E_n|H] and similarly for hypothesis K.
Using NEU-FONZE's data, E, for the drop of WTC 1 a best unbiased estimate of the variance was obtained. The square root of the variance is said to be the standard deviation and the value is 0.37 meters, somewhat greater than NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.2 meters, but not worrisomely larger.
Hypothesis H is B&V's crush-down equation.
Hypothesis K is free-fall.
LL(H,K,E) = 5.6 bans
It is generally thought that a fraction of a ban suffices to accept H and reject K as explaining the data, although there is some controversy about whether 0.2 bans suffices. In this, notice that one ban states that the weight of the evidence supports H ten times as much as it supports K.
So 5.6 bans says that the weight of the evidence supports H about 400,000 times as much as it supports K. So we can be quite sure the WTC 1 did not fall in free-fall.
DBB, that's of course the heavier stuff and needs to be studied, one thing I don't get is why you use the 10-base log and not ln because the first doesn't look natural.
Further I think that even the heaviest CT'ers admit that it was no freefall ;-)
I remember you told (2/3)g for wtc1 and (3/4)g for wtc2
Further I think that even the heaviest CT'ers admit that it was no freefall ;-)
I remember you told (2/3)g for wtc1 and (3/4)g for wtc2
QUOTE (einsteen+May 7 2007, 09:33 PM)
... one thing I don't get is why you use the 10-base log and not ln ...
Further I think that even the heaviest CT'ers admit that it was no freefall ;-)
I remember you told (2/3)g for wtc1 and (3/4)g for wtc2
log likelihoods are traditionally done using base 10. Makes it easy to read off the approximate weight of the evidence. For example 2 bans means the weight of the evidence supports H 100 times more than it supports K.
Ok, then we can all be quite sure that the collapse is not the result of a well-done implosion demolition.
Yes, using the formula
d = (1/2)at^2
and solving of the best fitting values of a gives the numbers you cite. But this formula fails to include all the known physics if there is any resistance, so cannot be correct. It is just a simple way to illustrate that there was some resistance to the collapses...
Further I think that even the heaviest CT'ers admit that it was no freefall ;-)
I remember you told (2/3)g for wtc1 and (3/4)g for wtc2
log likelihoods are traditionally done using base 10. Makes it easy to read off the approximate weight of the evidence. For example 2 bans means the weight of the evidence supports H 100 times more than it supports K.
Ok, then we can all be quite sure that the collapse is not the result of a well-done implosion demolition.
Yes, using the formula
d = (1/2)at^2
and solving of the best fitting values of a gives the numbers you cite. But this formula fails to include all the known physics if there is any resistance, so cannot be correct. It is just a simple way to illustrate that there was some resistance to the collapses...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 7 2007, 08:20 PM)
FWIW? IMO, nadda, nil, zip, nichevo.
For a Grumpy points out, there is no evidence of explosives.
Worse, there is no evidence of 'pools of molten metal' at Ground Zero, etc.
These people are deluding themselves (and others)...
No evidence for explosives?
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
Do we need to rehash the fact of the crimp in the facade of WTC7? Or the plumes of evenly distributed smoke far in advance of the collapse zone, emitting from symmetrical and central locations? Or the perfect symmetry of the implosion of WTC7 in spite of its asymmetrically designed internal structure?
This list, as we all know, goes on.
They are evidence, or phenomena to be explained; and whether one thinks they can be explained by theories other than CD is a different matter. The fact remains that they are consistent with CD hypothesis to a greater degree of probability than fire and damage, as the FEMA report itself suggests.
For a Grumpy points out, there is no evidence of explosives.
Worse, there is no evidence of 'pools of molten metal' at Ground Zero, etc.
These people are deluding themselves (and others)...
No evidence for explosives?
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
Do we need to rehash the fact of the crimp in the facade of WTC7? Or the plumes of evenly distributed smoke far in advance of the collapse zone, emitting from symmetrical and central locations? Or the perfect symmetry of the implosion of WTC7 in spite of its asymmetrically designed internal structure?
This list, as we all know, goes on.
They are evidence, or phenomena to be explained; and whether one thinks they can be explained by theories other than CD is a different matter. The fact remains that they are consistent with CD hypothesis to a greater degree of probability than fire and damage, as the FEMA report itself suggests.
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 7 2007, 10:40 PM)
No evidence for explosives?
Go back and read what Grumpy has posted about it.
Also read Implosion World's Blanchard report.
Go back and read what Grumpy has posted about it.
Also read Implosion World's Blanchard report.
More bans for WTC 2 ---
9.6 bans for the log likelihood ratio for WTC 2. I suspect the reason for the larger number is having four seconds worth of data instead of only three.
9.6 bans for the log likelihood ratio for WTC 2. I suspect the reason for the larger number is having four seconds worth of data instead of only three.
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 7 2007, 05:40 PM)
No evidence for explosives?
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
So why is nothing PUBLISHED by these SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS and DEMO EXPERTS????
I know, they prefer to let someone with NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS SPEAK FOR THEM.
Right.
Arthur
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
So why is nothing PUBLISHED by these SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS and DEMO EXPERTS????
I know, they prefer to let someone with NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THESE SUBJECTS SPEAK FOR THEM.
Right.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+May 7 2007, 02:16 PM)
That implies that if you implode the whole building from the bottom that also horizontal ejections would occur.
Different collapse mechanisms. A conventional bottom up CD that essentially removes the bottom story, accelerates the entire building downward. In the case of the twin towers, when this acceleration is arrested by the ground, every floor connection is loaded, and where the load exceeds capacity, failure occurs. I don't know how many floors would fail at once or how many cycles it would take to destroy the building.
In a professional CD, an experienced demolitionist would be aware of the conditions that would cause material ejection and would take the necessary steps to prevent it. It would be interesting to see how a building of that size and type would have been demolished. I remember reading a comment by one of the Loizeaux's who was speculating on how difficult it would be to demolish the towers if it became necessary to do so.
The top down collapses of 9/11 involved floors being sequentially overloaded by the descending debris front. When a floor was disconnected from the columns, the section of column it formally restrained was then free to recoil and eject loose elements. While similar conditions might exist in the bottom up scenario, I don't believe they would be as numerous.
Different collapse mechanisms. A conventional bottom up CD that essentially removes the bottom story, accelerates the entire building downward. In the case of the twin towers, when this acceleration is arrested by the ground, every floor connection is loaded, and where the load exceeds capacity, failure occurs. I don't know how many floors would fail at once or how many cycles it would take to destroy the building.
In a professional CD, an experienced demolitionist would be aware of the conditions that would cause material ejection and would take the necessary steps to prevent it. It would be interesting to see how a building of that size and type would have been demolished. I remember reading a comment by one of the Loizeaux's who was speculating on how difficult it would be to demolish the towers if it became necessary to do so.
The top down collapses of 9/11 involved floors being sequentially overloaded by the descending debris front. When a floor was disconnected from the columns, the section of column it formally restrained was then free to recoil and eject loose elements. While similar conditions might exist in the bottom up scenario, I don't believe they would be as numerous.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 7 2007, 11:59 AM)
Read what your quotation says about validation. By the definition used there, that is exactly what I have done: confirm that the equation (model) agrees well with the data.
Would you mind being explicit, what specific data do you think you have "confirmed" the model against? Why do you feel that this validates the model?
Would you mind being explicit, what specific data do you think you have "confirmed" the model against? Why do you feel that this validates the model?
QUOTE (eigenvalue+May 7 2007, 11:54 PM)
Would you mind being explicit, what specific data do you think you have "confirmed" the model against? Why do you feel that this validates the model?
Long ago, on previous threads, NEU-FONZE posted measured drops, at specific times, using stop-frame videos and simple measuring instruments on his computer monitor, for both towers, for the first few seconds.
The crush-down equation has a parameter to be estimated, the resistive force F. The computer program uses standard function minimization techniques to find that value of F which minimizes the variance in the fit between the computed values and the data.
WTC 1: standard deviation = 0.37, compared to NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.2 meters.
WTC 2: standard deviation = 0.54, compared to NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.5 meters.
Since the crush-down equation is developed from first principles using four simplifying assumptions which B&V motivate, of which Greening has used the first three and shagster points out that both models give highly similar results for more than 55 stories, I'd say we are in quite good shape.
As a parenthetical remark, locally land use law was modified based on only three sets of measurements (which cost millions) with much poorer fits between data and model. (Air flow is very difficult.)
But more directly, even if one wonders whether the crush-down equation is the, somehow, correct model, notice that the Bayesian techniques demonstrate, according to the policy set by Jeffreys, definitely, that crush-down is preferred to free-fall.
Have a different, physically possible, equation for me to compare crush-down against? That is the usual practice in all the sciences+engineering that I know anything about (except of course, software engineering, as it is called).
Long ago, on previous threads, NEU-FONZE posted measured drops, at specific times, using stop-frame videos and simple measuring instruments on his computer monitor, for both towers, for the first few seconds.
The crush-down equation has a parameter to be estimated, the resistive force F. The computer program uses standard function minimization techniques to find that value of F which minimizes the variance in the fit between the computed values and the data.
WTC 1: standard deviation = 0.37, compared to NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.2 meters.
WTC 2: standard deviation = 0.54, compared to NEU-FONZE's subjective estimate of 0.5 meters.
Since the crush-down equation is developed from first principles using four simplifying assumptions which B&V motivate, of which Greening has used the first three and shagster points out that both models give highly similar results for more than 55 stories, I'd say we are in quite good shape.
As a parenthetical remark, locally land use law was modified based on only three sets of measurements (which cost millions) with much poorer fits between data and model. (Air flow is very difficult.)
But more directly, even if one wonders whether the crush-down equation is the, somehow, correct model, notice that the Bayesian techniques demonstrate, according to the policy set by Jeffreys, definitely, that crush-down is preferred to free-fall.
Have a different, physically possible, equation for me to compare crush-down against? That is the usual practice in all the sciences+engineering that I know anything about (except of course, software engineering, as it is called).
memeticverb
Yes, NO EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES, PERIOD. I am talking about valid physical evidence such as chemical residue, det cord debris, timers or detonators, shaped charge channels, explosively cut beams, etc. All the evidence you have touted is that something "looked like" squibs or "could be" cutting charges or "appeared to be" explosives, yet NO EXPLOSIVE IN EXISTENCE LEAVES NO EVIDENCE BEHIND. It is actually easily spotted when explosives are used, yet not one bit of evidence was found in the entire WTC complex.
So your OPINION that explosives were used is worthless and uninformed, no evidence of the use of explosives on 911 exists, NONE. Therefore explosives were not used on 911.
Grumpy
QUOTE
No evidence for explosives?
Yes, NO EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES, PERIOD. I am talking about valid physical evidence such as chemical residue, det cord debris, timers or detonators, shaped charge channels, explosively cut beams, etc. All the evidence you have touted is that something "looked like" squibs or "could be" cutting charges or "appeared to be" explosives, yet NO EXPLOSIVE IN EXISTENCE LEAVES NO EVIDENCE BEHIND. It is actually easily spotted when explosives are used, yet not one bit of evidence was found in the entire WTC complex.
So your OPINION that explosives were used is worthless and uninformed, no evidence of the use of explosives on 911 exists, NONE. Therefore explosives were not used on 911.
Grumpy
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 7 2007, 10:40 PM)
No evidence for explosives?
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
Do we need to rehash the fact of the crimp in the facade of WTC7? Or the plumes of evenly distributed smoke far in advance of the collapse zone, emitting from symmetrical and central locations? Or the perfect symmetry of the implosion of WTC7 in spite of its asymmetrically designed internal structure?
This list, as we all know, goes on.
They are evidence, or phenomena to be explained; and whether one thinks they can be explained by theories other than CD is a different matter. The fact remains that they are consistent with CD hypothesis to a greater degree of probability than fire and damage, as the FEMA report itself suggests.
NO conventional explosives were found and no evidence of them.
However explosive gasses were likely just from the contents in the buildings one of those is Hydrogen, a hydrogen-carbon explosion in the elevator shaft of Building 7 could have damaged the cantilever support beams and not have register on seismographs.
It would have been similar to the 1993 bombing where hydrogen was used as an accelerating compound.
I have personally consulted with scientists, engineers, and demo experts, and only one of them was suspicious of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and yet even he admitted that the evidence is certainly there.
Do we need to rehash the fact of the crimp in the facade of WTC7? Or the plumes of evenly distributed smoke far in advance of the collapse zone, emitting from symmetrical and central locations? Or the perfect symmetry of the implosion of WTC7 in spite of its asymmetrically designed internal structure?
This list, as we all know, goes on.
They are evidence, or phenomena to be explained; and whether one thinks they can be explained by theories other than CD is a different matter. The fact remains that they are consistent with CD hypothesis to a greater degree of probability than fire and damage, as the FEMA report itself suggests.
NO conventional explosives were found and no evidence of them.
However explosive gasses were likely just from the contents in the buildings one of those is Hydrogen, a hydrogen-carbon explosion in the elevator shaft of Building 7 could have damaged the cantilever support beams and not have register on seismographs.
It would have been similar to the 1993 bombing where hydrogen was used as an accelerating compound.
*cough*
Did y'all notice on forthetrees' site, it listed Steven Jones as retired from BYU? That's not my understanding of why he's not there anymore.
Did y'all notice on forthetrees' site, it listed Steven Jones as retired from BYU? That's not my understanding of why he's not there anymore.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 7 2007, 08:28 PM)
Nope, I looked at multiple videos of that and the first blasts are taking out parts of the structure higher up.
See for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM...related&search=
It DIDN'T fall slower than WTC 7, you just want to count the time of the North curtain wall, but from the time the Penthouse sank into the building the entire collapse took ~ 18 seconds.
