I have never seen any justification/explanation/calculation of Blanchard's 95 % number - if anyone has I would be very interested to see it!
I also haven't but JREF'ers adore the "report", of course not when it is in their disadvantage.
If Blanchard meant that 95% of the exterior wall panels fell outside, I would agree, based on the NOAA overhead photo and other visual evidence.
However, looking at the sub-basement damage and debris location maps, it seems clear that the vast majority of the interior funneled straight down to the lowest sub-basement through floor 9 levels and then spread out.
However, looking at the sub-basement damage and debris location maps, it seems clear that the vast majority of the interior funneled straight down to the lowest sub-basement through floor 9 levels and then spread out.
QUOTE
it seems clear that the vast majority of the interior funneled straight down to the lowest sub-basement through floor 9 levels and then spread out.
Which makes sense...
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 25 2007, 10:28 AM)
... it is the whole block that falls as a whole with all floors and trusses still connected.
This is approximately the case for the tilted top block, at least for WTC 1. But it crushes down on the rest, disconnecting the trusses both internally and externally and destroys the core. This crushed mass funnels down inside the (momentarily) still standing exterior wall panels.
This is approximately the case for the tilted top block, at least for WTC 1. But it crushes down on the rest, disconnecting the trusses both internally and externally and destroys the core. This crushed mass funnels down inside the (momentarily) still standing exterior wall panels.
actually, it seems clear that the sublevels were mostly intact, as clean-up crews were able to walk around down there.
it also seems clear that implosion world used the argument that in a controlled demo, most debris ends up inside the footprint, while at the towers 95% was outside the footprint.
keep sleeping awake, OCTs.
it also seems clear that implosion world used the argument that in a controlled demo, most debris ends up inside the footprint, while at the towers 95% was outside the footprint.
keep sleeping awake, OCTs.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 25 2007, 02:05 PM)
actually, it seems clear that the sublevels were mostly intact, as clean-up crews were able to walk around down there.
If you bothered to look at a map of the underground levels of the entire bathtub, you would discover that debris reached sub-basement level 6 only in the vicinity of the towers and the interior of WTC 6.
Level 5 was filled with debris a bit further out.
Level 4 a bit further.
Etc.
If you bothered to look at a map of the underground levels of the entire bathtub, you would discover that debris reached sub-basement level 6 only in the vicinity of the towers and the interior of WTC 6.
Level 5 was filled with debris a bit further out.
Level 4 a bit further.
Etc.
One time for all... what one have to do is to look at the evidence. And what evidence do we have ? Yes photos and videos.
Is this a collapse ? If so, since when !!
Now, what can one see here ? Not a collapse. No. He can see the building explode upward and outward and turn to dust and obviously most of the mass ends up outside the footprint.
What is so complicated about it.
Is this a collapse ? If so, since when !!
Now, what can one see here ? Not a collapse. No. He can see the building explode upward and outward and turn to dust and obviously most of the mass ends up outside the footprint.
What is so complicated about it.
Daru
Only an ignorant Dumb *** would claim the parts blew UP and then post videos showing the building parts falling DOWN(even the smoke and dust follows it down). Are you really that stupid???
Grumpy
Only an ignorant Dumb *** would claim the parts blew UP and then post videos showing the building parts falling DOWN(even the smoke and dust follows it down). Are you really that stupid???
Grumpy
Einsteen
It is not the top block that gets funneled, it is the floors of the lower section BELOW the damaged floors that pancake and are funneled before the top block comes along to push the outer walls apart. Despite all the claims that are made about the buildings being "Dustified" the largest portion of both buildings ended up in the basements.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I don't believe in the funnel theory because it is the whole block that falls as a whole with all floors and trusses still connected. It couldn't funnel.
It is not the top block that gets funneled, it is the floors of the lower section BELOW the damaged floors that pancake and are funneled before the top block comes along to push the outer walls apart. Despite all the claims that are made about the buildings being "Dustified" the largest portion of both buildings ended up in the basements.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 25 2007, 09:59 PM)
Einsteen
It is not the top block that gets funneled, it is the floors of the lower section BELOW the damaged floors that pancake and are funneled before the top block comes along to push the outer walls apart. Despite all the claims that are made about the buildings being "Dustified" the largest portion of both buildings ended up in the basements.
Grumpy
The top block has to be funneled because the building is tapered, wider as you near the ground the beams are too, can not wait until you guys do the calculation on the weld fracture do to impact and transfer of loading.
For that the shape of the Columns must be taken into account as well.
Weld sheer under those circumstance has much to do with leverage and oscillation.
Also the sound Oscillations in the beams should be converted to a higher pitch by the Taper of the beams shouldn't it?
It is not the top block that gets funneled, it is the floors of the lower section BELOW the damaged floors that pancake and are funneled before the top block comes along to push the outer walls apart. Despite all the claims that are made about the buildings being "Dustified" the largest portion of both buildings ended up in the basements.
Grumpy
The top block has to be funneled because the building is tapered, wider as you near the ground the beams are too, can not wait until you guys do the calculation on the weld fracture do to impact and transfer of loading.
For that the shape of the Columns must be taken into account as well.
Weld sheer under those circumstance has much to do with leverage and oscillation.
Also the sound Oscillations in the beams should be converted to a higher pitch by the Taper of the beams shouldn't it?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 25 2007, 03:29 PM)
... the building is tapered ...
Also the sound Oscillations in the beams should be converted to a higher pitch by the Taper of the beams shouldn't it?
(1) No. Same outside dimensions up to the roof.
(2) Depends on the tapering. If linear, the fundamental period is the same. If shaped like a hautboy (straight trumpet), the fundamental period is twice as long.
Also the sound Oscillations in the beams should be converted to a higher pitch by the Taper of the beams shouldn't it?
(1) No. Same outside dimensions up to the roof.
(2) Depends on the tapering. If linear, the fundamental period is the same. If shaped like a hautboy (straight trumpet), the fundamental period is twice as long.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 25 2007, 09:43 PM)
Daru
Only an ignorant Dumb *** would claim the parts blew UP and then post videos showing the building parts falling DOWN(even the smoke and dust follows it down). Are you really that stupid???
Grumpy
WARNING!!! PHYSORG DOUBLE STANDARD TEST IN PROGRESS!!!
are you really that much of a blind stupid short bus taking mainstream-pablum-eating moronic idiot?
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
Only an ignorant Dumb *** would claim the parts blew UP and then post videos showing the building parts falling DOWN(even the smoke and dust follows it down). Are you really that stupid???
Grumpy
WARNING!!! PHYSORG DOUBLE STANDARD TEST IN PROGRESS!!!
are you really that much of a blind stupid short bus taking mainstream-pablum-eating moronic idiot?
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 25 2007, 03:48 PM)
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
Surely by now you should know better.
That is fines (dust) entrained in the air being expelled during the bageling.
No explosions involved.
Surely by now you should know better.
That is fines (dust) entrained in the air being expelled during the bageling.
No explosions involved.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 26 2007, 10:48 AM)
WARNING!!! PHYSORG DOUBLE STANDARD TEST IN PROGRESS!!!
are you really that much of a blind stupid short bus taking mainstream-pablum-eating moronic idiot?
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
What is it with people and conspiracy theories days, it's like some complicated lie is somehow easier to believe then the truth.
As has been pointed out (repeatedly I imagine) what might on the face of it appear to be squibs, or charges are nothing more then compressed air being forced out through the windows, dragging dust and debri along with it through simple things such as saltation and suspension..
Or, we can believe that somehow an army of engineers made it into the building, stripped the walls, placed dozens of high explosive charges, replaced everything exactly how they found it, then managed to set off the charges with a high degree of precision to make it look like a natural collapse, leaving absolutely no physical or chemical evidence of the charges, and all without being noticed by the thousands of people that worked in the towers, and the additional thousands of visitors, including those tourists that visited the towers at night.
Occams razor says you're wrong.
are you really that much of a blind stupid short bus taking mainstream-pablum-eating moronic idiot?
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
What is it with people and conspiracy theories days, it's like some complicated lie is somehow easier to believe then the truth.
As has been pointed out (repeatedly I imagine) what might on the face of it appear to be squibs, or charges are nothing more then compressed air being forced out through the windows, dragging dust and debri along with it through simple things such as saltation and suspension..
Or, we can believe that somehow an army of engineers made it into the building, stripped the walls, placed dozens of high explosive charges, replaced everything exactly how they found it, then managed to set off the charges with a high degree of precision to make it look like a natural collapse, leaving absolutely no physical or chemical evidence of the charges, and all without being noticed by the thousands of people that worked in the towers, and the additional thousands of visitors, including those tourists that visited the towers at night.
Occams razor says you're wrong.
QUOTE (shagster+Jul 25 2007, 03:00 AM)
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...000/butler1.jpg
In NCSTAR1-2A, Figure 5--8, page 108 (142 ordinal), gives the cumulative drift for a 100 mph wind at the top: maximum is about 84 inches from the vertical. For floor 70, multiply by 0.6, approximately.
So for a maximum event, I expect the observed displacement to be about 50 inches. But note, the observed displacement from the aircraft impact is 15 inches, well within the capability of a fully intact tower. The next displacement in the positive direction is only 11 inches.
So other than the effect of the in ital impulse of the strike, I doubt that any (further) damage (for this reason) occurred in the sub-basement levels.
In NCSTAR1-2A, Figure 5--8, page 108 (142 ordinal), gives the cumulative drift for a 100 mph wind at the top: maximum is about 84 inches from the vertical. For floor 70, multiply by 0.6, approximately.
So for a maximum event, I expect the observed displacement to be about 50 inches. But note, the observed displacement from the aircraft impact is 15 inches, well within the capability of a fully intact tower. The next displacement in the positive direction is only 11 inches.
So other than the effect of the in ital impulse of the strike, I doubt that any (further) damage (for this reason) occurred in the sub-basement levels.
BTW, I just hit on a theory the other day that male-pattern baldness evolved as a means of providing supplemental Vitamin D for the later years of life, compensating for the old sun-damaged skin losing its ability to produce Vitamin D.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=16581&st=
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=16581&st=
QUOTE (newton+Jul 25 2007, 10:48 PM)
the buildings are clearly exploding outwards, and away from the footprint.
An engineer member of ae911truth is going to study the outward expulsions of the walls. No idea how long his study will take.