Arthur
you are excellent at eluding the point.
the point(s) is(are):
using seismic traces to determine collapse time is not valid when trying to discern between natural collapse and controlled demo. because, in a controlled demo, the first blasts do not cause (main support) structural movement in the buildings. they merely bring the building to near equilibrium, by severing the REDUNDANT SUPPORT (stand vs. collapse), and then they WAIT a few seconds, while loads are redistributed. once the loads have had time to 'ripple' through the building, and reach a new state of equilibrium, the main charges are set off, severing the main supports at the base of the building, first, followed by a sequence of charges that knock out upper floors' support just before they hit the ground. this allows GRAVITY TO DO MOST THE WORK in breaking apart structural components.
so, when you say, "the collapse of tower seven lasted x seconds long, because the seismic trace is y seconds", you IGNORE the reality of the timing of controlled demolitions.
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
it(WTC7) was a controlled demolition.
See for instance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM...related&search=
It DIDN'T fall slower than WTC 7, you just want to count the time of the North curtain wall, but from the time the Penthouse sank into the building the entire collapse took ~ 18 seconds.
Arthur
you are excellent at eluding the point.
the point(s) is(are):
using seismic traces to determine collapse time is not valid when trying to discern between natural collapse and controlled demo. because, in a controlled demo, the first blasts do not cause (main support) structural movement in the buildings. they merely bring the building to near equilibrium, by severing the REDUNDANT SUPPORT (stand vs. collapse), and then they WAIT a few seconds, while loads are redistributed. once the loads have had time to 'ripple' through the building, and reach a new state of equilibrium, the main charges are set off, severing the main supports at the base of the building, first, followed by a sequence of charges that knock out upper floors' support just before they hit the ground. this allows GRAVITY TO DO MOST THE WORK in breaking apart structural components.
so, when you say, "the collapse of tower seven lasted x seconds long, because the seismic trace is y seconds", you IGNORE the reality of the timing of controlled demolitions.
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
it(WTC7) was a controlled demolition.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+May 8 2007, 03:23 AM)
*cough*
Did y'all notice on forthetrees' site, it listed Steven Jones as retired from BYU? That's not my understanding of why he's not there anymore.
what's your point?
is jones your hero or something?
why don't you attack dylan avery, and rick siegal while you're here.
why not take a few pokes Newton with his silly 'LAWS', too, as long as you're on a non-sequitor character assassination rampage.
or galileo. he got 'fired' and almost killed for finding truth and trying to spread it to the ignorant masses.
better yet, how about "missiles and planes" rumsfeld, "haliburton" cheney, or "saw the first plane hit on TV" bush?
dickheads.
Did y'all notice on forthetrees' site, it listed Steven Jones as retired from BYU? That's not my understanding of why he's not there anymore.
what's your point?
is jones your hero or something?
why don't you attack dylan avery, and rick siegal while you're here.
why not take a few pokes Newton with his silly 'LAWS', too, as long as you're on a non-sequitor character assassination rampage.
or galileo. he got 'fired' and almost killed for finding truth and trying to spread it to the ignorant masses.
better yet, how about "missiles and planes" rumsfeld, "haliburton" cheney, or "saw the first plane hit on TV" bush?
dickheads.
QUOTE
it(WTC7) was a controlled demolition.
A while back when I was asking about WTC 7, I commented that demolition experts must be highly overpaid if natural collapses come down pretty much in their own footprint.
It was pointed out to me in response that WTC7 didn't, and that buildings tend to naturally fall that way anyway... or at least 90% or so of the mass/debris tends to fall straight down regardless, and that CD experts earn their big bucks for getting the other 10% to behave as required.
That got me to thinking about the language used in these discussions. Is "controlled demoliton"/CD the correct/best term? Whether or not it's the case is another matter, but for purposes of discussion, wouldn't the term "engineered demolition" or "engineered destruction", or perhaps even "ensured destruction" be more accurate?
If, for purposes of discussion, there was more to these collapses than just: damage, fire, collapse -there would be no need for a CD level of care and preparation. Just get enough bang into critical areas to ensure collapse and let the chips fall where they may.
QUOTE (newton+May 7 2007, 10:39 PM)
so, when you say, "the collapse of tower seven lasted x seconds long, because the seismic trace is y seconds", you IGNORE the reality of the timing of controlled demolitions.
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
Except I didn't say those things.
The collapse time is from BOTH the visual evidence and the seismic trace.
The VISUAL evidence is that the collapse is ~ 13+ seconds long.
You just want to only count ONE PART of the collapse.
The collapse begins when the East Penthouse collapses into the building.
The fact that apparently much of the internal structure had failed before the curtain wall comes down is why the collapse is greater than 2/3G (like the WTC towers), but it is STILL slower than gravity.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it WAS a Controlled Demolition.
There is NO WAY it could have been a Controlled Demoliton.
If you think so, please provide evidence of another Controlled Demolition where they let the building BURN for 7 hours first.
Arthur
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
Except I didn't say those things.
The collapse time is from BOTH the visual evidence and the seismic trace.
The VISUAL evidence is that the collapse is ~ 13+ seconds long.
You just want to only count ONE PART of the collapse.
The collapse begins when the East Penthouse collapses into the building.
The fact that apparently much of the internal structure had failed before the curtain wall comes down is why the collapse is greater than 2/3G (like the WTC towers), but it is STILL slower than gravity.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it WAS a Controlled Demolition.
There is NO WAY it could have been a Controlled Demoliton.
If you think so, please provide evidence of another Controlled Demolition where they let the building BURN for 7 hours first.
Arthur
This physics professor postulates that the hijackers may have been attempting to topple the towers.
Planes May Have Almost Toppled World Trade Center Towers On Impact:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20710082205.htm
Planes May Have Almost Toppled World Trade Center Towers On Impact:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20710082205.htm
QUOTE (forthetrees+May 8 2007, 03:58 AM)
A while back when I was asking about WTC 7, I commented that demolition experts must be highly overpaid if natural collapses come down pretty much in their own footprint.
It was pointed out to me in response that WTC7 didn't, and that buildings tend to naturally fall that way anyway... or at least 90% or so of the mass/debris tends to fall straight down regardless, and that CD experts earn their big bucks for getting the other 10% to behave as required.
That got me to thinking about the language used in these discussions. Is "controlled demoliton"/CD the correct/best term? Whether or not it's the case is another matter, but for purposes of discussion, wouldn't the term "engineered demolition" or "engineered destruction", or perhaps even "ensured destruction" be more accurate?
If, for purposes of discussion, there was more to these collapses than just: damage, fire, collapse -there would be no need for a CD level of care and preparation. Just get enough bang into critical areas to ensure collapse and let the chips fall where they may.
Well given the horizontal waves of explosive-like expulsion of debris (initiating the rotation seen in the upper floors and the angular momentum) it is safe to say that whatever caused this operated in a symmetrical fashion, "peeling the tower like a banana", however, this was just a moment after the appearance of tremendous angular momentum. Why if the top half was falling on its side would it then overcome this resistance with exponential force?
To repeat, the tower, having rotated and dipped as the direct result of resistance, would only be expected to continue this motion, that it did not and displayed global, rapid collapse, indicates that the resistance was cut.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 8 2007, 04:23 AM)
Except I didn't say those things.
The collapse time is from BOTH the visual evidence and the seismic trace.
The VISUAL evidence is that the collapse is ~ 13+ seconds long.
You just want to only count ONE PART of the collapse.
The collapse begins when the East Penthouse collapses into the building.
The fact that apparently much of the internal structure had failed before the curtain wall comes down is why the collapse is greater than 2/3G (like the WTC towers), but it is STILL slower than gravity.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it WAS a Controlled Demolition.
There is NO WAY it could have been a Controlled Demoliton.
If you think so, please provide evidence of another Controlled Demolition where they let the building BURN for 7 hours first.
Arthur
i think i'll print this post out and frame it.
nah, i'll just keep quoting it.
The collapse time is from BOTH the visual evidence and the seismic trace.
The VISUAL evidence is that the collapse is ~ 13+ seconds long.
You just want to only count ONE PART of the collapse.
The collapse begins when the East Penthouse collapses into the building.
The fact that apparently much of the internal structure had failed before the curtain wall comes down is why the collapse is greater than 2/3G (like the WTC towers), but it is STILL slower than gravity.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it WAS a Controlled Demolition.
There is NO WAY it could have been a Controlled Demoliton.
If you think so, please provide evidence of another Controlled Demolition where they let the building BURN for 7 hours first.
Arthur
i think i'll print this post out and frame it.
nah, i'll just keep quoting it.
Anyone ever seen this ?
It's spaghetti, to me it looks that the centre of mass of the stuff is still only following g as expected.
It's spaghetti, to me it looks that the centre of mass of the stuff is still only following g as expected.
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 8 2007, 04:59 AM)
Well given the horizontal waves of explosive-like expulsion of debris (initiating the rotation seen in the upper floors and the angular momentum) it is safe to say that whatever caused this operated in a symmetrical fashion, "peeling the tower like a banana", however, this was just a moment after the appearance of tremendous angular momentum. Why if the top half was falling on its side would it then overcome this resistance with exponential force?
To repeat, the tower, having rotated and dipped as the direct result of resistance, would only be expected to continue this motion, that it did not and displayed global, rapid collapse, indicates that the resistance was cut.
To continue the tilt you have to have a hinge to tilt on, that is as simple as it is, I have seen this phenomena in hollow trees they bust down the sides and fall back wards sometimes.
You might want to look up the word fulcrum it might help you to understand what is going on.
To repeat, the tower, having rotated and dipped as the direct result of resistance, would only be expected to continue this motion, that it did not and displayed global, rapid collapse, indicates that the resistance was cut.
To continue the tilt you have to have a hinge to tilt on, that is as simple as it is, I have seen this phenomena in hollow trees they bust down the sides and fall back wards sometimes.
You might want to look up the word fulcrum it might help you to understand what is going on.
QUOTE (newton+May 8 2007, 03:39 AM)
you are excellent at eluding the point.
the point(s) is(are):
using seismic traces to determine collapse time is not valid when trying to discern between natural collapse and controlled demo. because, in a controlled demo, the first blasts do not cause (main support) structural movement in the buildings. they merely bring the building to near equilibrium, by severing the REDUNDANT SUPPORT (stand vs. collapse), and then they WAIT a few seconds, while loads are redistributed. once the loads have had time to 'ripple' through the building, and reach a new state of equilibrium, the main charges are set off, severing the main supports at the base of the building, first, followed by a sequence of charges that knock out upper floors' support just before they hit the ground. this allows GRAVITY TO DO MOST THE WORK in breaking apart structural components.
so, when you say, "the collapse of tower seven lasted x seconds long, because the seismic trace is y seconds", you IGNORE the reality of the timing of controlled demolitions.
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
it(WTC7) was a controlled demolition.
So the explosives would generate sound waves in the redundant supports and those would be transmitted to the ground by the main support structure.
Steel is very good at transmitting sound, your logic is flawed because the sound waves of severing the redundant supports would most likely be picked up by a seismograph.
The only thing that would not be picked up is an open air blast. Similar to the 1993 truck bomb in the basement of the twin towers.
the point(s) is(are):
using seismic traces to determine collapse time is not valid when trying to discern between natural collapse and controlled demo. because, in a controlled demo, the first blasts do not cause (main support) structural movement in the buildings. they merely bring the building to near equilibrium, by severing the REDUNDANT SUPPORT (stand vs. collapse), and then they WAIT a few seconds, while loads are redistributed. once the loads have had time to 'ripple' through the building, and reach a new state of equilibrium, the main charges are set off, severing the main supports at the base of the building, first, followed by a sequence of charges that knock out upper floors' support just before they hit the ground. this allows GRAVITY TO DO MOST THE WORK in breaking apart structural components.
so, when you say, "the collapse of tower seven lasted x seconds long, because the seismic trace is y seconds", you IGNORE the reality of the timing of controlled demolitions.
when you say, 'it was just the curtain wall that fell in 6.6 seconds', you are choosing to ignore that it wasn't a curtain wall(a wall hung on a steel frame), it was the OUTER STEEL FRAME that collapsed at freefall speed.
the thirty storey controlled demolition took at least 7 seconds to reach the ground, once equilibrium was overcome.
the 47 storey outer steel frame "gravity driven collapse" took 6.6 seconds, and all four corners dame down at the same rate and time.
it(WTC7) was a controlled demolition.
So the explosives would generate sound waves in the redundant supports and those would be transmitted to the ground by the main support structure.
Steel is very good at transmitting sound, your logic is flawed because the sound waves of severing the redundant supports would most likely be picked up by a seismograph.
The only thing that would not be picked up is an open air blast. Similar to the 1993 truck bomb in the basement of the twin towers.
Time for serious work, it's not busy at work...
http://i15.tinypic.com/62hrq5v.gif
x-axis is the floor number under the impact zone (means distance/3.8m)
y-axis is the velocity of the demolition zone when it reaches that floor (in m/s)
from top to down we have resp.
#1 - free fall (yellow)
#2 - (3/4)g (purple)
#3 - (2/3)g (blue)
#4 - wtc2 using Greening's discrete formalism with no mass loss (green)
#5 - wtc1 using Greening's discrete formalism with no mass loss (red)
if we zoom in at the first 5 stories we have
http://i18.tinypic.com/4ta6uzn.gif
And it looks indeed that in the beginning
#2 matches with #4 and
#3 matches with #5
But on the other hand not only the Taylor expansion is important but also
the later behaviour.
ps. and of course E1=0.6GJ used for wtc1,2
http://i15.tinypic.com/62hrq5v.gif
x-axis is the floor number under the impact zone (means distance/3.8m)
y-axis is the velocity of the demolition zone when it reaches that floor (in m/s)
from top to down we have resp.
#1 - free fall (yellow)
#2 - (3/4)g (purple)
#3 - (2/3)g (blue)
#4 - wtc2 using Greening's discrete formalism with no mass loss (green)
#5 - wtc1 using Greening's discrete formalism with no mass loss (red)
if we zoom in at the first 5 stories we have
http://i18.tinypic.com/4ta6uzn.gif
And it looks indeed that in the beginning
#2 matches with #4 and
#3 matches with #5
But on the other hand not only the Taylor expansion is important but also
the later behaviour.
ps. and of course E1=0.6GJ used for wtc1,2
Skeptik
It appears that the Italians have just as many stupid people and liars as we have here.
Grumpy
It appears that the Italians have just as many stupid people and liars as we have here.
Grumpy
This is also interesting. The famous beam ejected in wfc3, I estimated roughly 160 meter from the corner of wtc1 and on a hight of 75 meter from the ground. If we plot the horizontal speed required for that as function of the floor we get
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it origines from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
i'm wondering if there is a relation between the speed of ejected material as the result of released strain energy and the speed of the collapse zone. For a spring it doesn't matter of course how fast you press it. if the E1's become higher to the bottom then there might be more energy released. I think it is still something that is only a fact without an explanation that is satisfactory.
http://i13.tinypic.com/61ntaud.gif
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it origines from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
i'm wondering if there is a relation between the speed of ejected material as the result of released strain energy and the speed of the collapse zone. For a spring it doesn't matter of course how fast you press it. if the E1's become higher to the bottom then there might be more energy released. I think it is still something that is only a fact without an explanation that is satisfactory.
QUOTE (Skeptik+May 8 2007, 08:20 AM)
Italian Opinion
Its actually quite interesting to read the RABID comments by those who agree with you.
The ONLY REASON we are right here - right now - is because the Jews OWN AND CONTROL the public mass media and FORBID THIS STORY TO BE SHOWN THERE. FACT! Why do you think you are here? You WANTED??? to be BANNED from their media? Bullshit. Americans gave them all that money, all that protection, look at you! crawling on the ground LIKE A DOG to worship them,
Silverstein is almost certainly in on the plot, but not because he's an evil, greedy Jew but because he's an evil, greedy businessman.
Pretty PATHETIC.
Arthur
Plotting the residuals and looking at their statistics is another avenue for determining if a model is explaining a phenomenon well. If the model fits the data well, the residuals are expected to be of a random nature. For example, if a model predicts a straight line relationship between the independent and dependent variables and the data in general follows a straight line with the residuals being clustered randomly about that line, the model is predicting the phenomenon well. If a model that predicts a parabolic relationship had been used, the residuals wouldn't have a random nature.
DBB mentioned that one can use a simple model such as d=at^2 for the collapse and select 'a' to minimize the residuals. That model still isn't the best since it ignores some of the physics. A plot of the residuals in that case is expected to show a non-random behavior. If a model that considers the resistive force and mass shedding is used, the residuals may take on a more random nature. There's more to it than simply minimizing the residuals.
Its actually quite interesting to read the RABID comments by those who agree with you.
QUOTE
The bottom line is that a jew was able to profit 7 million dollars over an otherwise unprofitable building. Must be nice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The bottom line is that a jew was able to profit 7 million dollars over an otherwise unprofitable building. Must be nice. |
The ONLY REASON we are right here - right now - is because the Jews OWN AND CONTROL the public mass media and FORBID THIS STORY TO BE SHOWN THERE. FACT! Why do you think you are here? You WANTED??? to be BANNED from their media? Bullshit. Americans gave them all that money, all that protection, look at you! crawling on the ground LIKE A DOG to worship them,
QUOTE
Perhaps you are trying to cover up that Jews run the media? THAT MEDIA! that destroys 9-11 Truth with such a passion? I'm NOT AFRAID of the anti-semite name calling scam. JEWS BETRAYED AMERICA EXACTLY LIKE THEY DID GERMANY after WW1.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you are trying to cover up that Jews run the media? THAT MEDIA! that destroys 9-11 Truth with such a passion? I'm NOT AFRAID of the anti-semite name calling scam. JEWS BETRAYED AMERICA EXACTLY LIKE THEY DID GERMANY after WW1. |
Silverstein is almost certainly in on the plot, but not because he's an evil, greedy Jew but because he's an evil, greedy businessman.
QUOTE
The War in Iraq is merely a business venture led by certain Israeli firms and wholly supported and approved of by the global military-industrial complex. "Winning" is not the goal. Keeping the war going, is. 3,300 dead Americans? You think the Jews and their shabbos goy collaborators give a hoot about that?
Pretty PATHETIC.
Arthur
einsteen
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
QUOTE
This means if it originates from the impact zone, about floor 96 then it would have a speed about 20 m/s which is more than the demolition wave and it needs more
speed when it origines from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
speed when it origines from a lower floor, of course when we go lower and lower it goes asymptotically to infinity. The picture shows that the beam originates from
the zone 13-52 stories under the collapse zone but also that the speed is almost the collapse speed.
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
adoucette
I wasn't aware that there were any Jews from Saudi Arabia
Thats where most of the hijackers were from, the rest were from Egypt, another country not known(by me, at least) as having a lot of Jewish people.
Is there a logic to these people's bigotry, or is it just that their hatred fogs their thinking ability??? Either way, if you crawl in the gutter of ignorance your neighbors will be snakes, slimy snails and leeches on society.
QUOTE
...Jews...
I wasn't aware that there were any Jews from Saudi Arabia
Thats where most of the hijackers were from, the rest were from Egypt, another country not known(by me, at least) as having a lot of Jewish people.Is there a logic to these people's bigotry, or is it just that their hatred fogs their thinking ability??? Either way, if you crawl in the gutter of ignorance your neighbors will be snakes, slimy snails and leeches on society.
The spaghetti paper is:
'Dynamic Buckling and Breaking of Thin Rods' by Josh Gladden, Nestor Handzy, Andrew Belmonte, Emmanuel Villermaux.
It's on the web somewhere. I noticed it a few months back.
'Dynamic Buckling and Breaking of Thin Rods' by Josh Gladden, Nestor Handzy, Andrew Belmonte, Emmanuel Villermaux.
It's on the web somewhere. I noticed it a few months back.
QUOTE (shagster+May 8 2007, 04:28 PM)
The spaghetti paper is:
'Dynamic Buckling and Breaking of Thin Rods' by Josh Gladden, Nestor Handzy, Andrew Belmonte, Emmanuel Villermaux.
It's on the web somewhere. I noticed it a few months back.
'Dynamic Buckling and Breaking of Thin Rods' by Josh Gladden, Nestor Handzy, Andrew Belmonte, Emmanuel Villermaux.
It's on the web somewhere. I noticed it a few months back.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 8 2007, 10:59 AM)
Is there a logic to these people's bigotry, or is it just that their hatred fogs their thinking ability??? Either way, if you crawl in the gutter of ignorance your neighbors will be snakes, slimy snails and leeches on society.
I don't expect RATIONAL thought processes from IRRATIONAL PEOPLE.
There appear to be a number of these irrational people who so hate the Jews that they find ways to blame them for any and all negative events.
But your last line sums it up nicely.
Think about how many CT'er nutcases have come on this forum and wished ill on those they disagree with, all the way to wanting to see us hung?
Arthur
I don't expect RATIONAL thought processes from IRRATIONAL PEOPLE.
There appear to be a number of these irrational people who so hate the Jews that they find ways to blame them for any and all negative events.
But your last line sums it up nicely.
Think about how many CT'er nutcases have come on this forum and wished ill on those they disagree with, all the way to wanting to see us hung?
Arthur
'Fragmentation of rods by cascading cracks: why spaghetti do not break in half' Basile Audoly and Sebastien Neukirch
Lab. de Modelisation en Mecanique, CNRS/UPMC, 4 place Jussieu, Paris, France.
(Dated: December 22, 2004)
Lab. de Modelisation en Mecanique, CNRS/UPMC, 4 place Jussieu, Paris, France.
(Dated: December 22, 2004)
If you watch the videos of the spaghetti breaking, a few of the pieces fly away at a high speed while most of the rest don't. Sometimes a portion of the elastic energy gets converted to KE in a small fragment in just the right way that it gets propelled to a high speed. Maybe there's something there that can be applied to the way the perimeter walls behaved during collapse.
QUOTE (shagster+May 8 2007, 11:49 AM)
'Fragmentation of rods by cascading cracks: why spaghetti do not break in half' Basile Audoly and Sebastien Neukirch
Lab. de Modelisation en Mecanique, CNRS/UPMC, 4 place Jussieu, Paris, France.
(Dated: December 22, 2004)
I'm not sure I'd extrapolate what happens to the spaghetti to steel columns that are restrained from lateral movement every 12 ft.
Arthur
Lab. de Modelisation en Mecanique, CNRS/UPMC, 4 place Jussieu, Paris, France.
(Dated: December 22, 2004)
I'm not sure I'd extrapolate what happens to the spaghetti to steel columns that are restrained from lateral movement every 12 ft.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 8 2007, 04:56 PM)
I'm not sure I'd extrapolate what happens to the spaghetti to steel columns that are restrained from lateral movement every 12 ft.
Arthur
Maybe not a direct analogy, but there are issues as to what happens to the strain energy in a column during collapse and how it may get converted to KE.
Arthur
Maybe not a direct analogy, but there are issues as to what happens to the strain energy in a column during collapse and how it may get converted to KE.
shagster
I'm not sure that this would apply to the outer frames as they seem to have simply fallen outward, but it probably does apply to the core beams. As the floors pancaked it left these core beams unsupported laterally, causing the thickness/length ratios to grow exponentially until the beams snapped at their weakest point(welds and heat affected areas). Maybe this is the reason the pancaking got a head start on the externally visible collapse, the floors had to be detached far enough down the beams for them to become unstable to the point they bent and snapped(just as the spaghetti did). Maybe if you scored the spaghetti at measured intervals(representing 30 foot sections) you would end up with regular sections just as most of the core columns in the towers ended up.
Your point about certain sections having greater energy may also explain some of the observed phenomina.
So the sequence could have gone something like this...
1) Impact and fire damage cause collapse initiation and tilt of the top sections.
2) Rubble from the collapse zone impacts floors below causing pancaking as the floor supports give way.
3) Pancaking floors leave core beams unsupported until their length/thickness ratio reaches a critical value and they snap like spaghetti.
4) The core collapse allows the top blocks to begin their descent, pushing the outer frames outward. The tilt means the top blocks will wedge inside the remaining frame, splitting it like a chunk of wood is split by an axe.
5) Gravity insures the collapse continues to the ground.
I guess those fellows at NIST DID know what they were talking about.
Grumpy
I'm not sure that this would apply to the outer frames as they seem to have simply fallen outward, but it probably does apply to the core beams. As the floors pancaked it left these core beams unsupported laterally, causing the thickness/length ratios to grow exponentially until the beams snapped at their weakest point(welds and heat affected areas). Maybe this is the reason the pancaking got a head start on the externally visible collapse, the floors had to be detached far enough down the beams for them to become unstable to the point they bent and snapped(just as the spaghetti did). Maybe if you scored the spaghetti at measured intervals(representing 30 foot sections) you would end up with regular sections just as most of the core columns in the towers ended up.
Your point about certain sections having greater energy may also explain some of the observed phenomina.
So the sequence could have gone something like this...
1) Impact and fire damage cause collapse initiation and tilt of the top sections.
2) Rubble from the collapse zone impacts floors below causing pancaking as the floor supports give way.
3) Pancaking floors leave core beams unsupported until their length/thickness ratio reaches a critical value and they snap like spaghetti.
4) The core collapse allows the top blocks to begin their descent, pushing the outer frames outward. The tilt means the top blocks will wedge inside the remaining frame, splitting it like a chunk of wood is split by an axe.
5) Gravity insures the collapse continues to the ground.
I guess those fellows at NIST DID know what they were talking about.
Grumpy
Those are some possible scenarios, Grumpy. I was thinking of one where a section of perimeter wall lingered and the falling debris pile caused the wall to bulge outward temporarily at a lower level. The top of the wall would be out of plane with the bulge and eventually would snap back. It's an elastic strain in the out-of-plane direction, similar to the spaghetti. If any perimeter trees disconnected when the wall was recoiling back out-of-plane toward the outside of the footprint, they could get ejected further than where the rest of the wall landed. It's a sort of sling shot effect. Something similar to that is seen in the videos of the spaghetti breaking.
20 stories is already close to 250 feet. A toppling wall of that height alone takes the perimeter walls out to West Street. There are aerial photos that show sections of perimeter wall laid neatly across West St. as if the trees never disconnected from each other. Some of the sections appear to be around 15 contiguous stories or more.
Plotting the residuals and looking at their statistics is another avenue for determining if a model is explaining a phenomenon well. If the model fits the data well, the residuals are expected to be of a random nature. For example, if a model predicts a straight line relationship between the independent and dependent variables and the data in general follows a straight line with the residuals being clustered randomly about that line, the model is predicting the phenomenon well. If a model that predicts a parabolic relationship had been used, the residuals wouldn't have a random nature.
DBB mentioned that one can use a simple model such as d=at^2 for the collapse and select 'a' to minimize the residuals. That model still isn't the best since it ignores some of the physics. A plot of the residuals in that case is expected to show a non-random behavior. If a model that considers the resistive force and mass shedding is used, the residuals may take on a more random nature. There's more to it than simply minimizing the residuals.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 8 2007, 03:37 PM)
Its actually quite interesting to read the RABID comments by those who agree with you.