As the impacts due to the collapsing top of the buildings are primarily downwards, the lack of downwardly propelled wall sections, as opposed to outwardly propelled, may be stronger evidence for CD than just the outwardly expelled portions, considered alone.
I welcome analysis of physical phenomena much more than intuitive plausibility arguments. Certainly, one thing we can all agree on is that some people's intuition is laughable, even if we can't agree on whether those people are "us" or "them".
An engineer member of ae911truth is going to study the outward expulsions of the walls. No idea how long his study will take.
As the impacts due to the collapsing top of the buildings are primarily downwards, the lack of downwardly propelled wall sections, as opposed to outwardly propelled, may be stronger evidence for CD than just the outwardly expelled portions, considered alone.
I welcome analysis of physical phenomena much more than intuitive plausibility arguments. Certainly, one thing we can all agree on is that some people's intuition is laughable, even if we can't agree on whether those people are "us" or "them".
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 25 2007, 10:59 PM)
Surely by now you should know better.
That is fines (dust) entrained in the air being expelled during the bageling.
No explosions involved.
And where is your proof of this conjecture? A conjecture which I find to be patently absurd. Before you start any mambo dance, it's not that short-lived entrainment never happens, anywhere in the universe. The conjecture that I find absurd is that significant entrainment would persist through a fall of 80 floors. An entrainment which, nevertheless, would allow copious quantities of "entrained" dust and particles to escape entrainment, while still leaving copious quantities of dust and particles in close proximity to steel sections.
Your conjecture reminds me of the Monty Python skit where a customer purchased a parrot which soon died. (or was already dead when purchased). The shopkeeper insisted that the parrot was "sleeping". So the disgruntled customer slammed the "parrot" (it must have been a wooden mockup) against the counter, resulting in a loud rapping sound.
The shopkeeper, undeterred, now insisted that customer had stunned the parrot!
By all means, feel free to test your conjecture via use of steel rods and any powder you choose. And, of course, use all the rail cars and velcro you please. Perhaps you can make your parrot-of-a-conjecture open it's eyes and take flight.
Be careful, though, because if you wave your hands while doing your experiments, your hands may end up entraining the powder, instead.
That is fines (dust) entrained in the air being expelled during the bageling.
No explosions involved.
And where is your proof of this conjecture? A conjecture which I find to be patently absurd. Before you start any mambo dance, it's not that short-lived entrainment never happens, anywhere in the universe. The conjecture that I find absurd is that significant entrainment would persist through a fall of 80 floors. An entrainment which, nevertheless, would allow copious quantities of "entrained" dust and particles to escape entrainment, while still leaving copious quantities of dust and particles in close proximity to steel sections.
Your conjecture reminds me of the Monty Python skit where a customer purchased a parrot which soon died. (or was already dead when purchased). The shopkeeper insisted that the parrot was "sleeping". So the disgruntled customer slammed the "parrot" (it must have been a wooden mockup) against the counter, resulting in a loud rapping sound.
The shopkeeper, undeterred, now insisted that customer had stunned the parrot!
By all means, feel free to test your conjecture via use of steel rods and any powder you choose. And, of course, use all the rail cars and velcro you please. Perhaps you can make your parrot-of-a-conjecture open it's eyes and take flight.
Be careful, though, because if you wave your hands while doing your experiments, your hands may end up entraining the powder, instead.
Metamars, you should at least drop the C in CD... 
The problem that I have with the funneling (of floors only!!) is that if you believe that 0.5GJ is consumed per drop a distance h then that implies that that value for wtc1 is about 25% of the kinetic energy of the block, i.e. about (1/4)nmgh and that only for a bypass.
The intact stories will then really consume much more although under the assumptions of a growing collapsing mass after some speed is gathered the factor energy/collapsing_mass becomes quickly very low.
We clearly see that the drop at the first couple of stories doesn't let core columns stick out through the roof or something like that. If you think about the "coax-cable" construction then even when it topples a little bit the core must be destroyed at that moment whether it is in the lower section or the block or both. I think the layer-of-floors theory is a very plausible theory because a crush-up and crush-down occurs in the beginning protecting the top block from being damaged, i.e.
This model works very well even when the core is destroyed in steps. Therefore I never understand why the funneling is needed at all. Maybe to explain the huge mass ejection ? As long as there are no official values it will always be a yes-no-yes-no
Truther: mass is ejected football fields away
Debunker: that is only some dust, you always get dust
Truther: but dust reaches its terminal velocity and cannot follow a track
Debunker: it is mainly the perimeter columns that are ejected with some dust around
Truther: And what about the FEMA map, everything is distributed uniformly around ground zero
Debunker: The map is only a sketch, the bulk fell into the basement and the parts on ground zero are mainly perimeter columns
etc.
If the falling block initiates the floors below funneling then...? Then I'm confused
The problem that I have with the funneling (of floors only!!) is that if you believe that 0.5GJ is consumed per drop a distance h then that implies that that value for wtc1 is about 25% of the kinetic energy of the block, i.e. about (1/4)nmgh and that only for a bypass.
The intact stories will then really consume much more although under the assumptions of a growing collapsing mass after some speed is gathered the factor energy/collapsing_mass becomes quickly very low.
We clearly see that the drop at the first couple of stories doesn't let core columns stick out through the roof or something like that. If you think about the "coax-cable" construction then even when it topples a little bit the core must be destroyed at that moment whether it is in the lower section or the block or both. I think the layer-of-floors theory is a very plausible theory because a crush-up and crush-down occurs in the beginning protecting the top block from being damaged, i.e.
This model works very well even when the core is destroyed in steps. Therefore I never understand why the funneling is needed at all. Maybe to explain the huge mass ejection ? As long as there are no official values it will always be a yes-no-yes-no
Truther: mass is ejected football fields away
Debunker: that is only some dust, you always get dust
Truther: but dust reaches its terminal velocity and cannot follow a track
Debunker: it is mainly the perimeter columns that are ejected with some dust around
Truther: And what about the FEMA map, everything is distributed uniformly around ground zero
Debunker: The map is only a sketch, the bulk fell into the basement and the parts on ground zero are mainly perimeter columns
etc.
If the falling block initiates the floors below funneling then...? Then I'm confused
einnsteen
Let me see if I can help your confusion.
The "funneling","pancaking" or "bageling" are a SEPERATE process, triggered by the initial collapse, from the fall of the top block. Debris accumulated on the first intact floor under the impact zone until a load was reached it could not sustain, causing it to collapse on the floor below. That floor now had an unsustainable weight+the kinetic energy of that weight falling 10 meters+it's own weight so it also fails, etc, etc. So the floors collapse continues to the ground. Classic pancake collapse. And since this occured inside the still standing outer frame the results were funneled into the basement, very little escaped through the windows.
At the same time the top block has begun to move downward. The perimeter columns it encounters have already been stripped of their bracing(floors) and are easily pushed aside intact(as can be seen in the photos). Some say that explosives are the cause of the external frames reaching 300 feet or more outward, would they also question the top of a 300 foot tree being 300 feet from the base??? Those towers were 1000 ft high, if the frames had not fragmented the upper most frames could have reached 1000 ft away, no explosives needed, THEY FELL OVER like banana peels.
So that leaves almost the entire energy of the falling top block to destroy the core columns.
Grumpy
Let me see if I can help your confusion.
The "funneling","pancaking" or "bageling" are a SEPERATE process, triggered by the initial collapse, from the fall of the top block. Debris accumulated on the first intact floor under the impact zone until a load was reached it could not sustain, causing it to collapse on the floor below. That floor now had an unsustainable weight+the kinetic energy of that weight falling 10 meters+it's own weight so it also fails, etc, etc. So the floors collapse continues to the ground. Classic pancake collapse. And since this occured inside the still standing outer frame the results were funneled into the basement, very little escaped through the windows.
At the same time the top block has begun to move downward. The perimeter columns it encounters have already been stripped of their bracing(floors) and are easily pushed aside intact(as can be seen in the photos). Some say that explosives are the cause of the external frames reaching 300 feet or more outward, would they also question the top of a 300 foot tree being 300 feet from the base??? Those towers were 1000 ft high, if the frames had not fragmented the upper most frames could have reached 1000 ft away, no explosives needed, THEY FELL OVER like banana peels.
So that leaves almost the entire energy of the falling top block to destroy the core columns.
Grumpy
Metamars -
There was air inside the WTC towers before the collapse.
What do *you* think happened to it?
There was air inside the WTC towers before the collapse.
What do *you* think happened to it?
Grumpy,
you mean this in fact with green the layer of compacten floors
and then the block follows immediately ?
I don't believe this could be correct
you mean this in fact with green the layer of compacten floors
and then the block follows immediately ?
I don't believe this could be correct
einsteen
If you showed the outer frames peeling apart like a banana peel where it contacts the upper block it would be more accurate. Yes the floors DID pancake in front of the visible collapse, it can be seen as the puffs of air several floors below that visible front, what the uninformed call squibs. The green line should be further down inside the still intact outer frame and it moves much faster(at least at first) than does the externally visible collapse.
The front of collapsing floors is 5-10 floors below the visible collapse in several videos. What's not to believe???
Grumpy
If you showed the outer frames peeling apart like a banana peel where it contacts the upper block it would be more accurate. Yes the floors DID pancake in front of the visible collapse, it can be seen as the puffs of air several floors below that visible front, what the uninformed call squibs. The green line should be further down inside the still intact outer frame and it moves much faster(at least at first) than does the externally visible collapse.
The front of collapsing floors is 5-10 floors below the visible collapse in several videos. What's not to believe???
Grumpy
Ok Grumpy, like a snake that jumps out of his skin :-)
But those puffs of air below are not assumed to be caused by the collapsing mass itself, because there are even videos where you see that effect 50 stories below, far down the collapsing mass.
But those puffs of air below are not assumed to be caused by the collapsing mass itself, because there are even videos where you see that effect 50 stories below, far down the collapsing mass.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 26 2007, 01:12 PM)
But those puffs of air below are not assumed to be caused by the collapsing mass itself, because there are even videos where you see that effect 50 stories below, far down the collapsing mass.
Indirectly, they are. About 7% of the floor area was voids in the core. So some fraction of the air escaped down these voids. Some time ago I calculated just how easy it was to over-pressurize the lower portion of the tower to the point that windows would break.
The few puffs probably occurred at previously broken or cracked windows, other than the ones seen venting from the ventilators on mechanical floors.