Pretty PATHETIC.
Arthur
There you go again, Arthur, Straw man yet again. Nothing about the video just about selected comments below it. Even more pathetic.
Pretty PATHETIC.
Arthur
There you go again, Arthur, Straw man yet again. Nothing about the video just about selected comments below it. Even more pathetic.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 8 2007, 03:45 PM)
einsteen
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
can we assume you don't know the difference between the tip of an tree trunk pivoting on the ground, and a freefloating piece of steel?
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
can we assume you don't know the difference between the tip of an tree trunk pivoting on the ground, and a freefloating piece of steel?
QUOTE (Skeptik+May 8 2007, 11:50 AM)
There you go again, Arthur, Straw man yet again. Nothing about the video just about selected comments below it. Even more pathetic.
There was no need for him to comment on the video. It's all old crap that's been debunked over and over. You guys are in a vicious circle, jumping from one b/s thing to another and around and back again to start all over. The damn video itself explained how they got it wrong. It was based on a report an hour before on CNN that 7 'was collapsing or has collapsed'. CNN obviously reported what the firemen had been saying, that 7 was already unstable, pieces were falling off of it, and it was no longer plumb, which was measured by a transit. They could hear it creaking as well, which a normal stable building does not do. That other media expounded on and overdid it while doing so, of the CNN report doesn't surprise me at all. That you people could ignore the almost 7 hours of uncontested fires throughout the building and still say people got in there undetected and planted demo charges, or they were already there and survived the fires... is truly bewildering.
All that book learning, and not a LICK of common sense. HA!
*reply to Newton ---- a character assassin rampage?? double HA!
I just pointed out a blatant untruth on that site, which is enough to question any and all they say beyond that.
There was no need for him to comment on the video. It's all old crap that's been debunked over and over. You guys are in a vicious circle, jumping from one b/s thing to another and around and back again to start all over. The damn video itself explained how they got it wrong. It was based on a report an hour before on CNN that 7 'was collapsing or has collapsed'. CNN obviously reported what the firemen had been saying, that 7 was already unstable, pieces were falling off of it, and it was no longer plumb, which was measured by a transit. They could hear it creaking as well, which a normal stable building does not do. That other media expounded on and overdid it while doing so, of the CNN report doesn't surprise me at all. That you people could ignore the almost 7 hours of uncontested fires throughout the building and still say people got in there undetected and planted demo charges, or they were already there and survived the fires... is truly bewildering.
All that book learning, and not a LICK of common sense. HA!
*reply to Newton ---- a character assassin rampage?? double HA!
I just pointed out a blatant untruth on that site, which is enough to question any and all they say beyond that.
newton
Steel does not "freefloat" in air. It either falls straight down or it falls over(yes, with a pivot). Either way, no "floating" is involved. And if a 300 foot section falls over(without bending or disintegration), the top will be ~300 feet from the bottom. If it bends or breaks apart during the process, somewhat less.
Grumpy
QUOTE
can we assume you don't know the difference between the tip of an tree trunk pivoting on the ground, and a freefloating piece of steel?
Steel does not "freefloat" in air. It either falls straight down or it falls over(yes, with a pivot). Either way, no "floating" is involved. And if a 300 foot section falls over(without bending or disintegration), the top will be ~300 feet from the bottom. If it bends or breaks apart during the process, somewhat less.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 8 2007, 03:45 PM)
einsteen
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
This was a very raw maple plot, if you take into account mass ejection the velocity
of the front will go slower, and further the beam would go further if the building was not there. The exact curve would be the nicest info. Be careful Grumpy... maybe there will be only one point that intersects or not...
BUt serious now, what would cause this at least 24 m/s horizontal speed, is it
1) released strain energy
2) scattered material due to elasticity
3) wedged material
I'm not really sure but 2) and 3) are in fact the same
So we can assume you would not have a clue if the to of a one hundred foot tree ended up 100 feet from the stump??? Ejected or toppled over, the results are very simular but the energy required is much less for the falling over.
Grumpy
This was a very raw maple plot, if you take into account mass ejection the velocity
of the front will go slower, and further the beam would go further if the building was not there. The exact curve would be the nicest info. Be careful Grumpy... maybe there will be only one point that intersects or not...
BUt serious now, what would cause this at least 24 m/s horizontal speed, is it
1) released strain energy
2) scattered material due to elasticity
3) wedged material
I'm not really sure but 2) and 3) are in fact the same
einsteen
But that is the point, einsteen. You are saying such velocity is required to reach to reach the point where the beam ended up. I am saying such velocity IS NOT required if the beam is carried there by the falling frames. If you look at the ground zero photos, the beams are layed out from the footprint in mostly pristeen condition as if they just fell over. They are not strewn randomly according to the energy applied to them. The north wall of 1 is drapped across the top of 6 and it's top beams reached all the way to 7, not because they were ejected, but because the peeled away from 1 like a banana peel. Some of the walls broke up as they fell, but that just kept them from reaching even further.
Now, in any chaotic event, you are going to end up with the occasional "flyer". As with the spaghetti example, when one part ends up with more energy than average and another part ends up with less. But that is NOT an indication of outside energy sources(such as explosives), but just the normal bell curve distribution of nature.
Grumpy
But that is the point, einsteen. You are saying such velocity is required to reach to reach the point where the beam ended up. I am saying such velocity IS NOT required if the beam is carried there by the falling frames. If you look at the ground zero photos, the beams are layed out from the footprint in mostly pristeen condition as if they just fell over. They are not strewn randomly according to the energy applied to them. The north wall of 1 is drapped across the top of 6 and it's top beams reached all the way to 7, not because they were ejected, but because the peeled away from 1 like a banana peel. Some of the walls broke up as they fell, but that just kept them from reaching even further.
Now, in any chaotic event, you are going to end up with the occasional "flyer". As with the spaghetti example, when one part ends up with more energy than average and another part ends up with less. But that is NOT an indication of outside energy sources(such as explosives), but just the normal bell curve distribution of nature.
Grumpy
Yeah, I think you mean this picture, totally forgot about it, it was no individual beam of course
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
QUOTE (einsteen+May 8 2007, 02:56 PM)
Yeah, I think you mean this picture, totally forgot about it, it was no individual beam of course
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
You rarely see individual perimeter columns. They were assembled in groups of three columns, connected with those large Spandels, which were welded to each of the three columns. These assemblies though were BOLTED to the columns assembiles above, below and to each side, and there are LOTS of pictures of the pulled out bolt holes (including in the pics of that column assembly hanging out of the WFC)
If you can estimate the floor, figuring out the mass is fairly easy, simply use the NIST schedule to figure out how many cubic ft of steel were involved.
Arthur
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
You rarely see individual perimeter columns. They were assembled in groups of three columns, connected with those large Spandels, which were welded to each of the three columns. These assemblies though were BOLTED to the columns assembiles above, below and to each side, and there are LOTS of pictures of the pulled out bolt holes (including in the pics of that column assembly hanging out of the WFC)
If you can estimate the floor, figuring out the mass is fairly easy, simply use the NIST schedule to figure out how many cubic ft of steel were involved.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+May 8 2007, 07:56 PM)
Yeah, I think you mean this picture, totally forgot about it, it was no individual beam of course
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
each perimeter tree(3 columns X three spandrel plates) reportedly weighed 22 tons.
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
A dramatical amount, anyone an idea about the mass of it?
each perimeter tree(3 columns X three spandrel plates) reportedly weighed 22 tons.
QUOTE (newton+May 8 2007, 06:02 PM)
each perimeter tree(3 columns X three spandrel plates) reportedly weighed 22 tons.
Nope.
Depended on where in the tower they were from.
The steel got thinner as you went up so the weight went down.
IIRC a set of 3 columns and spandrels from ~ the 70th floor would weigh ~ 7 tons, while one from the ~90th floor would weigh in closer to ~ 5 tons.
Arthur
Nope.
Depended on where in the tower they were from.
The steel got thinner as you went up so the weight went down.
IIRC a set of 3 columns and spandrels from ~ the 70th floor would weigh ~ 7 tons, while one from the ~90th floor would weigh in closer to ~ 5 tons.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 8 2007, 11:11 PM)
Nope.
Depended on where in the tower they were from.
The steel got thinner as you went up so the weight went down.
IIRC a set of 3 columns and spandrels from ~ the 70th floor would weigh ~ 7 tons, while one from the ~90th floor would weigh in closer to ~ 5 tons.
Arthur
i'm getting my info from that 'engineering record' article. you?
i understand that the core was tapered from the bottom up, but the perimeter trees were stated to be 22 tons a piece. they certainly look identical.
Depended on where in the tower they were from.
The steel got thinner as you went up so the weight went down.
IIRC a set of 3 columns and spandrels from ~ the 70th floor would weigh ~ 7 tons, while one from the ~90th floor would weigh in closer to ~ 5 tons.
Arthur
i'm getting my info from that 'engineering record' article. you?
i understand that the core was tapered from the bottom up, but the perimeter trees were stated to be 22 tons a piece. they certainly look identical.
Minor corrections --- The log likelihood ratios I discussed are Bayes factor log likelihood ratios. These are also, directly, called the weight of the evidence. Jeffreys proposed the term very strong when the weight of the evidence is greater than 2.2 bans, not just 2.0 bans.
QUOTE (newton+May 8 2007, 08:02 PM)
i'm getting my info from that 'engineering record' article. you?
i understand that the core was tapered from the bottom up, but the perimeter trees were stated to be 22 tons a piece. they certainly look identical.
They looked identical because their OUTSIDE dimensions remained the same.
The steel however got thinner as you went up &/or the KSI rating of the steel changed (varied from 36 to 100 KSI).
This is in fact one of the better known facets of the towers construction.
If you bothered to read the NIST report you wouldn't make this beginners mistake.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Section 3.2.6 Exterior Wall (Floor 9-106)
Its WHY they had to stamp the tower id, column number and floor # on each of the columns, because while they LOOKED the same they were not. In fact most columns were pretty unique.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B Column Schedule and Table B3 - Dimensions for different column types.
As an example a type 120 column as might be found on the 83rd floor is made up of steel that is .0064 m but a type 132 column as might be found on the 78th floor has steel plates .0254 m thick. (see the NIST report for exact details of how the columns were made, as they had multiple steel thicknesses per column)
Arthur
i understand that the core was tapered from the bottom up, but the perimeter trees were stated to be 22 tons a piece. they certainly look identical.
They looked identical because their OUTSIDE dimensions remained the same.
The steel however got thinner as you went up &/or the KSI rating of the steel changed (varied from 36 to 100 KSI).
This is in fact one of the better known facets of the towers construction.
If you bothered to read the NIST report you wouldn't make this beginners mistake.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Section 3.2.6 Exterior Wall (Floor 9-106)
Its WHY they had to stamp the tower id, column number and floor # on each of the columns, because while they LOOKED the same they were not. In fact most columns were pretty unique.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B Column Schedule and Table B3 - Dimensions for different column types.
As an example a type 120 column as might be found on the 83rd floor is made up of steel that is .0064 m but a type 132 column as might be found on the 78th floor has steel plates .0254 m thick. (see the NIST report for exact details of how the columns were made, as they had multiple steel thicknesses per column)
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 9 2007, 02:20 AM)
They looked identical because their OUTSIDE dimensions remained the same.
The steel however got thinner as you went up &/or the KSI rating of the steel changed (varied from 36 to 100 KSI).
This is in fact one of the better known facets of the towers construction.
If you bothered to read the NIST report you wouldn't make this beginners mistake.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Section 3.2.6 Exterior Wall (Floor 9-106)
Its WHY they had to stamp the tower id, column number and floor # on each of the columns, because while they LOOKED the same they were not. In fact most columns were pretty unique.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B Column Schedule and Table B3 - Dimensions for different column types.
As an example a type 120 column as might be found on the 83rd floor is made up of steel that is .0064 m but a type 132 column as might be found on the 78th floor has steel plates .0254 m thick. (see the NIST report for exact details of how the columns were made, as they had multiple steel thicknesses per column)
Arthur
i may begin framing all of your posts.
it's like you've finally realised what i've been telling you all along.
the (big) towers were light up top, and heavy at the bottom.
The steel however got thinner as you went up &/or the KSI rating of the steel changed (varied from 36 to 100 KSI).
This is in fact one of the better known facets of the towers construction.
If you bothered to read the NIST report you wouldn't make this beginners mistake.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Section 3.2.6 Exterior Wall (Floor 9-106)
Its WHY they had to stamp the tower id, column number and floor # on each of the columns, because while they LOOKED the same they were not. In fact most columns were pretty unique.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5G Appendix B Column Schedule and Table B3 - Dimensions for different column types.
As an example a type 120 column as might be found on the 83rd floor is made up of steel that is .0064 m but a type 132 column as might be found on the 78th floor has steel plates .0254 m thick. (see the NIST report for exact details of how the columns were made, as they had multiple steel thicknesses per column)
Arthur
i may begin framing all of your posts.
it's like you've finally realised what i've been telling you all along.
the (big) towers were light up top, and heavy at the bottom.
QUOTE (newton+May 8 2007, 10:32 PM)
i may begin framing all of your posts.
it's like you've finally realised what i've been telling you all along.
the (big) towers were light up top, and heavy at the bottom.
NOPE,
Since the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load, and they were relatively the same from floor to floor, the slight decrease in steel weight (from floor to floor) would have minimal impact on the relative weights at the point of collapse.
Now when you go down 30 or 40 floors, sure, that steel is significantly heavier, but a collapse of 30 or 40 floors results in a collapse front that is moving significantly faster and with significantly higher kinetic energy.
That's why that company eignevalue found DEVELOPED a comprehensive software package to MODEL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.
it's like you've finally realised what i've been telling you all along.
the (big) towers were light up top, and heavy at the bottom.
NOPE,
Since the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load, and they were relatively the same from floor to floor, the slight decrease in steel weight (from floor to floor) would have minimal impact on the relative weights at the point of collapse.
Now when you go down 30 or 40 floors, sure, that steel is significantly heavier, but a collapse of 30 or 40 floors results in a collapse front that is moving significantly faster and with significantly higher kinetic energy.
That's why that company eignevalue found DEVELOPED a comprehensive software package to MODEL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.
I read this recently:
NISTs Answers to FAQs - Thermite
During its investigation, the NIST did not examine or test failed structural steel for evidence of thermite or other explosives. They deemed it "unnecessary," since:
" . . .while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
So. The NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, DID manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds."
This logic is remarkable.
An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds of explosives, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity-only collapse would require NONE!
If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
My question to Grumpster or Arthur’s is what comes first, the publication of the NIST FAQs or the updated NIST handbook distributed to all the NSIT apologist ( I recall someone making the same ridicules argument on this forum before the FAQs were published)?
Just wondering how the US taxpayers money is being spent (wasted).
QUOTE
NISTs Answers to FAQs - Thermite
During its investigation, the NIST did not examine or test failed structural steel for evidence of thermite or other explosives. They deemed it "unnecessary," since:
" . . .while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
So. The NIST, while not testing for the residue of thermite, DID manage to calculate that it would take "many thousands of pounds."
This logic is remarkable.
An assisted collapse would require many thousands of pounds of explosives, yet their preferred explanation of a gravity-only collapse would require NONE!
If an assisted collapse requires thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building, how would a gravity only collapse be able to perform that same task?
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id3.html
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
My question to Grumpster or Arthur’s is what comes first, the publication of the NIST FAQs or the updated NIST handbook distributed to all the NSIT apologist ( I recall someone making the same ridicules argument on this forum before the FAQs were published)?
Just wondering how the US taxpayers money is being spent (wasted).
reasonlesswhine
Hey, where's my Handbook???
By the way, what do you think about the fact that professional CDs NEVER involve the use of thermate/thermite??? Why do you suppose that is???
If there were a device which could hold and direct a thermite reaction sideways, how many THOUSANDS of such devices would have been required to position the thousands of TONS of thermite needed to bring those buildings down??? Why has not even ONE of those durable, heavy and thoroughly scorched devices ever been found??? Why haas not a single thermite cut beam been found in any of the steel of those buildings???
The only conclusion that a sane and reasonable person can draw from the honest answering of the above questions is...
NO THERMITE WAS USED ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX.
A similar look at explosives brings any sane, reasonable person to the conclusion...
NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX.
Now, you were saying...?
Grumpy
Hey, where's my Handbook???
By the way, what do you think about the fact that professional CDs NEVER involve the use of thermate/thermite??? Why do you suppose that is???
If there were a device which could hold and direct a thermite reaction sideways, how many THOUSANDS of such devices would have been required to position the thousands of TONS of thermite needed to bring those buildings down??? Why has not even ONE of those durable, heavy and thoroughly scorched devices ever been found??? Why haas not a single thermite cut beam been found in any of the steel of those buildings???
The only conclusion that a sane and reasonable person can draw from the honest answering of the above questions is...
NO THERMITE WAS USED ANYWHERE IN THE WTC COMPLEX.
A similar look at explosives brings any sane, reasonable person to the conclusion...
NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED ANYWHERE ON THE WTC COMPLEX.
Now, you were saying...?
Grumpy
The first question is easy to answer, because that is the big C word, the 2nd question has been answered above. The third one is difficult, there are pictures of cutted beams but some people mention it is not after the collapse but days later.
I know nothing about thermite and stuff, but what has Prof. Steven Jones found ?
I know nothing about thermite and stuff, but what has Prof. Steven Jones found ?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 9 2007, 09:14 AM)
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
NOPE.
You, like Gordon, confuse energy needed to INITIATE the collapse vs energy needed for the collapse to progress.
In the REAL world, the plane caused massive structural damage and then the resultant multifloor fires caused sufficient instability to cause the towers to fail over several of the impact/fire floors, the kinetic energy released by the falling top block was then sufficient to overcome the resistance the lower block could provide.
In your FAIRY TALE world of Thermate as a cause, there are two variations:
Variation One. The perps are CERTAIN of the impact floors and thus only have to secretly plant enough thermate to the towers to HELP the process along. This fails because of the inability to protect the thermate charges from the impact itself and then to keep it in working shape while in the middle of a massive fire and then be able to set it off when desired. Before you argue about the latter issues, you have to have a convincing explanation for the former and that can't be Remote Control of the aircraft as that is a non-starter.
Variation Two. (The one NIST refers too) The thermate is not on the impact floors, but lower down. In this case, the damage created by the Thermate has to EXCEED the damage caused by the plane impact and fires (since you are claiming THAT is insufficient), hence the requirement for TONS of thermate.
Which is why the VAST MAJORITY of people with higher than high school educations realize that that DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Arthur
NOPE.
You, like Gordon, confuse energy needed to INITIATE the collapse vs energy needed for the collapse to progress.
In the REAL world, the plane caused massive structural damage and then the resultant multifloor fires caused sufficient instability to cause the towers to fail over several of the impact/fire floors, the kinetic energy released by the falling top block was then sufficient to overcome the resistance the lower block could provide.
In your FAIRY TALE world of Thermate as a cause, there are two variations:
Variation One. The perps are CERTAIN of the impact floors and thus only have to secretly plant enough thermate to the towers to HELP the process along. This fails because of the inability to protect the thermate charges from the impact itself and then to keep it in working shape while in the middle of a massive fire and then be able to set it off when desired. Before you argue about the latter issues, you have to have a convincing explanation for the former and that can't be Remote Control of the aircraft as that is a non-starter.
Variation Two. (The one NIST refers too) The thermate is not on the impact floors, but lower down. In this case, the damage created by the Thermate has to EXCEED the damage caused by the plane impact and fires (since you are claiming THAT is insufficient), hence the requirement for TONS of thermate.
Which is why the VAST MAJORITY of people with higher than high school educations realize that that DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 9 2007, 02:14 PM)
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
Roughly 3 GJ of energy from from each plane impact, and 300 GJ of energy from each load of jet fuel. Does this qualify as additional energy?
The 3GJ kinetic energy was needed to cut the columns and the fireball was burned out very quickly, like an exponential function. I think the whole point is that if gravitational collapse is sufficient to break the building then no extra energy is required on its way down and then also not much thermite/whatever.
I just saw a movie which shows some stuff flows out of the building, the uploader thinks its thermite, I have no idea, it looked like liquid burning stuff. We live in a strange world.
I just saw a movie which shows some stuff flows out of the building, the uploader thinks its thermite, I have no idea, it looked like liquid burning stuff. We live in a strange world.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 9 2007, 04:12 PM)
The 3GJ kinetic energy was needed to cut the columns and the fireball was burned out very quickly, like an exponential function. I think the whole point is that if gravitational collapse is sufficient to break the building then no extra energy is required on its way down and then also not much thermite/whatever.
Like explosives in a CD, the planes in the WTC were the trigger.
Like explosives in a CD, the planes in the WTC were the trigger.
But with a delay time of an hour.
einsteen
Because the buildings survived the initial 3GJ of the planes impact(though it was a close thing, especially in 2) but the additional 300 GJ of thermal energy from the fuel and the additional energy of the fuel of the towers(plastics, wood, fabrics, bodies, etc) all applied in a short period weakened the already compromised steel until one overloaded beam failed causing a cascade of such failures leading to collapse initiation.
By the way, I've seen it written that all the fuel from the plane burned out quickly in the fireball. Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted, therefore it is reasonable to posit that only a significant fraction of the fuel was burned off in the conflagration, the remainder was responsible for setting huge inter floor fires where large amounts of energy was released over a very short period and for fuel/air explosions further down the towers(in one case at least, all the way to the subbasements). Some estimates are that at least half of the fuel loads remained after the initial conflagration.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But with a delay time of an hour.
Because the buildings survived the initial 3GJ of the planes impact(though it was a close thing, especially in 2) but the additional 300 GJ of thermal energy from the fuel and the additional energy of the fuel of the towers(plastics, wood, fabrics, bodies, etc) all applied in a short period weakened the already compromised steel until one overloaded beam failed causing a cascade of such failures leading to collapse initiation.
By the way, I've seen it written that all the fuel from the plane burned out quickly in the fireball. Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted, therefore it is reasonable to posit that only a significant fraction of the fuel was burned off in the conflagration, the remainder was responsible for setting huge inter floor fires where large amounts of energy was released over a very short period and for fuel/air explosions further down the towers(in one case at least, all the way to the subbasements). Some estimates are that at least half of the fuel loads remained after the initial conflagration.
Grumpy
OK then, here's my two new questions from reading through the last couple of pages of posts.
"...the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load,"
It's my recollection from earlier discussions about the continumation(?) of the concrete that one of the points was that the floor slabs were of "lightweight" concrete an somewhat unsubstantial. Hence, turning them to dust & fine particles wasn't a major feat. With 47 large core columns and a perimeter wall being essentially an iron curtain, the above statement seems counter intuitive. Are there factual numbers which support the statement about where the majority of the mass of the towers was?
"...Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted,"
So this fuel is coming into the building around 400-500 mph or so. Stops. Comes under the influence of gravity, and then pours down openings as a liquid before it ignites? Seems fairly improbable. What am I missing in trying to envision this? Ever try to light half of a can of gas on fire without igniting the other half? I haven't, and don't think I want to give it a try.
Thanks in advance for any discussion on these questions.
"...the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load,"
It's my recollection from earlier discussions about the continumation(?) of the concrete that one of the points was that the floor slabs were of "lightweight" concrete an somewhat unsubstantial. Hence, turning them to dust & fine particles wasn't a major feat. With 47 large core columns and a perimeter wall being essentially an iron curtain, the above statement seems counter intuitive. Are there factual numbers which support the statement about where the majority of the mass of the towers was?
"...Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted,"
So this fuel is coming into the building around 400-500 mph or so. Stops. Comes under the influence of gravity, and then pours down openings as a liquid before it ignites? Seems fairly improbable. What am I missing in trying to envision this? Ever try to light half of a can of gas on fire without igniting the other half? I haven't, and don't think I want to give it a try.
Thanks in advance for any discussion on these questions.
Lightweight is only in reference to normal weight concrete, its STILL heavy at 100 lbs per cubic foot. .
And there was a LOT of it, ~ 30,000 sq ft worth, 4" thick, per floor. ~ 8,000 normal (at 150 lbs per cubic foot), 6 inches thick. plus the trusses.
Thats ~ 2 million lbs per floor.
But they were loaded with furniture, flooring, carpeting, lighting etc that adds another ~ 1 million lbs per floor.
On the impact levels, the Three column trees averaged ~ 12,000 to 15,000 lbs but remember, they spaned three floors. So their per floor weight would be 4,000 to 5,000 lbs. There were twenty on each side of the towers (60 columns per side) or a total of 80 sets of trees for ~ 320,000-400,000 lbs. There were fewer core columns but they still held up ~ 1/2 the load of the towers so I'd say they would weigh about the same as the exterior columsn per floor (I think I'm being generous here).
So using these rough calcs, the steel columns make up ~ 1/4 the weight of a floor (around the impact areas)
As to the fuel, when you have thousands of gallons of fuel, its more like the tide coming in. See the NIST report (1-5) as they modeled the fuel dispersion.
Arthur
And there was a LOT of it, ~ 30,000 sq ft worth, 4" thick, per floor. ~ 8,000 normal (at 150 lbs per cubic foot), 6 inches thick. plus the trusses.
Thats ~ 2 million lbs per floor.
But they were loaded with furniture, flooring, carpeting, lighting etc that adds another ~ 1 million lbs per floor.
On the impact levels, the Three column trees averaged ~ 12,000 to 15,000 lbs but remember, they spaned three floors. So their per floor weight would be 4,000 to 5,000 lbs. There were twenty on each side of the towers (60 columns per side) or a total of 80 sets of trees for ~ 320,000-400,000 lbs. There were fewer core columns but they still held up ~ 1/2 the load of the towers so I'd say they would weigh about the same as the exterior columsn per floor (I think I'm being generous here).
So using these rough calcs, the steel columns make up ~ 1/4 the weight of a floor (around the impact areas)
As to the fuel, when you have thousands of gallons of fuel, its more like the tide coming in. See the NIST report (1-5) as they modeled the fuel dispersion.
Arthur
forthetrees
As for the exact ratio between steel frame and floor weights you'll have to ask others, though about 12% steel frame weight is about right IIRC.
But since when has something had to stop moving for gravity to affect it??? The fuel went everywhere it COULD go, which includes down elevator shafts, between floors where the floor systems were compromised and into AC/Heat ducting knocked loose by the aircraft. Kerosene was smelled in the lobby on the first floor and flame fronts went up and down the elevator shafts. Not to mention all the absorbent materials(carpet, furniture, office dividers, paper, gypsum board, ceiling tiles) that just received a high velocity spraying with liquid kerosene. Not all of the fuel made it back outside of the building, that that did not found it's way downward through any crack or hole and caused widespread/multi-floor fuel fed fires that eventually weakened the structure to the point of failure..
Grumpy
As for the exact ratio between steel frame and floor weights you'll have to ask others, though about 12% steel frame weight is about right IIRC.