Indirectly, they are. About 7% of the floor area was voids in the core. So some fraction of the air escaped down these voids. Some time ago I calculated just how easy it was to over-pressurize the lower portion of the tower to the point that windows would break.
The few puffs probably occurred at previously broken or cracked windows, other than the ones seen venting from the ventilators on mechanical floors.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 26 2007, 06:37 AM)
A conjecture which I find to be patently absurd.
Ever watched an avalanche?
There was almost twelve acre-feet of air in each and every one of those stories. Where did it go?
You claimed you had read BLGB, but I guess this really isn't do, or maybe you forgot what you read. I think you ought to read it again...
Ever watched an avalanche?
There was almost twelve acre-feet of air in each and every one of those stories. Where did it go?
You claimed you had read BLGB, but I guess this really isn't do, or maybe you forgot what you read. I think you ought to read it again...
QUOTE
Ever watched an avalanche?
Avalanches are also caused by explosives planted by government agents.
(I just figured I'd post this before newton did.)
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 26 2007, 06:06 AM)
As the impacts due to the collapsing top of the buildings are primarily downwards, the lack of downwardly propelled wall sections, as opposed to outwardly propelled, may be stronger evidence for CD than just the outwardly expelled portions, considered alone.
You seem quite confused today.
For WTC 1, the tilted top block fell to the east of the west wall and to the south of the north wall by just enough for tall (ca. 300 m) sections of these walls to fall over, pushed at the bottom. The evidence for this is plain and I have posted regarding it many times.
Once a sizable crushing front has built up, the other walls are ripped apart, with separate panels falling, as is clearly seen in several videos. Two means have been proposed:
(1) A whip effect involving two or three panels. (Pierre-Normand)
(2) The pressure from the ever growing crushing front. (me and Carter Elliot)
Before I am going to put any effort into further refinement of either proposal, you would have to provide some substantive reasons why both are not possible.
You seem quite confused today.
For WTC 1, the tilted top block fell to the east of the west wall and to the south of the north wall by just enough for tall (ca. 300 m) sections of these walls to fall over, pushed at the bottom. The evidence for this is plain and I have posted regarding it many times.
Once a sizable crushing front has built up, the other walls are ripped apart, with separate panels falling, as is clearly seen in several videos. Two means have been proposed:
(1) A whip effect involving two or three panels. (Pierre-Normand)
(2) The pressure from the ever growing crushing front. (me and Carter Elliot)
Before I am going to put any effort into further refinement of either proposal, you would have to provide some substantive reasons why both are not possible.
einsteen
THAT IS MY POINT!!! The floor collapse happens in front of the visible collapse, the missing support of the floors is why the frames came apart so easily! The puffs of air in advance of that visible collapse are air ejected from between collapsing floors.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But those puffs of air below are not assumed to be caused by the collapsing mass itself, because there are even videos where you see that effect 50 stories below, far down the collapsing mass.
THAT IS MY POINT!!! The floor collapse happens in front of the visible collapse, the missing support of the floors is why the frames came apart so easily! The puffs of air in advance of that visible collapse are air ejected from between collapsing floors.
Grumpy
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 26 2007, 01:40 PM)
Avalanches are also caused by explosives planted by government agents.
Yes, but they ordinarily use pack howitzers to do the planting.
Much, much safer that way...
Yes, but they ordinarily use pack howitzers to do the planting.
Much, much safer that way...
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 26 2007, 08:40 PM)
Avalanches are also caused by explosives planted by government agents.
(I just figured I'd post this before newton did.)
that's silly.
mind you, levy breaks in new orleans during katrina were caused by 'government' planted explosives.
let's go with shadow cabal, instead of government. governments are incompetent. super elite 'star chamber' evil overlords, on the other hand, can operate with no oversight, no conscience, no reprisals, no limits or constraints, and can wear white good guy hats in the light of day.
i still don't see a tower peeling like a banana. i see an exploding one.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 26 2007, 04:54 PM)
i still don't see a tower peeling like a banana.
i see an exploding one.
Not if you just look at videos of WTC 2. For WCT 1 it seems there is a video where the peeling from the north wall is visible. But the best evidence comes from the very large section of the west wall of WTC 1 lying, laid out, in West Street. The next best is the NOAA overhead photo showing WTC 6 and beyond to the north.
I suppose that term is ok, as long as it doesn't imply explosives. After all, pressurized tanks are said to 'explode' in news stories. The tower collapses were roughly similar.
i see an exploding one.
Not if you just look at videos of WTC 2. For WCT 1 it seems there is a video where the peeling from the north wall is visible. But the best evidence comes from the very large section of the west wall of WTC 1 lying, laid out, in West Street. The next best is the NOAA overhead photo showing WTC 6 and beyond to the north.
I suppose that term is ok, as long as it doesn't imply explosives. After all, pressurized tanks are said to 'explode' in news stories. The tower collapses were roughly similar.
QUOTE
that's silly.
mind you, levy breaks in new orleans during katrina were caused by 'government' planted explosives.
let's go with shadow cabal, instead of government. governments are incompetent. super elite 'star chamber' evil overlords, on the other hand, can operate with no oversight, no conscience, no reprisals, no limits or constraints, and can wear white good guy hats in the light of day.
mind you, levy breaks in new orleans during katrina were caused by 'government' planted explosives.
let's go with shadow cabal, instead of government. governments are incompetent. super elite 'star chamber' evil overlords, on the other hand, can operate with no oversight, no conscience, no reprisals, no limits or constraints, and can wear white good guy hats in the light of day.
That's just ludicrous! Katrina ended up costing insurance companies and the government BILLIONS of dollars and the damages are still mounting.
These "evil overlords" are presumably *rich people*, right? Like, the sorts of people who *own* banks and insurance companies and *run* governments?
The money to pay those damages came from where???
THEM!!!
How do you suppose it benefitted the deep-pocket types to have to pay-out BILLIONS in damages and subsidies to a whole lot of lower-income people? The money they received went to local carpenters and handymen to fix-up the damaged houses. So unless this "shadow cabal" is run by New Orleans carpenters and handymen, or people who sell mobile homes, I think your theory is completely ridiculous. The rich and powerful took it on the chin from Katrina, it was all money out of their pockets.
money is created with the stroke of a pen, or perhaps, now, a computer keyboard.
money is a concept gone wild.
money is a concept gone wild.
QUOTE
money is created with the stroke of a pen, or perhaps, now, a computer keyboard.
money is a concept gone wild.
money is a concept gone wild.
Value is real, money is what it represents. The destruction of New Orleans by Katrina wasn't a numbers game that could be parlayed into net profit, it was real property and real damage, and no amount of financial gamemanship can paper-over the damages.
Nice attempt at sounding profound. I bet it actually fools lots of high school drop-outs into thinking you're smart.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 25 2007, 03:39 PM)
Nice shakin' building Shagster, sap2000 sounds professional, could you also simulate a collapse, i.e. take N masses with N-1 functions f(u) between that are lineair in the beginning, constant later and zero after a certain u> u_critical ?
SAP2000 can't really do a dynamic collapse model as far as I know. It can model non-linear effects, such as plastic deformation in addition to the regular linear elastic analysis. It can perform modal analysis to obtain sway periods.
I prefer the discrete algebraic models for collapse. I have written a collapse model that takes into account shedding from the upper block and collapse front. The story mass and E1 can be varied for each story, which is more difficult to do with diffeq models. The discrete model I've written is a versatile model.
SAP2000 can't really do a dynamic collapse model as far as I know. It can model non-linear effects, such as plastic deformation in addition to the regular linear elastic analysis. It can perform modal analysis to obtain sway periods.
I prefer the discrete algebraic models for collapse. I have written a collapse model that takes into account shedding from the upper block and collapse front. The story mass and E1 can be varied for each story, which is more difficult to do with diffeq models. The discrete model I've written is a versatile model.
Here are the periods for the modal analysis I ran on WTC1 using SAP2000 including p-delta effects. This is the SAP2000 model of WTC1 that NIST/LERA made but that I ran on my own computer. Compare with the values stated in Table 3-3 from NCSTAR1-2a. The values I got were a few tenths of a second longer than the values stated by NIST. The slightly longer periods may have something to do with the way I selected live loads in the model.
1: 12.61 s (fundamental translational N-S)
2: 11.67 s (fundamental translational E-W)
3: 5.53 s (first torsional)
4: 4.61 s (second translational N-S)
5: 4.12 s (second translational E-W)
6: 2.64 s (second torsional)
It would be interesting to look at the effect of changing the tower mass on the sway period. I can do this easily by scaling the SDL (superimposed dead load) values in SAP2000 but leaving the frame elements the same strength to maintain the same stiffness constant, which was established by the frame. I would expect the period to change approximately with the square root of total tower mass.
The NIST SAP2000 model shows the total tower mass close to 300E6 kg for WTC2. I could try 350E6 kg or 400E6 kg and see what happens to the sway period.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...000/modal1c.jpg
1: 12.61 s (fundamental translational N-S)
2: 11.67 s (fundamental translational E-W)
3: 5.53 s (first torsional)
4: 4.61 s (second translational N-S)
5: 4.12 s (second translational E-W)
6: 2.64 s (second torsional)
It would be interesting to look at the effect of changing the tower mass on the sway period. I can do this easily by scaling the SDL (superimposed dead load) values in SAP2000 but leaving the frame elements the same strength to maintain the same stiffness constant, which was established by the frame. I would expect the period to change approximately with the square root of total tower mass.
The NIST SAP2000 model shows the total tower mass close to 300E6 kg for WTC2. I could try 350E6 kg or 400E6 kg and see what happens to the sway period.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...000/modal1c.jpg
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 26 2007, 08:46 PM)
You seem quite confused today.
For WTC 1, the tilted top block fell to the east of the west wall and to the south of the north wall by just enough for tall (ca. 300 m) sections of these walls to fall over, pushed at the bottom. The evidence for this is plain and I have posted regarding it many times.
Once a sizable crushing front has built up, the other walls are ripped apart, with separate panels falling, as is clearly seen in several videos. Two means have been proposed:
(1) A whip effect involving two or three panels. (Pierre-Normand)
(2) The pressure from the ever growing crushing front. (me and Carter Elliot)
Before I am going to put any effort into further refinement of either proposal, you would have to provide some substantive reasons why both are not possible.
The point is, a falling mass exerts primarily a downward force. We can observed mostly straight pieces of metal being ejected primarily outwards. I would expect, in a real, just gravity collapse, much more pieces being thrust more towards the downwards direction, at similar velocities.
The key is the high velocity, steel ejecta (which are observed early in the collapse.) It's a stretch to say that pieces of wall that fell over are being ejected, at all. The only real questions such pieces of building raise is "why were they not ejected, while other parts were?" not "why were pieces of building that failed by falling over not ejected with high downwards velocity component?", since they are not ejected, to begin with.
Although NEU-FONZE has suggested a "bobby pin" effect to explain the steel ejecta, I've seen no research, from anybody, showing that this is anything more than an inapplicable, hand-waving, analogy. Intuitively, the stiffness of a column created from structural steel will not allow us to bend the bobby-pin-column enough to get it to spring back violently enough. The slenderness ratio is too low, and most of the buckling energy will be dissipated in inelastic bending.
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 27 2007, 11:04 PM)
The point is, a falling mass exerts primarily a downward force. We can observed mostly straight pieces of metal being ejected primarily outwards. I would expect, in a real, just gravity collapse, much more pieces being thrust more towards the downwards direction, at similar velocities.
The key is the high velocity, steel ejecta (which are observed early in the collapse.) It's a stretch to say that pieces of wall that fell over are being ejected, at all. The only real questions such pieces of building raise is "why were they not ejected, while other parts were?" not "why were pieces of building that failed by falling over not ejected with high downwards velocity component?", since they are not ejected, to begin with.
Although NEU-FONZE has suggested a "bobby pin" effect to explain the steel ejecta, I've seen no research, from anybody, showing that this is anything more than an inapplicable, hand-waving, analogy. Intuitively, the stiffness of a column created from structural steel will not allow us to bend the bobby-pin-column enough to get it to spring back violently enough. The slenderness ratio is too low, and most of the buckling energy will be dissipated in inelastic bending.
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
You've obviously never tried breaking a plastic ruler then if the sideways velocity mystifies you.
The key is the high velocity, steel ejecta (which are observed early in the collapse.) It's a stretch to say that pieces of wall that fell over are being ejected, at all. The only real questions such pieces of building raise is "why were they not ejected, while other parts were?" not "why were pieces of building that failed by falling over not ejected with high downwards velocity component?", since they are not ejected, to begin with.
Although NEU-FONZE has suggested a "bobby pin" effect to explain the steel ejecta, I've seen no research, from anybody, showing that this is anything more than an inapplicable, hand-waving, analogy. Intuitively, the stiffness of a column created from structural steel will not allow us to bend the bobby-pin-column enough to get it to spring back violently enough. The slenderness ratio is too low, and most of the buckling energy will be dissipated in inelastic bending.
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
You've obviously never tried breaking a plastic ruler then if the sideways velocity mystifies you.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 27 2007, 12:17 PM)
You've obviously never tried breaking a plastic ruler then if the sideways velocity mystifies you.
A-h-h-h, are you suggesting that the behavior of a plastic ruler under compressive impacts is anything like that of a structural steel column in the WTC?
First of all, the steel ejecta are mostly straight, and apparently failed at their ends. Your plastic ruler analogy is probably for a stiff ruler - in which case we expect that to fail by fracturing in it's center. (Otherwise, you are positing a flexible ruler, more like a bobby pin, and so ignoring the fact that a steel column's deflection reflects a much greater inelastic energy sink than elastic sink.)
Doubtless, things change somewhat under impacts, when you consider dynamic effects such as lateral inertia, longitudinal inertia, and strain rate. E.g., in the Calladine and English paper, dynamic impacts, of equal kinetic energy, result in far less deflection if they are of higher velocity.
A-h-h-h, are you suggesting that the behavior of a plastic ruler under compressive impacts is anything like that of a structural steel column in the WTC?
First of all, the steel ejecta are mostly straight, and apparently failed at their ends. Your plastic ruler analogy is probably for a stiff ruler - in which case we expect that to fail by fracturing in it's center. (Otherwise, you are positing a flexible ruler, more like a bobby pin, and so ignoring the fact that a steel column's deflection reflects a much greater inelastic energy sink than elastic sink.)
Doubtless, things change somewhat under impacts, when you consider dynamic effects such as lateral inertia, longitudinal inertia, and strain rate. E.g., in the Calladine and English paper, dynamic impacts, of equal kinetic energy, result in far less deflection if they are of higher velocity.
DBB, Neu Fonze,
Some nice news, an anonymous person likes the 1xN bitmap method and seems to know a lot about video data etc. He said he is even able to automate it,
even an ascii file with the values could be created then "with a mouseclick". The person sounded very serious but is very busy, it may take some time of course when he starts. I think it is worth to wait for it then hi-res videos can be used very easily, then it should also be possible to check the behavior at the corners etc.
Some nice news, an anonymous person likes the 1xN bitmap method and seems to know a lot about video data etc. He said he is even able to automate it,
even an ascii file with the values could be created then "with a mouseclick". The person sounded very serious but is very busy, it may take some time of course when he starts. I think it is worth to wait for it then hi-res videos can be used very easily, then it should also be possible to check the behavior at the corners etc.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 27 2007, 11:04 AM)
The point is, a falling mass exerts primarily a downward force. We can observed mostly straight pieces of metal being ejected primarily outwards. I would expect, in a real, just gravity collapse, much more pieces being thrust more towards the downwards direction, at similar velocities.
The key is the high velocity, steel ejecta (which are observed early in the collapse.) It's a stretch to say that pieces of wall that fell over are being ejected, at all. The only real questions such pieces of building raise is "why were they not ejected, while other parts were?" not "why were pieces of building that failed by falling over not ejected with high downwards velocity component?", since they are not ejected, to begin with.
Although NEU-FONZE has suggested a "bobby pin" effect to explain the steel ejecta, I've seen no research, from anybody, showing that this is anything more than an inapplicable, hand-waving, analogy. Intuitively, the stiffness of a column created from structural steel will not allow us to bend the bobby-pin-column enough to get it to spring back violently enough. The slenderness ratio is too low, and most of the buckling energy will be dissipated in inelastic bending.
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
On the subject of lateral ejections, there is also the matter of the massive block ejected from WTC1 that landed near (and partially hit) the World Financial Center. I don't think the "bobby-pin" can even begin to explain that one!
NEU-FONZE had mentioned this block some time ago (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=0&#entry103830).
Recently a video was released called "911 The Explosive Reality" which someone compiled from archived news footage (mostly stored at archive.org I believe). It contains some footage that has rarely been seen and is worth a look. There is also a high quality version here.
Anyway, I compiled a few videos together that show this block during the collapse for those interested:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HFD2t8IWy0
The key is the high velocity, steel ejecta (which are observed early in the collapse.) It's a stretch to say that pieces of wall that fell over are being ejected, at all. The only real questions such pieces of building raise is "why were they not ejected, while other parts were?" not "why were pieces of building that failed by falling over not ejected with high downwards velocity component?", since they are not ejected, to begin with.
Although NEU-FONZE has suggested a "bobby pin" effect to explain the steel ejecta, I've seen no research, from anybody, showing that this is anything more than an inapplicable, hand-waving, analogy. Intuitively, the stiffness of a column created from structural steel will not allow us to bend the bobby-pin-column enough to get it to spring back violently enough. The slenderness ratio is too low, and most of the buckling energy will be dissipated in inelastic bending.
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
On the subject of lateral ejections, there is also the matter of the massive block ejected from WTC1 that landed near (and partially hit) the World Financial Center. I don't think the "bobby-pin" can even begin to explain that one!
NEU-FONZE had mentioned this block some time ago (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=0&#entry103830).
Recently a video was released called "911 The Explosive Reality" which someone compiled from archived news footage (mostly stored at archive.org I believe). It contains some footage that has rarely been seen and is worth a look. There is also a high quality version here.
Anyway, I compiled a few videos together that show this block during the collapse for those interested:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HFD2t8IWy0
Einsteen:
That's good to know. Let's hope this person can generate some collapse data soon.
Einsteen, any thoughts on using this video analysis method to look at the tilting of the upper sections of the towers?
That's good to know. Let's hope this person can generate some collapse data soon.
Einsteen, any thoughts on using this video analysis method to look at the tilting of the upper sections of the towers?
Lozenge124:
Yes, I have looked at the motion of that block in some detail.....
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is about 14 seconds and its trajectory is such that it must have struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the vertical axis of WTC 1.
I have plotted the observed trajectory and fitted it to a quadratic function for which the starting height was varied to optimize the goodness of fit of the data. It is very significant that the trajectory of the block requires an initial sideways “kick” to fit the data. As unphysical as this sounds, it is the only trajectory possible for an object that appears, so to speak, “out of nowhere”, moving downward at the expected near free-fall speed (after about 5 sec of descent) of about 50 m/s, but situated more than 100 meters to the west of the vertical axis of WTC 1. To reach such a position only 5 - 6 seconds after collapse initiation, requires a minimum horizontal acceleration of about 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity!
Yes, I have looked at the motion of that block in some detail.....
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is about 14 seconds and its trajectory is such that it must have struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the vertical axis of WTC 1.
I have plotted the observed trajectory and fitted it to a quadratic function for which the starting height was varied to optimize the goodness of fit of the data. It is very significant that the trajectory of the block requires an initial sideways “kick” to fit the data. As unphysical as this sounds, it is the only trajectory possible for an object that appears, so to speak, “out of nowhere”, moving downward at the expected near free-fall speed (after about 5 sec of descent) of about 50 m/s, but situated more than 100 meters to the west of the vertical axis of WTC 1. To reach such a position only 5 - 6 seconds after collapse initiation, requires a minimum horizontal acceleration of about 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity!
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 27 2007, 09:31 AM)
On the subject of lateral ejections, there is also the matter of the massive block ejected from WTC1 that landed near (and partially hit) the World Financial Center. I don't think the "bobby-pin" can even begin to explain that one!
Big deal.
A piece from near the top of a 1400 ft tower has to achieve a lateral speed of ~ 35 mph during the collapse.
Whooo Hooo!
Stop the presses.
Arthur
Big deal.
A piece from near the top of a 1400 ft tower has to achieve a lateral speed of ~ 35 mph during the collapse.
Whooo Hooo!
Stop the presses.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 27 2007, 02:24 PM)
Lozenge124:
Yes, I have looked at the motion of that block in some detail.....