But since when has something had to stop moving for gravity to affect it??? The fuel went everywhere it COULD go, which includes down elevator shafts, between floors where the floor systems were compromised and into AC/Heat ducting knocked loose by the aircraft. Kerosene was smelled in the lobby on the first floor and flame fronts went up and down the elevator shafts. Not to mention all the absorbent materials(carpet, furniture, office dividers, paper, gypsum board, ceiling tiles) that just received a high velocity spraying with liquid kerosene. Not all of the fuel made it back outside of the building, that that did not found it's way downward through any crack or hole and caused widespread/multi-floor fuel fed fires that eventually weakened the structure to the point of failure..
Grumpy
Mass distribution in the towers --- From data in NCSTAR1-6D, Tables 4--7 and 4--8, page 176 (240 ordinal) one can determine the mass of each story carefully studied by NIST. The average mass for stories 93--98 was 1534.6 tonnes. The average mass for stories 78--83 was about 6% heavier. From this one concludes the towers became linearly more massive further down, except for the extra masses at the pairs of mechanical stories.
And don't forget to add an additional 8.8 stories worth to account for the upper mechanical stories, stories above that, and the hat truss...
And don't forget to add an additional 8.8 stories worth to account for the upper mechanical stories, stories above that, and the hat truss...
Looking at the numbers that David posted from NIST, I went back and found an error in my calculations.
The floor concrete and truss weight would have been closer to ~1.5 million pounds, so with the live weight thats ~2.5 million lbs. The steel columns and core at ~ 600,000 brings the all up floor weight to ~ 3.1-3.2 million lbs. which agrees with the 3.06 - 3.25 million lbs from NIST.
So I feel these are fairly good numbers that represent ~ how the weight was distributed near the fire impact floors. Steel core and columns account for ~ 20% of the weight, increasing as you go down.
Arthur
The floor concrete and truss weight would have been closer to ~1.5 million pounds, so with the live weight thats ~2.5 million lbs. The steel columns and core at ~ 600,000 brings the all up floor weight to ~ 3.1-3.2 million lbs. which agrees with the 3.06 - 3.25 million lbs from NIST.
So I feel these are fairly good numbers that represent ~ how the weight was distributed near the fire impact floors. Steel core and columns account for ~ 20% of the weight, increasing as you go down.
Arthur
QUOTE (forthetrees+May 9 2007, 07:51 PM)
So this fuel is coming into the building around 400-500 mph or so. Stops. Comes under the influence of gravity, and then pours down openings as a liquid before it ignites? Seems fairly improbable. What am I missing in trying to envision this? Ever try to light half of a can of gas on fire without igniting the other half? I haven't, and don't think I want to give it a try.
The jet fuel dispersed in the impacts had to be vaporized and mixed with oxygen in order to burn. The flash point of jet fuel is 100 F, it has to exist in environments above this temperature to burn. You could have pools of fuel in the impact zones, and unless temperatures and mixtures were right, the fuel would not burn. Since all of the fuel was not in a combustible state, it had time to migrate to lower floors to burn at a later time.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 9 2007, 03:06 PM)
The first question is easy to answer, because that is the big C word, the 2nd question has been answered above. The third one is difficult, there are pictures of cutted beams but some people mention it is not after the collapse but days later.
I know nothing about thermite and stuff, but what has Prof. Steven Jones found ?
Solidification, Aluminum, fluoride I believe, and other trace elements that are all used in steel production and can be left over from its manufacture.
He also said his sample lack Chromium so it was not structural steel but it could be any steel from the buildings or steel tubing left from an oxygen lance.
The main evidence of molten metal are the shperes but no mystery as to how they were formed.
Now is there?
I know nothing about thermite and stuff, but what has Prof. Steven Jones found ?
Solidification, Aluminum, fluoride I believe, and other trace elements that are all used in steel production and can be left over from its manufacture.
He also said his sample lack Chromium so it was not structural steel but it could be any steel from the buildings or steel tubing left from an oxygen lance.
The main evidence of molten metal are the shperes but no mystery as to how they were formed.
Now is there?
QUOTE (forthetrees+May 9 2007, 07:51 PM)
OK then, here's my two new questions from reading through the last couple of pages of posts.
"...the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load,"
It's my recollection from earlier discussions about the continumation(?) of the concrete that one of the points was that the floor slabs were of "lightweight" concrete an somewhat unsubstantial. Hence, turning them to dust & fine particles wasn't a major feat. With 47 large core columns and a perimeter wall being essentially an iron curtain, the above statement seems counter intuitive. Are there factual numbers which support the statement about where the majority of the mass of the towers was?
"...Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted,"
So this fuel is coming into the building around 400-500 mph or so. Stops. Comes under the influence of gravity, and then pours down openings as a liquid before it ignites? Seems fairly improbable. What am I missing in trying to envision this? Ever try to light half of a can of gas on fire without igniting the other half? I haven't, and don't think I want to give it a try.
Thanks in advance for any discussion on these questions.
Air is only 20 percent oxygen the kerosene needs oxygen to burn it can not all burn in the initial fireball it goes in under its own momentum and the rebounding blast wave causes thermobaric like jets down elevator shafts and other passage ways where the fuel ignites multi story fires.
The mass of the fuel is actually steel enclosed in the fireball as the fireball progresses only the fuel vapor ignites and spreads with the blast wave.
"...the majority of the mass of the towers was in the concrete flooring and the live load,"
It's my recollection from earlier discussions about the continumation(?) of the concrete that one of the points was that the floor slabs were of "lightweight" concrete an somewhat unsubstantial. Hence, turning them to dust & fine particles wasn't a major feat. With 47 large core columns and a perimeter wall being essentially an iron curtain, the above statement seems counter intuitive. Are there factual numbers which support the statement about where the majority of the mass of the towers was?
"...Actually fuel poured down any opening it could reach before the fireball erupted,"
So this fuel is coming into the building around 400-500 mph or so. Stops. Comes under the influence of gravity, and then pours down openings as a liquid before it ignites? Seems fairly improbable. What am I missing in trying to envision this? Ever try to light half of a can of gas on fire without igniting the other half? I haven't, and don't think I want to give it a try.
Thanks in advance for any discussion on these questions.
Air is only 20 percent oxygen the kerosene needs oxygen to burn it can not all burn in the initial fireball it goes in under its own momentum and the rebounding blast wave causes thermobaric like jets down elevator shafts and other passage ways where the fuel ignites multi story fires.
The mass of the fuel is actually steel enclosed in the fireball as the fireball progresses only the fuel vapor ignites and spreads with the blast wave.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 9 2007, 02:14 PM)
I read this recently:
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
My question to Grumpster or Arthur’s is what comes first, the publication of the NIST FAQs or the updated NIST handbook distributed to all the NSIT apologist ( I recall someone making the same ridicules argument on this forum before the FAQs were published)?
Just wondering how the US taxpayers money is being spent (wasted).
The NIST report poses two serious problems for would-be apologists of the official position.
1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure. Now to those who will complain that these models did not support a full weight load, (the "debunkers" recent attempt to sideline proper reasoning) were inconsequential since the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel.
"the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
2. The NIST report also exposed the sulfidation of steel, which was garnered from examination of the swiss-cheese style holes found in many of the sample pieces of steel that NIST investigated. NIST further denied additional investigation into the occurrence of this phenomenon.
The NIST report also omitted crucial data.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell. "
Gordon points out the ridicules argument of the NIST and the NIST apologist that a gravity driven collapse would take no additional energy however a CD would take thousands of pounds of thermite making it unlikely and not worth investigating.
My question to Grumpster or Arthur’s is what comes first, the publication of the NIST FAQs or the updated NIST handbook distributed to all the NSIT apologist ( I recall someone making the same ridicules argument on this forum before the FAQs were published)?
Just wondering how the US taxpayers money is being spent (wasted).
The NIST report poses two serious problems for would-be apologists of the official position.
1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure. Now to those who will complain that these models did not support a full weight load, (the "debunkers" recent attempt to sideline proper reasoning) were inconsequential since the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel.
"the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
2. The NIST report also exposed the sulfidation of steel, which was garnered from examination of the swiss-cheese style holes found in many of the sample pieces of steel that NIST investigated. NIST further denied additional investigation into the occurrence of this phenomenon.
The NIST report also omitted crucial data.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell. "
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 04:30 AM)
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
Informative post M, I believe this is also a sensitive issue. In the construction videos and photos you clearly see that it would stand on its own like an Eiffel tower.
Informative post M, I believe this is also a sensitive issue. In the construction videos and photos you clearly see that it would stand on its own like an Eiffel tower.
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 04:30 AM)
The NIST report poses two serious problems for would-be apologists of the official position.
1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure. Now to those who will complain that these models did not support a full weight load, (the "debunkers" recent attempt to sideline proper reasoning) were inconsequential since the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure. Now to those who will complain that these models did not support a full weight load, (the "debunkers" recent attempt to sideline proper reasoning) were inconsequential since the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
The models were 1/4 - 1/2 the length of the real floor systems and the results may not scale.
One question raised by the data from the four tests is whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E119 performance of a 5-meter floor system is “scalable” to a larger floor system—such as the WTC towers assemblies that were 11-meter (35-feet) and 18-meter (60-feet) lengths. This was identified when one of the larger-scale tests in Canada had a lower fire resistance rating than the smaller-scale test in Illinois.
QUOTE ( NIST Fact Sheet+)
One question raised by the data from the four tests is whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E119 performance of a 5-meter floor system is “scalable” to a larger floor system—such as the WTC towers assemblies that were 11-meter (35-feet) and 18-meter (60-feet) lengths. This was identified when one of the larger-scale tests in Canada had a lower fire resistance rating than the smaller-scale test in Illinois.
Additionally, the floor systems in the impact zones more than likely were stripped of their SFRM, which drastically reduces their fire rating.
QUOTE
Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel.
"the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
Your figure of 96,000,000 kg or 106,000 tons for steel in each tower is correct, but you figure of 48,000,000 kg or 53,000 tons of concrete per tower is way off. There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the towers. There was 136,000 cubic yards of light weight concrete used in the floor slabs, that leaves 289,000 cubic yards of normal weight concrete for the remainder. Light weight concrete weighs about 1.35 tons per cubic yard, for a total of 183,600 tons. Normal weight concrete weighs about 2 tons per cubic yard, for a total of 578,000 tons. The total weight of concrete for the towers was 761,600 tons or 380,800 tons per tower. As you can see, there was almost four times as much weight in concrete as there was in steel. "the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel. "the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower." |
Your figure of 96,000,000 kg or 106,000 tons for steel in each tower is correct, but you figure of 48,000,000 kg or 53,000 tons of concrete per tower is way off. There were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the towers. There was 136,000 cubic yards of light weight concrete used in the floor slabs, that leaves 289,000 cubic yards of normal weight concrete for the remainder. Light weight concrete weighs about 1.35 tons per cubic yard, for a total of 183,600 tons. Normal weight concrete weighs about 2 tons per cubic yard, for a total of 578,000 tons. The total weight of concrete for the towers was 761,600 tons or 380,800 tons per tower. As you can see, there was almost four times as much weight in concrete as there was in steel.
The NIST report also omitted crucial data.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
The NIST report also omitted crucial data.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
Do you think I could easily obtain copies of blueprints for the White House or any other government building? Not unless I could demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so, and I don't think half baked conspiracy theories would qualify. Whatever the policy was for access to the building plans before 9/11, was likely in force afterward. If a party has a need to access the plans, I'm sure there is a reasonable way to do so. If the plans were necessary for some kind of legal action, PANYNJ would be forced to make them available.
QUOTE
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell. "
The focus of the NIST investigation was on the impact zones, so it shouldn't be a surprise that their report contains a lot more detail on these areas. They didn't attempt to hide anything. References are made throughout the report about general design details. Some of the component schedules are quite detailed as to relative size and location.
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.
Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell. "
memeticverb
Only if the fire protection was intact. It was not.
Only if the fire protection was intact. It was not.
the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
True, the concrete represented 4/5 of the weight of the buildings and that is a fraction.
Since when has 4/5 been equal to half??? Aurthur was, as usual, absolutely correct.
Since when has 4/5 been equal to half??? Aurthur was, as usual, absolutely correct.
2. The NIST report also exposed the sulfidation of steel, which was garnered from examination of the swiss-cheese style holes found in many of the sample pieces of steel that NIST investigated. NIST further denied additional investigation into the occurrence of this phenomenon.
The samples NIST found to be affected were from WTC7. Their final report on 7 is not yet out, so your criticism is premature and irrelivant to 1 and 2.
Horse POO!!! Try to get the detailed plans of the White House(a publicly funded building) or just about any other major building. Be prepared to justify your need to know. If you tell them you wish to prove a gov't conspiracy or support a lawsuit YOU WILL BE TURNED DOWN.
Horse POO!!! Try to get the detailed plans of the White House(a publicly funded building) or just about any other major building. Be prepared to justify your need to know. If you tell them you wish to prove a gov't conspiracy or support a lawsuit YOU WILL BE TURNED DOWN.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
This site is to truth what FOX is to journalism.
Example...
Same external dimensions, yes. Different thickness of the steel making up those dimensions=less structural strength as you go up the tower(a little detail 911research omits to give a false impression that the strength of all the columns was the same)
Same external dimensions, yes. Different thickness of the steel making up those dimensions=less structural strength as you go up the tower(a little detail 911research omits to give a false impression that the strength of all the columns was the same)
Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings
That is a bald faced LIE. Try reading the reports before trying to lie about them, Hmmm???
Another bald faced lie!!! The core columns were not part of a "matrix" of steel, they were not crossbraced but recieved their stability from the floor trusses(with the exception of the mech floors). Those are just facts, learn to live with them.
einsteen
Another bald faced lie!!! The core columns were not part of a "matrix" of steel, they were not crossbraced but recieved their stability from the floor trusses(with the exception of the mech floors). Those are just facts, learn to live with them.
einsteen
Informative post M
DISinformative, don't you mean??? Just one PRATT after another.
Grumpy
QUOTE
1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure.
Only if the fire protection was intact. It was not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. The real scale models (not the computer ones) failed to initiate a collapse. Unexposed steel beams were tested under extreme temperatures for 2 hours and did not fail, showing that fires do not weaken WTC grade steel to the point of failure. |
Only if the fire protection was intact. It was not.
the cement slabs were only a fraction of the weight of the towers.
True, the concrete represented 4/5 of the weight of the buildings and that is a fraction.
QUOTE
Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel.
Since when has 4/5 been equal to half??? Aurthur was, as usual, absolutely correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ive read official estimates of the towers mass being 500,000 tonnes or much less, either way Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel. |
Since when has 4/5 been equal to half??? Aurthur was, as usual, absolutely correct.
2. The NIST report also exposed the sulfidation of steel, which was garnered from examination of the swiss-cheese style holes found in many of the sample pieces of steel that NIST investigated. NIST further denied additional investigation into the occurrence of this phenomenon.
The samples NIST found to be affected were from WTC7. Their final report on 7 is not yet out, so your criticism is premature and irrelivant to 1 and 2.
QUOTE
The NIST report also omitted crucial data.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
"The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.
Horse POO!!! Try to get the detailed plans of the White House(a publicly funded building) or just about any other major building. Be prepared to justify your need to know. If you tell them you wish to prove a gov't conspiracy or support a lawsuit YOU WILL BE TURNED DOWN.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The NIST report also omitted crucial data. "The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit. |
Horse POO!!! Try to get the detailed plans of the White House(a publicly funded building) or just about any other major building. Be prepared to justify your need to know. If you tell them you wish to prove a gov't conspiracy or support a lawsuit YOU WILL BE TURNED DOWN.
The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:
This site is to truth what FOX is to journalism.
Example...
QUOTE
The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.
Same external dimensions, yes. Different thickness of the steel making up those dimensions=less structural strength as you go up the tower(a little detail 911research omits to give a false impression that the strength of all the columns was the same)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height. |
Same external dimensions, yes. Different thickness of the steel making up those dimensions=less structural strength as you go up the tower(a little detail 911research omits to give a false impression that the strength of all the columns was the same)
Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings
That is a bald faced LIE. Try reading the reports before trying to lie about them, Hmmm???
QUOTE
The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.
Another bald faced lie!!! The core columns were not part of a "matrix" of steel, they were not crossbraced but recieved their stability from the floor trusses(with the exception of the mech floors). Those are just facts, learn to live with them.
einsteen
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel. |
Another bald faced lie!!! The core columns were not part of a "matrix" of steel, they were not crossbraced but recieved their stability from the floor trusses(with the exception of the mech floors). Those are just facts, learn to live with them.
einsteen
Informative post M
DISinformative, don't you mean??? Just one PRATT after another.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Capracus+May 10 2007, 11:23 AM)
Do you think I could easily obtain copies of blueprints for the White House or any other government building? Not unless I could demonstrate a legitimate reason for doing so, and I don't think half baked conspiracy theories would qualify. Whatever the policy was for access to the building plans before 9/11, was likely in force afterward. If a party has a need to access the plans, I'm sure there is a reasonable way to do so. If the plans were necessary for some kind of legal action, PANYNJ would be forced to make them available.
The focus of the NIST investigation was on the impact zones, so it shouldn't be a surprise that their report contains a lot more detail on these areas. They didn't attempt to hide anything. References are made throughout the report about general design details. Some of the component schedules are quite detailed as to relative size and location.
I dont have enough time at the moemnt to respond to all of the comments, but I should point out that to assume that govt is justified in keeping the blueprints of a public and publicly funded building from the public, "because they must have a good reason" is nonsense. Doesnt the government care about why the buildings collapsed and want as many interested parties involved in deciphering such a mystery?
Instead they hire NIST to show us all how the entire event might have <i>initiated</i> complete global collapse. Apparently NIST doesn't care about how the energy transfer occurred from one asymmetrical point in the towers to global and symmetrically distributed points.
As a side, something that doesn't bear on physics, but on this argument that the government generally doesn't hide things unless for good reason, like "not getting sued". The govt has also suppressed the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, whos case of unlawful firing hasnt even been allowed in court and instead placed under gag orders from John Ashcroft himself, invoking State Secret Priviledge. The govt (city of new york) also withheld, through several court battles, requests by the Victims Family Members to release testimony from rescue workers and others who witnessed the events. After financial backing from TIME the families won and the testimonies revealed what they had feared, namely, dozens and dozens of references to explosives and even specific reference's to controlled demolition. Indeed, the government usually does have a reason to supress public evidence.
The focus of the NIST investigation was on the impact zones, so it shouldn't be a surprise that their report contains a lot more detail on these areas. They didn't attempt to hide anything. References are made throughout the report about general design details. Some of the component schedules are quite detailed as to relative size and location.
I dont have enough time at the moemnt to respond to all of the comments, but I should point out that to assume that govt is justified in keeping the blueprints of a public and publicly funded building from the public, "because they must have a good reason" is nonsense. Doesnt the government care about why the buildings collapsed and want as many interested parties involved in deciphering such a mystery?
Instead they hire NIST to show us all how the entire event might have <i>initiated</i> complete global collapse. Apparently NIST doesn't care about how the energy transfer occurred from one asymmetrical point in the towers to global and symmetrically distributed points.
As a side, something that doesn't bear on physics, but on this argument that the government generally doesn't hide things unless for good reason, like "not getting sued". The govt has also suppressed the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, whos case of unlawful firing hasnt even been allowed in court and instead placed under gag orders from John Ashcroft himself, invoking State Secret Priviledge. The govt (city of new york) also withheld, through several court battles, requests by the Victims Family Members to release testimony from rescue workers and others who witnessed the events. After financial backing from TIME the families won and the testimonies revealed what they had feared, namely, dozens and dozens of references to explosives and even specific reference's to controlled demolition. Indeed, the government usually does have a reason to supress public evidence.
NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible.
Physically impossible. Think about that!
And of cource the Nist "experts" knows that very well... and how do they back up their absurd story ? Gues what. From Pentagon impact! The columns in Pentagon was havely damage, and concrete cover striped etc (like everybody knows if they research Pentagon)
So, Nist simply said:
"It was assumed that if the debris field could strip away concrete cover then a similar debris field would strip SFRM from steel components."
(NIST NCSTAR 1-6, wtc Investigation p.147)
But the big problem is which everybody will understand, if they research Pentagon inside damage, that the damage is because of explosives... not airplane.
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible.
Physically impossible. Think about that!
And of cource the Nist "experts" knows that very well... and how do they back up their absurd story ? Gues what. From Pentagon impact! The columns in Pentagon was havely damage, and concrete cover striped etc (like everybody knows if they research Pentagon)
So, Nist simply said:
"It was assumed that if the debris field could strip away concrete cover then a similar debris field would strip SFRM from steel components."
(NIST NCSTAR 1-6, wtc Investigation p.147)
But the big problem is which everybody will understand, if they research Pentagon inside damage, that the damage is because of explosives... not airplane.
Daru
Hmmm.(thinking about your statement) One scientist calculates based on tests with a shotgun vs, over 200 scientists working within their fields of expertise. Sorry, NIST wins.
Hmmm.(thinking about your statement) One scientist calculates based on tests with a shotgun vs, over 200 scientists working within their fields of expertise. Sorry, NIST wins.
So, Nist simply said:
"It was assumed that if the debris field could strip away concrete cover then a similar debris field would strip SFRM from steel components."
(NIST NCSTAR 1-6, wtc Investigation p.147)
But the big problem is which everybody will understand, if they research Pentagon inside damage, that the damage is because of explosives... not airplane.
If it will strip concrete, it will strip foam insulation. Sounds pretty reasonable to me,
Explosives??? What explosives??? NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE PENTAGON, WTC OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON 911. Why do you idiots keep making stuff up for which there is absolutely no physical evidence??? Might as well say it was ray beams from space, you have exactly as much evidence for that as you do for explosives(IE NONE)!!! Oh, that's right, some of you idiots DO say it was ray beams from space!!! Sorry, I thought I was talking to sane people, never mind.
Grumpy
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane Neither 911 Research, the website, nor the body of information assembled by researchers, argue against or omit the fact that the steel columns were lighter towards the top of the structure. This in fact has been pointed out as providing more reason to think that the top section above the impact zones had less energy to crush into oblivion the entire steel structure beneath it.
That's the point, the weight of the steel around the point of impact was only about 20% of the weight of the structure, and only varied a small percent from floor to floor.
Yes it went up as you went down, but ONLY SLOWLY, but the kinetic energy went up much faster, so there was more than enough to crush the structure below it.
As to the Steel structure, VERY LITTLE was crushed. That statement indicates you haven't even done even BASIC research and prefer to just post what you find on other Trooother sites without taking the TIME to review this material. Here's a hint: TAKE A LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN PICTURES. The exterior columns for the most part were fairly pristine and many simply peeled away and hardly participated at all in resisting the collapse. The fact that they were much larger as they went down simply didn't matter, since it was their bolted connections that failed. Similarly, in both towers, the external collapse ended at or near the massive Tridents, where the towers REALLY got massive. So they too, didn't participate in the collapse.
Arthur
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane
That's the point, the weight of the steel around the point of impact was only about 20% of the weight of the structure, and only varied a small percent from floor to floor.
Yes it went up as you went down, but ONLY SLOWLY, but the kinetic energy went up much faster, so there was more than enough to crush the structure below it.
As to the Steel structure, VERY LITTLE was crushed. That statement indicates you haven't even done even BASIC research and prefer to just post what you find on other Trooother sites without taking the TIME to review this material. Here's a hint: TAKE A LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN PICTURES. The exterior columns for the most part were fairly pristine and many simply peeled away and hardly participated at all in resisting the collapse. The fact that they were much larger as they went down simply didn't matter, since it was their bolted connections that failed. Similarly, in both towers, the external collapse ended at or near the massive Tridents, where the towers REALLY got massive. So they too, didn't participate in the collapse.
Arthur
My friend, your thought patterns are embarrassing, and the rest of the debunkers are really doing such a disservice to the cause they are pretending to defend that one might even think they are saboteurs. A neutral friend of mine still debating various aspects of this issue after reading these posts was heavily perturbed by the "debunkers" general inability to process data logically, as well as their childish and inflammatory debate style. Youre not fooling anyone. Please back up claims, with somethig, anything other than blanket statements you have no data to back up. if data backs it up, post the reference.
This beam is not in pristine condition, and if one were to evaluate how it arrived in this condition only one reasonable explanation is available. Let me guess? You are going to say friction caused it, as well as the intense fires.
This picture shows previously molten metal, steel rebar, and other materials, fused together.
Heres a good website on the concrete used to support and encase the steel structure:
http://concretecore.741.com/#anchor1151751
This beam is not in pristine condition, and if one were to evaluate how it arrived in this condition only one reasonable explanation is available. ...
This picture shows previously molten metal, steel rebar, and other materials, fused together.
This column is C-1022 or is it M-1022. Anyway, there is only one X-1022 is NIST's steel inventory. Poster blue74 nicely identified it as probably in a certain location in WTC 2. Checking this location in NCSTAR1-6D, one discovers that it is one of the columns subject to high strain, hence inelastically buckled over about 20 minutes. Now you know what an inelastically buckled member looks like.
The fused together stuff includes paper sticking out, some on which writing is still visible. This so-called meteorite is primarily a highly compacted collection of parts of several floors. No molten metal.
There was no concrete in the core, other than the floors. See NCSTAR1-2A. That visual shows the approximately 55 story segment of the WTC 2 core which survived the progressive collapse, only to fall down somewhat later. It is, for some reason, still shrouded in dust.
http://concretecore.741.com/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg
Nope, no concrete core, unless that concrete is invisible concrete. No diagonal bracing, no rebar, no concrete. Three strikes you're out!!!
QUOTE
So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible.
Physically impossible. Think about that!
Physically impossible. Think about that!
Hmmm.(thinking about your statement) One scientist calculates based on tests with a shotgun vs, over 200 scientists working within their fields of expertise. Sorry, NIST wins.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible. Physically impossible. Think about that! |
Hmmm.(thinking about your statement) One scientist calculates based on tests with a shotgun vs, over 200 scientists working within their fields of expertise. Sorry, NIST wins.
So, Nist simply said:
"It was assumed that if the debris field could strip away concrete cover then a similar debris field would strip SFRM from steel components."
(NIST NCSTAR 1-6, wtc Investigation p.147)
But the big problem is which everybody will understand, if they research Pentagon inside damage, that the damage is because of explosives... not airplane.
If it will strip concrete, it will strip foam insulation. Sounds pretty reasonable to me,
Explosives??? What explosives??? NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE PENTAGON, WTC OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON 911. Why do you idiots keep making stuff up for which there is absolutely no physical evidence??? Might as well say it was ray beams from space, you have exactly as much evidence for that as you do for explosives(IE NONE)!!! Oh, that's right, some of you idiots DO say it was ray beams from space!!! Sorry, I thought I was talking to sane people, never mind.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
You forgot about the ninja thermite strike team(s) and the non-nuclear nuclear weapons based upon sonofusion.