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is about 14 seconds and its trajectory is such that it must have struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the vertical axis of WTC 1.
I have plotted the observed trajectory and fitted it to a quadratic function for which the starting height was varied to optimize the goodness of fit of the data. It is very significant that the trajectory of the block requires an initial sideways “kick” to fit the data. As unphysical as this sounds, it is the only trajectory possible for an object that appears, so to speak, “out of nowhere”, moving downward at the expected near free-fall speed (after about 5 sec of descent) of about 50 m/s, but situated more than 100 meters to the west of the vertical axis of WTC 1. To reach such a position only 5 - 6 seconds after collapse initiation, requires a minimum horizontal acceleration of about 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity!
NF:
Do you feel the block and its motion can be explained in the gravitational collapse scenario? Especially as WTC1 had the least amount of upper block tilt (and thus asymmetry) of the two towers.
Intuitively, in a rough conservation of momentum sort of way (as it is not a closed system), I would have expected a similar amounted of mass - or "mass times velocity" - going in the opposite direction. But this does not seem to be the case.
Yes, I have looked at the motion of that block in some detail.....
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is about 14 seconds and its trajectory is such that it must have struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the vertical axis of WTC 1.
I have plotted the observed trajectory and fitted it to a quadratic function for which the starting height was varied to optimize the goodness of fit of the data. It is very significant that the trajectory of the block requires an initial sideways “kick” to fit the data. As unphysical as this sounds, it is the only trajectory possible for an object that appears, so to speak, “out of nowhere”, moving downward at the expected near free-fall speed (after about 5 sec of descent) of about 50 m/s, but situated more than 100 meters to the west of the vertical axis of WTC 1. To reach such a position only 5 - 6 seconds after collapse initiation, requires a minimum horizontal acceleration of about 1/3rd the acceleration due to gravity!
NF:
Do you feel the block and its motion can be explained in the gravitational collapse scenario? Especially as WTC1 had the least amount of upper block tilt (and thus asymmetry) of the two towers.
Intuitively, in a rough conservation of momentum sort of way (as it is not a closed system), I would have expected a similar amounted of mass - or "mass times velocity" - going in the opposite direction. But this does not seem to be the case.
QUOTE (Neu Fonze+)
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s.
Even LESS of a issue then
A piece from near the top of a 1400 ft tower has to achieve a lateral speed of ~ 20 mph during the collapse.
Whooo Hooo!
Stop the presses.
Arthur
Even LESS of a issue then
A piece from near the top of a 1400 ft tower has to achieve a lateral speed of ~ 20 mph during the collapse.
Whooo Hooo!
Stop the presses.
Arthur
Arthur:
Consider Lozenge124's point. It's not just velocity, it's mass x velocity that counts.
I thought you knew that?
Lozenge124:
No, I don't think it can be easily explained if "the block" really is a huge chunk of WTC 1.
Consider Lozenge124's point. It's not just velocity, it's mass x velocity that counts.
I thought you knew that?
Lozenge124:
No, I don't think it can be easily explained if "the block" really is a huge chunk of WTC 1.
N-F, I have no idea how to measure the toppling which a similar method. Only the intersection of an antenna with for example a n x 1 bitmap can be used, and when there is toppling in 3d then it becomes difficult to measure, however for the plane impacts is can be used very well...
The trajectory shape and distance followed by the block is similar to that of the fuselage section that went through WTC2 (though it's difficult to determine exactly what floors it came from). I have circled the area where it landed presumable.
Here are some pictures of the area. The North Bridge Area though was one of the first to be cleaned up to get West St. access so it's hard to tell how much has been already removed.
Right-click -> view image for larger version
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 27 2007, 01:40 PM)
Thanks. Those helped in understanding the discussion.
These are clearly exterior wall panels, surely from the west wall of WTC 1. In other photos we see a sizable portion of the west wall laid out in West Street. These appear to be part of the same connected bunch which fell over at the end of crush-down. The NOAA overhead helps one to see that the crushed mass pushed the wall over at the exterior wall trees, floors 4--9.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 27 2007, 12:48 PM)
N-F, I have no idea how to measure the toppling which a similar method. Only the intersection of an antenna with for example a n x 1 bitmap can be used, and when there is toppling in 3d then it becomes difficult to measure, however for the plane impacts is can be used very well...
With proper timing, these techniques can likely be used to say something about tilting for WTC 1 before the buckling of the exterior walls.
With proper timing, these techniques can likely be used to say something about tilting for WTC 1 before the buckling of the exterior walls.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 27 2007, 02:24 PM)
It appears that the block was moving away from WTC 1 at a relatively constant horizontal velocity estimated to be about 10 m/s. In addition, the time for the block to fall to the ground is about 14 seconds and its trajectory is such that it must have struck the ground close to the east face of World Financial Center Building 3, (WFC 3) - a distance of almost 150 m from the vertical axis of WTC 1.
14 seconds? Which video is this? Maybe you can post the video or a still from it so I know which video. I assume that's 14 seconds from the start of collapse and not the total time in free-fall.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 27 2007, 09:04 PM)
Thanks. Those helped in understanding the discussion.
These are clearly exterior wall panels, surely from the west wall of WTC 1. In other photos we see a sizable portion of the west wall laid out in West Street. These appear to be part of the same connected bunch which fell over at the end of crush-down. The NOAA overhead helps one to see that the crushed mass pushed the wall over at the exterior wall trees, floors 4--9.
This is one where you really need to see the video in motion I'm afraid. It's truly massive; the first time I saw it I thought it was the upper block!
These are clearly exterior wall panels, surely from the west wall of WTC 1. In other photos we see a sizable portion of the west wall laid out in West Street. These appear to be part of the same connected bunch which fell over at the end of crush-down. The NOAA overhead helps one to see that the crushed mass pushed the wall over at the exterior wall trees, floors 4--9.
This is one where you really need to see the video in motion I'm afraid. It's truly massive; the first time I saw it I thought it was the upper block!
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 27 2007, 04:04 AM)
You still haven't shown us your analysis for the claimed "entrainment".
This is too obvious. Wall board, insulation, ceiling tile...
Twelve acre feet of air ejected in the fraction of a second it takes the crushed mass to impact the floor below.
Got it now?
This is too obvious. Wall board, insulation, ceiling tile...
Twelve acre feet of air ejected in the fraction of a second it takes the crushed mass to impact the floor below.
Got it now?
QUOTE (shagster+Jul 27 2007, 09:46 PM)
14 seconds? Which video is this? Maybe you can post the video or a still from it so I know which video.
It appears to be a section of external panel toppling with the dust trailing it.
Greetings. I'm the one einsteen was talking about. I thought I would post some quickly obtained data from the image einsteen produced. BTW, I am not a photo/video expert, not even close.
The method I used to obtain the data was manual digitizing through Enguage Digitizer, a free program that lets you plot points on top of an image then export the resulting numeric data. I'd highly recommend it for this sort of work. NEU-FONZE, I think it would facilitate the extraction of tilt/rotation data, but would unfortunately be quite tedious.
These are the results of eyeballing the center of the dark band at the top. This should be considered preliminary only, but you can produce your own for comparison. The first field is time, the second is position. The time intervals are not identical and both columns have been normalized to one since the numeric output was of an arbitrary scale. I did not attempt to follow 'humps' that appeared to be caused by video artifact.
This is quite subjective and not the approach that einsteen mentioned. However, the results might be better than a highly involved coding project, who knows. At least it's quick.
0,0
0.018494055,0
0.035667107,0
0.055482166,0
0.07661823,0
0.096433289,0
0.117569353,0
0.14002642,0
0.161162483,0
0.180977543,0
0.200792602,0.002762431
0.221928666,0.005524862
0.240422721,0.002762431
0.264200793,0.002762431
0.284015852,0.005524862
0.303830911,0.005524862
0.326287979,0.005524862
0.351387054,0.002762431
0.36988111,0.005524862
0.389696169,0.005524862
0.409511229,0.005524862
0.434610304,0.005524862
0.458388375,0.008287293
0.491413474,0.011049724
0.520475561,0.016574586
0.537648613,0.019337017
0.557463672,0.024861878
0.58652576,0.038674033
0.608982827,0.052486188
0.628797886,0.066298343
0.651254954,0.08839779
0.672391017,0.110497238
0.693527081,0.135359116
0.71334214,0.162983425
0.731836196,0.193370166
0.749009247,0.223756906
0.767503303,0.256906077
0.787318362,0.29558011
0.800528402,0.328729282
0.815059445,0.364640884
0.829590489,0.400552486
0.844121532,0.444751381
0.861294584,0.491712707
0.877146631,0.541436464
0.894319683,0.596685083
0.914134742,0.662983425
0.931307794,0.729281768
0.949801849,0.79558011
0.966974901,0.859116022
0.982826948,0.925414365
1,1
PS Thank you all for a lively and informative discussion
The method I used to obtain the data was manual digitizing through Enguage Digitizer, a free program that lets you plot points on top of an image then export the resulting numeric data. I'd highly recommend it for this sort of work. NEU-FONZE, I think it would facilitate the extraction of tilt/rotation data, but would unfortunately be quite tedious.
These are the results of eyeballing the center of the dark band at the top. This should be considered preliminary only, but you can produce your own for comparison. The first field is time, the second is position. The time intervals are not identical and both columns have been normalized to one since the numeric output was of an arbitrary scale. I did not attempt to follow 'humps' that appeared to be caused by video artifact.
This is quite subjective and not the approach that einsteen mentioned. However, the results might be better than a highly involved coding project, who knows. At least it's quick.
0,0
0.018494055,0
0.035667107,0
0.055482166,0
0.07661823,0
0.096433289,0
0.117569353,0
0.14002642,0
0.161162483,0
0.180977543,0
0.200792602,0.002762431
0.221928666,0.005524862
0.240422721,0.002762431
0.264200793,0.002762431
0.284015852,0.005524862
0.303830911,0.005524862
0.326287979,0.005524862
0.351387054,0.002762431
0.36988111,0.005524862
0.389696169,0.005524862
0.409511229,0.005524862
0.434610304,0.005524862
0.458388375,0.008287293
0.491413474,0.011049724
0.520475561,0.016574586
0.537648613,0.019337017
0.557463672,0.024861878
0.58652576,0.038674033
0.608982827,0.052486188
0.628797886,0.066298343
0.651254954,0.08839779
0.672391017,0.110497238
0.693527081,0.135359116
0.71334214,0.162983425
0.731836196,0.193370166
0.749009247,0.223756906
0.767503303,0.256906077
0.787318362,0.29558011
0.800528402,0.328729282
0.815059445,0.364640884
0.829590489,0.400552486
0.844121532,0.444751381
0.861294584,0.491712707
0.877146631,0.541436464
0.894319683,0.596685083
0.914134742,0.662983425
0.931307794,0.729281768
0.949801849,0.79558011
0.966974901,0.859116022
0.982826948,0.925414365
1,1
PS Thank you all for a lively and informative discussion
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 27 2007, 02:53 PM)
This is one where you really need to see the video in motion I'm afraid. It's truly massive; the first time I saw it I thought it was the upper block!
Thanks again, but I fear I'm not particularly ept at photo-interpretation. However, I agree with shagster.
Does this video show the collapse initiation? If so, I have a request regarding the length of time it took for the west wall to buckle. This is only a fraction of a second, but I am interesting in knowing approximately how many tenths of a second it took.
Thanks again, but I fear I'm not particularly ept at photo-interpretation. However, I agree with shagster.
Does this video show the collapse initiation? If so, I have a request regarding the length of time it took for the west wall to buckle. This is only a fraction of a second, but I am interesting in knowing approximately how many tenths of a second it took.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 27 2007, 02:47 PM)
Arthur:
Consider Lozenge124's point. It's not just velocity, it's mass x velocity that counts.
I thought you knew that?
I did know that Frank and its clear, from the DEBRIS pictures that the "block" was nothing more than outside perimeter wall structure.
Which at the top were not that massive and there is NO DIFFICULTY in seeing how a piece of that on a downward path, can get broken off from the main section and in doing so pick up a relatively small horizontal velocity, ~ 20 mph.
Or do you want to suggest pre-built in Rocket Fuel?
Arthur
Consider Lozenge124's point. It's not just velocity, it's mass x velocity that counts.
I thought you knew that?
I did know that Frank and its clear, from the DEBRIS pictures that the "block" was nothing more than outside perimeter wall structure.
Which at the top were not that massive and there is NO DIFFICULTY in seeing how a piece of that on a downward path, can get broken off from the main section and in doing so pick up a relatively small horizontal velocity, ~ 20 mph.
Or do you want to suggest pre-built in Rocket Fuel?
Arthur
It wouldn't have that shape of dust trail immediately behind it if it had somehow been a block.
This corrects a few points. Obviously, the number of digits here are not significant.
0,0
0.018494055,0
0.035667107,0
0.055482166,0
0.07661823,0
0.096433289,0
0.117569353,0
0.14002642,0
0.161162483,0
0.180977543,0
0.200792602,0
0.221928666,0.002762431
0.240422721,0.002762431
0.264200793,0.002762431
0.284015852,0.005524862
0.303830911,0.005524862
0.326287979,0.005524862
0.351387054,0.005524862
0.36988111,0.005524862
0.389696169,0.005524862
0.409511229,0.005524862
0.434610304,0.005524862
0.458388375,0.008287293
0.491413474,0.011049724
0.520475561,0.016574586
0.537648613,0.019337017
0.557463672,0.024861878
0.58652576,0.038674033
0.608982827,0.052486188
0.628797886,0.066298343
0.651254954,0.08839779
0.672391017,0.110497238
0.693527081,0.135359116
0.71334214,0.162983425
0.731836196,0.193370166
0.749009247,0.223756906
0.767503303,0.256906077
0.787318362,0.29558011
0.800528402,0.328729282
0.815059445,0.364640884
0.829590489,0.400552486
0.844121532,0.444751381
0.861294584,0.491712707
0.877146631,0.541436464
0.894319683,0.596685083
0.914134742,0.662983425
0.931307794,0.729281768
0.949801849,0.79558011
0.966974901,0.859116022
0.982826948,0.925414365
1,1
0,0
0.018494055,0
0.035667107,0
0.055482166,0
0.07661823,0
0.096433289,0
0.117569353,0
0.14002642,0
0.161162483,0
0.180977543,0
0.200792602,0
0.221928666,0.002762431
0.240422721,0.002762431
0.264200793,0.002762431
0.284015852,0.005524862
0.303830911,0.005524862
0.326287979,0.005524862
0.351387054,0.005524862
0.36988111,0.005524862
0.389696169,0.005524862
0.409511229,0.005524862
0.434610304,0.005524862
0.458388375,0.008287293
0.491413474,0.011049724
0.520475561,0.016574586
0.537648613,0.019337017
0.557463672,0.024861878
0.58652576,0.038674033
0.608982827,0.052486188
0.628797886,0.066298343
0.651254954,0.08839779
0.672391017,0.110497238
0.693527081,0.135359116
0.71334214,0.162983425
0.731836196,0.193370166
0.749009247,0.223756906
0.767503303,0.256906077
0.787318362,0.29558011
0.800528402,0.328729282
0.815059445,0.364640884
0.829590489,0.400552486
0.844121532,0.444751381
0.861294584,0.491712707
0.877146631,0.541436464
0.894319683,0.596685083
0.914134742,0.662983425
0.931307794,0.729281768
0.949801849,0.79558011
0.966974901,0.859116022
0.982826948,0.925414365
1,1
As far as the block in question goes. Arthur is right, there's nothing anywhere in that video that suggests that it's horizontal velocity is anything even remotely anomalous. There are several ways it could have picked up that horizontal velocity, including if it was part of a larger piece that rotated and broke up as it fell - considering this scenario even negates the objection that was raised about momentum 'apparently' not being conserved.
As far as my ruler analogy went, yes, Rulers tend to break in the middle, and you claim the steel broke at the ends, but i'm going to raise this point: Ends in relation to what obviously the buckling stopped before it reached ground level, so what might be the ends when looking at it from ground level is not neccessarily the ends as far as the buckling was concerned - IE if the buckling only occured over a limited distance relative to the length of the colums, then it a fracture in the middle of the buckle would appear to be terminal to an observed considering the column from the ground.
As far as my ruler analogy went, yes, Rulers tend to break in the middle, and you claim the steel broke at the ends, but i'm going to raise this point: Ends in relation to what obviously the buckling stopped before it reached ground level, so what might be the ends when looking at it from ground level is not neccessarily the ends as far as the buckling was concerned - IE if the buckling only occured over a limited distance relative to the length of the colums, then it a fracture in the middle of the buckle would appear to be terminal to an observed considering the column from the ground.
The majority of the exterior wall panels seemed to have survived largely intact. The bolts connecting the panels together failed. It certainly appears that the west wall of WTC 1 fell over, a very large part of it intact until it hit other buildings and the ground.
Most panels were three stories tall, but at the mechanical floors, some were only one or two stories tall. Out of about 100 stories of panels, that's less than 3%.
Most panels were three stories tall, but at the mechanical floors, some were only one or two stories tall. Out of about 100 stories of panels, that's less than 3%.
QUOTE
This corrects a few points.
I entered the data points provided into Excel, and used Excel's curve-fitting routine to find a best-fit polynomial for it.
y = 3.7468x3 - 3.896x2 + 1.2942x - 0.1326
The curve seems to fit well, I didn't get much improvement by the fourth-order equation:
y = -1.4736x4 + 7.3033x3 - 6.9008x2 + 2.3297x - 0.2532
I tried fitting a logarithmic to it, and it just got ugly. A second-order curve didn't fit well, either.
I'd go with the 3rd-order.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 27 2007, 09:55 PM)
This is too obvious. Wall board, insulation, ceiling tile...
Twelve acre feet of air ejected in the fraction of a second it takes the crushed mass to impact the floor below.
Got it now?
What's to get? You are avoiding the issue, possibly because you don't understand it.
Look at this photo, found at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc1exp11.html
Using the brown building in the foreground, we can count off 13 stories, so we know that the trail of dust/particles shown is at least 13 floors worth.
You would have us believe that this dust/particle trail has been entrained. I say nonsense - at the very least it is not obvious that the building sections should be trailing this stuff, and some sort of analysis may make it plausible - though I doubt it.
One thing that doesn't make your notion plausible in the least is saying that it's "too obvious". The only thing that strikes me as more obvious than the fact that the larger pieces of building are emitting 'stuff' is that you are ducking the issue.
Note, too, that in the same photo, you can see that more or less straight columns or beams that were ejected much more laterally are not trailing any stuff.
Your analysis - should you ever produce it - which purports to explain this photo as the result of entrainment should explain to us the reason for entrainment by some debris, but not other debris.
Of course, said analysis will delve into the effects of surface area to volume aerodynamic drag effects, as well as considerations of density.
Before you waste any time with any mathematical theory, why not produce one experiment wherein a metal assembly will "entrain" a concrete/gypsum powder combination, of any particle size distribution you please, for a length of
13 * 3.7 meters, with whatever initial horizontal velocity approximates the debris shown in the photo above.
"A picture is worth a thousand words."
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 27 2007, 06:40 PM)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc1exp11.html
Aha. I was not attempting to explain this effect, but rather newton's 'explosions'.
This one Arthur has previously gone over in considerable detail. The most important point is the rather large size of the particles, as determined by pixels and the distance from the video camera. I think you'll find that the train of stuff following the exterior wall panel down is made up of rather sizable pieces of crushed materials.
The short, straighter pieces with a trail are clearly sections of the exterior aluminum cladding.
Which tower is this, by the way?
Aha. I was not attempting to explain this effect, but rather newton's 'explosions'.
This one Arthur has previously gone over in considerable detail. The most important point is the rather large size of the particles, as determined by pixels and the distance from the video camera. I think you'll find that the train of stuff following the exterior wall panel down is made up of rather sizable pieces of crushed materials.
The short, straighter pieces with a trail are clearly sections of the exterior aluminum cladding.
Which tower is this, by the way?
And once again you are simply confused by the SCALE of the towers.
See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc1exp1.html
Note that this is NOT dust.
Which is why it all falls RAPIDLY.
Dust wouldn't.
But the debris won't fall quite as fast as a piece of column either.
That debris without "dust" behind it is apparently rather light weight material, with a lot of surface area, and so no, its not falling as fast as the columns OR the debris.
So, no Metamars,
The Steel in the towers was not being VAPORIZED.
There was NO Mini-nuke in the basement,
There was NO Pyroclastic flow of dust.