It is still amazing how the mundane is rejected in favor of the fanciful or outrageous to explain 9/11.
You forgot about the ninja thermite strike team(s) and the non-nuclear nuclear weapons based upon sonofusion.
It is still amazing how the mundane is rejected in favor of the fanciful or outrageous to explain 9/11.
QUOTE (Daru+May 10 2007, 09:46 AM)
NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible.
Physically impossible. Think about that!
Nope,
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 pg 150
Insulation was assumed to be disloged from core columns only if the columns were subjected to direct impact that failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of the column.
For external columns the damage had to be severe enough to damage modular furniture adjacent to the columns and for trusses it had to destroy room furnishings in the same area as the trusses.
IN ALL CASES only SFRM that was predicted to be DIRECTLY IMPACTED by the debris was presumed to be removed.
NO SFRM was presumed to disloged by the shaking or vibration from the impact.
NIST was VERY conservative.
Arthur
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT
So, nist theory about disloged/removed sfrm is physically impossible.
Physically impossible. Think about that!
Nope,
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 pg 150
Insulation was assumed to be disloged from core columns only if the columns were subjected to direct impact that failed wall partitions in the immediate vicinity of the column.
For external columns the damage had to be severe enough to damage modular furniture adjacent to the columns and for trusses it had to destroy room furnishings in the same area as the trusses.
IN ALL CASES only SFRM that was predicted to be DIRECTLY IMPACTED by the debris was presumed to be removed.
NO SFRM was presumed to disloged by the shaking or vibration from the impact.
NIST was VERY conservative.
Arthur
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 09:38 AM)
I dont have enough time at the moemnt to respond to all of the comments, but I should point out that to assume that govt is justified in keeping the blueprints of a public and publicly funded building from the public, "because they must have a good reason" is nonsense. Doesnt the government care about why the buildings collapsed and want as many interested parties involved in deciphering such a mystery?
Total BS.
NIST will make available, for relatively little money, their entire structural DB, which considering the drawings and schedules already available would allow you to make your VERY OWN Global Model of the towers, complete with ALL BEAMS, ALL COLUMNS, ALL SPANDRELS, ALL TRUSSES, ALL SEATS, ALL STRAPS, ALL BOLTS.
Given sufficient money and a little reverse engineering, I'd bet you could build your very own WTC tower.
What MORE do you need?
The idea that NIST is hiding ANYTHING went out with them making this EASILY USED STRUCTURAL DATABASE (vs the hard to use Blueprints) available.
Now just convince one of the vultures who are making money on the blood of the victims that died in the collapse to PART with a bit of it and get the database from NIST, buy the FEA software and DO YOUR OWN FRIGGIN ANALYSIS.
Arthur
Total BS.
NIST will make available, for relatively little money, their entire structural DB, which considering the drawings and schedules already available would allow you to make your VERY OWN Global Model of the towers, complete with ALL BEAMS, ALL COLUMNS, ALL SPANDRELS, ALL TRUSSES, ALL SEATS, ALL STRAPS, ALL BOLTS.
Given sufficient money and a little reverse engineering, I'd bet you could build your very own WTC tower.
What MORE do you need?
The idea that NIST is hiding ANYTHING went out with them making this EASILY USED STRUCTURAL DATABASE (vs the hard to use Blueprints) available.
Now just convince one of the vultures who are making money on the blood of the victims that died in the collapse to PART with a bit of it and get the database from NIST, buy the FEA software and DO YOUR OWN FRIGGIN ANALYSIS.
Arthur
An interesting article about the quality of the WTC fireproofing.
http://www.mzaconsulting.com/Faulty%20Fireproofing_WTC.pdf
As an aside, the president of the company that originally installed the fireproofing when the towers were built was a Mr. Louis DeBono.
DeBono's bullet ridled body was found in the trunk of his car in the WTC paring garage back in 1981. It seems he disrespected his buisness partner, Mr. John Gotti.
http://www.mzaconsulting.com/Faulty%20Fireproofing_WTC.pdf
As an aside, the president of the company that originally installed the fireproofing when the towers were built was a Mr. Louis DeBono.
DeBono's bullet ridled body was found in the trunk of his car in the WTC paring garage back in 1981. It seems he disrespected his buisness partner, Mr. John Gotti.
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 9 2007, 11:30 PM)
Arther is wrong when he says that the mass was mostly cement. The total cement was only half that of the steel.
"the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
You take my comments out of context.
newton and I were discussing the issue of relative masses of the towers in relation to the collapse.
I focused the discussion on the higher floors near the impact/collapse points.
While the Steel got lighter as it went up, the concrete floors remained the same, so at the floors in question the ratio of steel weight to concrete weight is only about 1/5th.
When you look at all the figures published about the amount of concrete and steel in the WTC towers, you have to be careful of what they are counting.
There is the WHOLE COMPLEX, including all the WTC buildings and the Bathtub.
There is the WHOLE TOWER Complex, including the sub-basements, parking decks etc
There is just the TOWER itself, starting from B6 and up.
Arthur
"the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower."
You take my comments out of context.
newton and I were discussing the issue of relative masses of the towers in relation to the collapse.
I focused the discussion on the higher floors near the impact/collapse points.
While the Steel got lighter as it went up, the concrete floors remained the same, so at the floors in question the ratio of steel weight to concrete weight is only about 1/5th.
When you look at all the figures published about the amount of concrete and steel in the WTC towers, you have to be careful of what they are counting.
There is the WHOLE COMPLEX, including all the WTC buildings and the Bathtub.
There is the WHOLE TOWER Complex, including the sub-basements, parking decks etc
There is just the TOWER itself, starting from B6 and up.
Arthur
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 09:38 AM)
The govt has also suppressed the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, whos case of unlawful firing hasnt even been allowed in court and instead placed under gag orders from John Ashcroft himself, invoking State Secret Priviledge.
The State Secret Privilige ONLY applies to a SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCEEDING.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
The State Secret Privilige ONLY applies to a SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCEEDING.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
Sibel Edmonds' case is about the FBI and administration trying to cover their own butts in relation to their incompetence and the shoddy work being done at the FBI prior to and after 911. It has nothing to do with a coverup of some conspiracy by the government or of the governments involvement in 911. Sibel Edmonds certainly understands who is responsible for 911 (the radical Muslim fundamentalists she was translating) and would see your conspiracy theories about the gov't being involved in the attacks as the paranoid drivel that it is. Her point is that a competent FBI should have known much more about the attacks prior to 911, maybe even to the point of being able to stop them as they had ample evidence that something was being planned but missed it due to shoddy and late translation and lack of followup on that info they did have.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 08:09 PM)
The State Secret Privilige ONLY applies to a SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCEEDING.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
A legal proceeding is exactly what Sibel Edmonds is entitled given that she was fired without reason, and coincidentally this occurred just after she found evidence of criminal activities suggestive of a 911 inside job. She has indeed come out with a lot of information, but she is still restricted obviously from disclosing some important details which remain classified.
As for the less than astute observations regarding mass and load capacity, no anti-truth heads seem to even know the arguments they are trying to espouse or debate.
Neither 911 Research, the website, nor the body of information assembled by researchers, argue against or omit the fact that the steel columns were lighter towards the top of the structure. This in fact has been pointed out as providing more reason to think that the top section above the impact zones had less energy to crush into oblivion the entire steel structure beneath it.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
A legal proceeding is exactly what Sibel Edmonds is entitled given that she was fired without reason, and coincidentally this occurred just after she found evidence of criminal activities suggestive of a 911 inside job. She has indeed come out with a lot of information, but she is still restricted obviously from disclosing some important details which remain classified.
As for the less than astute observations regarding mass and load capacity, no anti-truth heads seem to even know the arguments they are trying to espouse or debate.
Neither 911 Research, the website, nor the body of information assembled by researchers, argue against or omit the fact that the steel columns were lighter towards the top of the structure. This in fact has been pointed out as providing more reason to think that the top section above the impact zones had less energy to crush into oblivion the entire steel structure beneath it.
QUOTE
she found evidence of criminal activities suggestive of a 911 inside job
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| she found evidence of criminal activities suggestive of a 911 inside job |
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane Neither 911 Research, the website, nor the body of information assembled by researchers, argue against or omit the fact that the steel columns were lighter towards the top of the structure. This in fact has been pointed out as providing more reason to think that the top section above the impact zones had less energy to crush into oblivion the entire steel structure beneath it.
That's the point, the weight of the steel around the point of impact was only about 20% of the weight of the structure, and only varied a small percent from floor to floor.
Yes it went up as you went down, but ONLY SLOWLY, but the kinetic energy went up much faster, so there was more than enough to crush the structure below it.
As to the Steel structure, VERY LITTLE was crushed. That statement indicates you haven't even done even BASIC research and prefer to just post what you find on other Trooother sites without taking the TIME to review this material. Here's a hint: TAKE A LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN PICTURES. The exterior columns for the most part were fairly pristine and many simply peeled away and hardly participated at all in resisting the collapse. The fact that they were much larger as they went down simply didn't matter, since it was their bolted connections that failed. Similarly, in both towers, the external collapse ended at or near the massive Tridents, where the towers REALLY got massive. So they too, didn't participate in the collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 09:28 PM)
... This in fact has been pointed out as providing more reason to think that the top section above the impact zones had less energy to crush into oblivion the entire steel structure beneath it.
The top block (zone A) of WTC 1 weighed (massed) about 33,200 tonnes. See NIST's NCSTAR1-6D Table 4--7.) Once in motion, nothing is going to stop it. It becomes in motion when the load on three walls was transfered to the core due to the buckling of the walls. At this moment, the core columns had an average DCR of about 2, sufficient to assure inelastic behavior: column buckling and connection failure. Global collapse ensued, at approximately an acceleration of (2/3)g for the first three seconds.
The top block (zone A) of WTC 1 weighed (massed) about 33,200 tonnes. See NIST's NCSTAR1-6D Table 4--7.) Once in motion, nothing is going to stop it. It becomes in motion when the load on three walls was transfered to the core due to the buckling of the walls. At this moment, the core columns had an average DCR of about 2, sufficient to assure inelastic behavior: column buckling and connection failure. Global collapse ensued, at approximately an acceleration of (2/3)g for the first three seconds.
A lot of the recent posts by Troothers makes me remember that if it wasn't for this fact:
"The incompetent suffer doubly, not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it''
There would be no "Troother Movement"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
Arthur
"The incompetent suffer doubly, not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it''
There would be no "Troother Movement"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 09:45 PM)
Well then, LETS HEAR IT.
As for the inane
That's the point, the weight of the steel around the point of impact was only about 20% of the weight of the structure, and only varied a small percent from floor to floor.
Yes it went up as you went down, but ONLY SLOWLY, but the kinetic energy went up much faster, so there was more than enough to crush the structure below it.
As to the Steel structure, VERY LITTLE was crushed. That statement indicates you haven't even done even BASIC research and prefer to just post what you find on other Trooother sites without taking the TIME to review this material. Here's a hint: TAKE A LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN PICTURES. The exterior columns for the most part were fairly pristine and many simply peeled away and hardly participated at all in resisting the collapse. The fact that they were much larger as they went down simply didn't matter, since it was their bolted connections that failed. Similarly, in both towers, the external collapse ended at or near the massive Tridents, where the towers REALLY got massive. So they too, didn't participate in the collapse.
Arthur
My friend, your thought patterns are embarrassing, and the rest of the debunkers are really doing such a disservice to the cause they are pretending to defend that one might even think they are saboteurs. A neutral friend of mine still debating various aspects of this issue after reading these posts was heavily perturbed by the "debunkers" general inability to process data logically, as well as their childish and inflammatory debate style. Youre not fooling anyone. Please back up claims, with somethig, anything other than blanket statements you have no data to back up. if data backs it up, post the reference.
This beam is not in pristine condition, and if one were to evaluate how it arrived in this condition only one reasonable explanation is available. Let me guess? You are going to say friction caused it, as well as the intense fires.
This picture shows previously molten metal, steel rebar, and other materials, fused together.
Heres a good website on the concrete used to support and encase the steel structure:
http://concretecore.741.com/#anchor1151751
ROTFLMAO
I post this:
"The incompetent suffer doubly, not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it''
And no sooner than I do than memeticverb PROVES IT by posting a link to Christophera's "Concrete Core" web site.
Friggin AMAZING.
Arthur
I post this:
"The incompetent suffer doubly, not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it''
And no sooner than I do than memeticverb PROVES IT by posting a link to Christophera's "Concrete Core" web site.
Friggin AMAZING.
Arthur
QUOTE (memeticverb+May 10 2007, 10:41 PM)
This beam is not in pristine condition, and if one were to evaluate how it arrived in this condition only one reasonable explanation is available. ...
This picture shows previously molten metal, steel rebar, and other materials, fused together.
This column is C-1022 or is it M-1022. Anyway, there is only one X-1022 is NIST's steel inventory. Poster blue74 nicely identified it as probably in a certain location in WTC 2. Checking this location in NCSTAR1-6D, one discovers that it is one of the columns subject to high strain, hence inelastically buckled over about 20 minutes. Now you know what an inelastically buckled member looks like.
The fused together stuff includes paper sticking out, some on which writing is still visible. This so-called meteorite is primarily a highly compacted collection of parts of several floors. No molten metal.
There was no concrete in the core, other than the floors. See NCSTAR1-2A. That visual shows the approximately 55 story segment of the WTC 2 core which survived the progressive collapse, only to fall down somewhat later. It is, for some reason, still shrouded in dust.
http://concretecore.741.com/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg
Nope, no concrete core, unless that concrete is invisible concrete. No diagonal bracing, no rebar, no concrete. Three strikes you're out!!!
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.