So, PLEASE, don't tell ANYONE ELSE, what they don't "UNDERSTAND", since you've already shown a complete lack of ANY critical reasoning skills along with a willingness to believe even the most ABSURD explanations offered by those with whom you WAN'T to believe.
Face it, you've been at this for years and you have YET to show ONE IOTA of evidence to back up your absurd theory that the towers were brought down by anything but the planes and subsequent fires.
What will it take before you finally realize that you have been spent years playing the fool?
Arthur
See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc1exp1.html
Note that this is NOT dust.
Which is why it all falls RAPIDLY.
Dust wouldn't.
But the debris won't fall quite as fast as a piece of column either.
That debris without "dust" behind it is apparently rather light weight material, with a lot of surface area, and so no, its not falling as fast as the columns OR the debris.
So, no Metamars,
The Steel in the towers was not being VAPORIZED.
There was NO Mini-nuke in the basement,
There was NO Pyroclastic flow of dust.
So, PLEASE, don't tell ANYONE ELSE, what they don't "UNDERSTAND", since you've already shown a complete lack of ANY critical reasoning skills along with a willingness to believe even the most ABSURD explanations offered by those with whom you WAN'T to believe.
Face it, you've been at this for years and you have YET to show ONE IOTA of evidence to back up your absurd theory that the towers were brought down by anything but the planes and subsequent fires.
What will it take before you finally realize that you have been spent years playing the fool?
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 27 2007, 06:27 PM)
I entered the data points provided into Excel, and used Excel's curve-fitting routine to find a best-fit polynomial for it.
y = 3.7468x3 - 3.896x2 + 1.2942x - 0.1326
The curve seems to fit well, I didn't get much improvement by the fourth-order equation:
y = -1.4736x4 + 7.3033x3 - 6.9008x2 + 2.3297x - 0.2532
I tried fitting a logarithmic to it, and it just got ugly. A second-order curve didn't fit well, either.
I'd go with the 3rd-order.
Nice, but the power series expansion of the solution to the crush-down equation has a coefficient of 0 for the linear term.
What happens if you try forcing that?
y = 3.7468x3 - 3.896x2 + 1.2942x - 0.1326
The curve seems to fit well, I didn't get much improvement by the fourth-order equation:
y = -1.4736x4 + 7.3033x3 - 6.9008x2 + 2.3297x - 0.2532
I tried fitting a logarithmic to it, and it just got ugly. A second-order curve didn't fit well, either.
I'd go with the 3rd-order.
Nice, but the power series expansion of the solution to the crush-down equation has a coefficient of 0 for the linear term.
What happens if you try forcing that?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 28 2007, 12:56 AM)
There are several ways it could have picked up that horizontal velocity, including if it was part of a larger piece that rotated and broke up as it fell - considering this scenario even negates the objection that was raised about momentum 'apparently' not being conserved.
I mentioned that one a long time ago. It would be worth looking at the physics of a situation like that and see what type of velocities come out of it.
I mentioned that one a long time ago. It would be worth looking at the physics of a situation like that and see what type of velocities come out of it.
QUOTE
Nice, but the power series expansion of the solution to the crush-down equation has a coefficient of 0 for the linear term.
What happens if you try forcing that?
What happens if you try forcing that?
I don't know how to make Excel do that. If you have any suggestions on the procedure, please advise.
I just had it add trendlines to the data provided.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 28 2007, 01:50 AM)
Aha. I was not attempting to explain this effect, but rather newton's 'explosions'.
This one Arthur has previously gone over in considerable detail. The most important point is the rather large size of the particles, as determined by pixels and the distance from the video camera. I think you'll find that the train of stuff following the exterior wall panel down is made up of rather sizable pieces of crushed materials.
The short, straighter pieces with a trail are clearly sections of the exterior aluminum cladding.
Which tower is this, by the way?
North Tower.
This one Arthur has previously gone over in considerable detail. The most important point is the rather large size of the particles, as determined by pixels and the distance from the video camera. I think you'll find that the train of stuff following the exterior wall panel down is made up of rather sizable pieces of crushed materials.
The short, straighter pieces with a trail are clearly sections of the exterior aluminum cladding.
Which tower is this, by the way?
North Tower.
QUOTE (shagster+Jul 28 2007, 02:01 PM)
I mentioned that one a long time ago. It would be worth looking at the physics of a situation like that and see what type of velocities come out of it.
If memory serves, the maths is relatively straight forward, it's the application of the math that starts getting complicated quickly.
Obviously the block has been rotated, because we know it was vertical, and it's now horizontal, so the most obvious mechanism is this:
We know that the fragment - i'm going to assume that the fragment we see in the clip is the original fragment.
One end is free, the other end is fixed, the fixed end acts as a fulcrum, causing the free end to rotate, as it does so, it applies shear stresses to the steel holding it in place, until the steel undergoes plastic failure and snaps, at which point the ragment moves away from it's point of origin with some horizontal velocity, and begins/continues to accelerate dowards.
Why does the fragment retain it's horizontal velocity? Because the conservation of momentum tells us that we should expect the center of gravity of the fragment to continue moving horizontally with the same velocity that it had when the steel at the fulcrum point failed.
There is also a second mechanism that would come into play. It seem obvious to me that because the tendency of the floors above the impact point is to fall straight down, then that's going to force the walls below them to fall outwards. There's a couple of relatively trivial mechanisms for this (logically speaking anyway). After the impact, as I have said a couple of times, the core columns would have been bearing an assymetric load, which would have include horizontal as well as vertical forces. When thecor colums finally failed, it would have been in a sequential and assymetric way. If we approximate the upper floors (above the impact) as being solid and cubical, then it's easy to see that any assymetrc loading and tilting is going to cause the upper block to fall with one corner pointing down, which will tend to force the outer structural elements to fall outwards, and impart them with some horizontal velocity.
This is exactly the same principle that a fan works by. When the angled surface, which is moving vertically (if you look at the fan from the edge), strikes a particle of air, the particl of air is displaced horizontaly. Given that there was an effectively solid mass falling straight down, and given that the walls were being pushed outwards by the mass falling straight down, it seems that we should expect objects and fragments to be ejected with 'significant' horizontal velocities. It seems to me that we should also expect that the closer to the ground that the object originated, the greater it's horizontal velocity, because the mass pushing it sideways is travelling faster. We should also expect that the angle that the object having been accelerated was 'struck' at would have an influence as well.
Edit:
On the face of it, 10m/s, if that is accurate, does not seem like an unreasonable horizontal velocity to expect.
If memory serves, the maths is relatively straight forward, it's the application of the math that starts getting complicated quickly.
Obviously the block has been rotated, because we know it was vertical, and it's now horizontal, so the most obvious mechanism is this:
We know that the fragment - i'm going to assume that the fragment we see in the clip is the original fragment.
One end is free, the other end is fixed, the fixed end acts as a fulcrum, causing the free end to rotate, as it does so, it applies shear stresses to the steel holding it in place, until the steel undergoes plastic failure and snaps, at which point the ragment moves away from it's point of origin with some horizontal velocity, and begins/continues to accelerate dowards.
Why does the fragment retain it's horizontal velocity? Because the conservation of momentum tells us that we should expect the center of gravity of the fragment to continue moving horizontally with the same velocity that it had when the steel at the fulcrum point failed.
There is also a second mechanism that would come into play. It seem obvious to me that because the tendency of the floors above the impact point is to fall straight down, then that's going to force the walls below them to fall outwards. There's a couple of relatively trivial mechanisms for this (logically speaking anyway). After the impact, as I have said a couple of times, the core columns would have been bearing an assymetric load, which would have include horizontal as well as vertical forces. When thecor colums finally failed, it would have been in a sequential and assymetric way. If we approximate the upper floors (above the impact) as being solid and cubical, then it's easy to see that any assymetrc loading and tilting is going to cause the upper block to fall with one corner pointing down, which will tend to force the outer structural elements to fall outwards, and impart them with some horizontal velocity.
This is exactly the same principle that a fan works by. When the angled surface, which is moving vertically (if you look at the fan from the edge), strikes a particle of air, the particl of air is displaced horizontaly. Given that there was an effectively solid mass falling straight down, and given that the walls were being pushed outwards by the mass falling straight down, it seems that we should expect objects and fragments to be ejected with 'significant' horizontal velocities. It seems to me that we should also expect that the closer to the ground that the object originated, the greater it's horizontal velocity, because the mass pushing it sideways is travelling faster. We should also expect that the angle that the object having been accelerated was 'struck' at would have an influence as well.
Edit:
On the face of it, 10m/s, if that is accurate, does not seem like an unreasonable horizontal velocity to expect.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 28 2007, 01:54 AM)
And once again you are simply confused by the SCALE of the towers.
See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc1exp1.html
Note that this is NOT dust.
Which is why it all falls RAPIDLY.
Dust wouldn't.
But the debris won't fall quite as fast as a piece of column either.
That debris without "dust" behind it is apparently rather light weight material, with a lot of surface area, and so no, its not falling as fast as the columns OR the debris.
I was pretty careful to refer to particle/dust trails, rather than just dust trails. I've also made it clear that Benson could choose any particle size distribution that he chooses for his experiment.
The problem with your interpretation is the copiousness of particle/dust trails, coupled with their extent (they probably extend to ground level). You see no problem with this, but this is your opinion, which you present as fact. Only a fool would mistake your opinions with facts, if they're aware of your track record. Or have taken even a few physics courses.
So, no Metamars,
The Steel in the towers was not being VAPORIZED.
I've never claimed that it was, though I've described the collapse of the spire as "powderizing", which is somewhat close.
I've never claimed that it was, though I've described the collapse of the spire as "powderizing", which is somewhat close.
There was NO Mini-nuke in the basement,
I never said that there was a mini-nuke in the basement, or anywhere else in the building. You've already tried this strawman before, so your deceitfulness is showing.
I made clear, when discussing the nuclear hypthesis, that AFAIK, even tiny amounts of radioactivity should be detectable.
But that made no difference to a liar such as yourself.
There was NO Pyroclastic flow of dust.
Yes, I agree. In spite of your deceitfulness, you do manage to make good points here and there, and helped disabuse me of this notion.
Ah, but I've already said so on this forum, and you already know this. The way you write this implies that I still believe it. Yet more evidence of your deceitfulness.
Yes, I agree. In spite of your deceitfulness, you do manage to make good points here and there, and helped disabuse me of this notion.
Ah, but I've already said so on this forum, and you already know this. The way you write this implies that I still believe it. Yet more evidence of your deceitfulness.
So, PLEASE, don't tell ANYONE ELSE, what they don't "UNDERSTAND", since you've already shown a complete lack of ANY critical reasoning skills along with a willingness to believe even the most ABSURD explanations offered by those with whom you WAN'T to believe.
If you read Benson's post, you will see that we misunderstood each other. (Though he apparently buys your non-explanation of what I was referring to.) Furthermore, I reject your categorization of me, though I suppose you'll reject mine of you as dishonest.
Face it, you've been at this for years and you have YET to show ONE IOTA of evidence to back up your absurd theory that the towers were brought down by anything but the planes and subsequent fires.
You seem to believe that most of what goes on in this forum is science.
What will it take before you finally realize that you have been spent years playing the fool?
Arthur
The ability of you, and other OCT's, to declare that evidence is non-evidence, because you come up with some hand-waving explanation, impresses me not at all. At it's core, it shows how dishonest you (and they) are. What makes you think that you are entitled to pass such judgements? If you tried to get away with such shenanigans even taking undergraduate physics courses, you would be bounced out.
Some arguments don't require a deep analysis, others do. Your repeated, and guaranteed (based on your past "performance") tendency to explain away things requiring technical analysis, while offering none whatsoever, yourself, speaks again to your dishonesty, and strongly implies a duplicitous agenda.
Let me give you a hint here, which you'll surely ignore as much as you surely need it: mathematics. Physics is a mathematical science. The presence of mathematics in no way guarantees correctness of the theory, even when the mathematics is correct. But without it, the chances are pretty good that your argument will amount to so much conjecture, and nothing more. (Again, depending on the specific issue under discussion.)
The issue of whether your 'explanation' of debris-trails has any believability is a case in point. While not completely implausible, you have in no way shown this analytically even for cases with simplifying assumptions. Yet, on a physics forum, you speak with a certainty as though you had done even this minimum spadework. If you were new at this, you could claim ignorance. However, you are not new at this. Therefore, you are a fraud.
Short of a respectable technical analysis, you could make qualified, quantitative statements, which is what a more respectable and less obnoxious OCT will do (such a NEU-FONZE, though he doesn't fit the full mold of an OCT'er, much to his credit).
Your only real value on the 911 forums is in producing facts relevant to the discussion, with some good arguments, typically mixed in - quite freely - with unbalanced, distorted, and even ludicrous ones. Speaking of which, have you found your magic bellows, yet?
You're usually clever enough to avoid blatant lying (unless we identify blatant mis-characterization with blatant lying), although we are still waiting for your proof of 'multiple symmetric failure modes for WTC7', or a retraction.
I'm not holding my breath.
Physics, as a college course, is mathematical, but if you actually use physics on a daily basis in the real world, it's often about circumstances that math won't help a damn bit.
One of my favorite jokes has the punchline where a physicist says, "First, assume a spherical chicken."
In classroom physics, it's all about spherical chickens, in the real world, you have to understand which situations where you can't expect any sort of accurate estimate, or any confidence that your estimate will be right at all.
Math has its limits, and especially in complex situations. Looking for numbers in a situation where there are more variables than knowns is an amateur's move.
See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc1exp1.html
Note that this is NOT dust.
Which is why it all falls RAPIDLY.
Dust wouldn't.
But the debris won't fall quite as fast as a piece of column either.
That debris without "dust" behind it is apparently rather light weight material, with a lot of surface area, and so no, its not falling as fast as the columns OR the debris.
I was pretty careful to refer to particle/dust trails, rather than just dust trails. I've also made it clear that Benson could choose any particle size distribution that he chooses for his experiment.
The problem with your interpretation is the copiousness of particle/dust trails, coupled with their extent (they probably extend to ground level). You see no problem with this, but this is your opinion, which you present as fact. Only a fool would mistake your opinions with facts, if they're aware of your track record. Or have taken even a few physics courses.
QUOTE
So, no Metamars,
The Steel in the towers was not being VAPORIZED.
I've never claimed that it was, though I've described the collapse of the spire as "powderizing", which is somewhat close.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So, no Metamars, The Steel in the towers was not being VAPORIZED. |
I've never claimed that it was, though I've described the collapse of the spire as "powderizing", which is somewhat close.
There was NO Mini-nuke in the basement,
I never said that there was a mini-nuke in the basement, or anywhere else in the building. You've already tried this strawman before, so your deceitfulness is showing.
I made clear, when discussing the nuclear hypthesis, that AFAIK, even tiny amounts of radioactivity should be detectable.
But that made no difference to a liar such as yourself.
QUOTE
There was NO Pyroclastic flow of dust.
Yes, I agree. In spite of your deceitfulness, you do manage to make good points here and there, and helped disabuse me of this notion.
Ah, but I've already said so on this forum, and you already know this. The way you write this implies that I still believe it. Yet more evidence of your deceitfulness.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
There was NO Pyroclastic flow of dust. |
Yes, I agree. In spite of your deceitfulness, you do manage to make good points here and there, and helped disabuse me of this notion.
Ah, but I've already said so on this forum, and you already know this. The way you write this implies that I still believe it. Yet more evidence of your deceitfulness.
So, PLEASE, don't tell ANYONE ELSE, what they don't "UNDERSTAND", since you've already shown a complete lack of ANY critical reasoning skills along with a willingness to believe even the most ABSURD explanations offered by those with whom you WAN'T to believe.
If you read Benson's post, you will see that we misunderstood each other. (Though he apparently buys your non-explanation of what I was referring to.) Furthermore, I reject your categorization of me, though I suppose you'll reject mine of you as dishonest.
QUOTE
Face it, you've been at this for years and you have YET to show ONE IOTA of evidence to back up your absurd theory that the towers were brought down by anything but the planes and subsequent fires.
You seem to believe that most of what goes on in this forum is science.
What will it take before you finally realize that you have been spent years playing the fool?
Arthur
The ability of you, and other OCT's, to declare that evidence is non-evidence, because you come up with some hand-waving explanation, impresses me not at all. At it's core, it shows how dishonest you (and they) are. What makes you think that you are entitled to pass such judgements? If you tried to get away with such shenanigans even taking undergraduate physics courses, you would be bounced out.
Some arguments don't require a deep analysis, others do. Your repeated, and guaranteed (based on your past "performance") tendency to explain away things requiring technical analysis, while offering none whatsoever, yourself, speaks again to your dishonesty, and strongly implies a duplicitous agenda.
Let me give you a hint here, which you'll surely ignore as much as you surely need it: mathematics. Physics is a mathematical science. The presence of mathematics in no way guarantees correctness of the theory, even when the mathematics is correct. But without it, the chances are pretty good that your argument will amount to so much conjecture, and nothing more. (Again, depending on the specific issue under discussion.)
The issue of whether your 'explanation' of debris-trails has any believability is a case in point. While not completely implausible, you have in no way shown this analytically even for cases with simplifying assumptions. Yet, on a physics forum, you speak with a certainty as though you had done even this minimum spadework. If you were new at this, you could claim ignorance. However, you are not new at this. Therefore, you are a fraud.
Short of a respectable technical analysis, you could make qualified, quantitative statements, which is what a more respectable and less obnoxious OCT will do (such a NEU-FONZE, though he doesn't fit the full mold of an OCT'er, much to his credit).
Your only real value on the 911 forums is in producing facts relevant to the discussion, with some good arguments, typically mixed in - quite freely - with unbalanced, distorted, and even ludicrous ones. Speaking of which, have you found your magic bellows, yet?
You're usually clever enough to avoid blatant lying (unless we identify blatant mis-characterization with blatant lying), although we are still waiting for your proof of 'multiple symmetric failure modes for WTC7', or a retraction.
I'm not holding my breath.
QUOTE
Let me give you a hint here, which you'll surely ignore as much as you surely need it: mathematics. Physics is a mathematical science.
Physics, as a college course, is mathematical, but if you actually use physics on a daily basis in the real world, it's often about circumstances that math won't help a damn bit.
One of my favorite jokes has the punchline where a physicist says, "First, assume a spherical chicken."
In classroom physics, it's all about spherical chickens, in the real world, you have to understand which situations where you can't expect any sort of accurate estimate, or any confidence that your estimate will be right at all.
Math has its limits, and especially in complex situations. Looking for numbers in a situation where there are more variables than knowns is an amateur's move.
QUOTE (Metamars+)
I never said that there was a mini-nuke in the basement, or anywhere else in the building.
Oh yeah?
My favorite hypothesis for the heat source in the basement is a micro nuke.
a super hot destruction of the core via micro-nuke makes more sense to me than assuming a smoldering fire could re-erupt and make metal glow
Most all the non-steel, and a good amount of the steel, was turned into powder
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...880&#entry50951
Rereading the work of our Finnish friend, though, I see that he believes that not only were micro-nukes used, but that they were directed micro-nukes. This is what "bunker busters" amount to.
I don't know why this didn't sink in previously, but this notion fits well with a localized source of explosion, and the fact that the columns were demolished along their entire lengths. If would also explain how Rodriguez could possibly survive - he was not in the path of the directed weapon, which was pointing upwards.
So, why did the cutter charges go off so far below the collapse zone? Well, perhaps they DIDN'T. I.e., the pressure from the vaporized core may have simply overwhelmed the windows at a lower floor before their appropriate time.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...245&#entry39696
I don't know if you are a liar or your memory sucks.
But you DID support the Mini-Nuke idea, and the vaporization of the steel in the towers and Hoffman's idiotic Pyroclastic flow.
The fact is you have spent YEARS defending silly ideas, one after the other TRYING to find SOMETHING that will support your CONCLUSION that the towers were brought down by ANYTHING other than the planes.
Real Science doesn't work like that and your pathetic attempts to ACT as if you understood the scientific method are an insult to the actual scientists at NIST whose YEARS of hard work you dismiss so lightly.
Arthur
See, once you accept the notion that the world is run by a secret society including 9-foot-tall lizards, everything else just falls into place.
Oh yeah?
QUOTE (Metamars Jan 4 2006+)
My favorite hypothesis for the heat source in the basement is a micro nuke.
a super hot destruction of the core via micro-nuke makes more sense to me than assuming a smoldering fire could re-erupt and make metal glow
Most all the non-steel, and a good amount of the steel, was turned into powder
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...880&#entry50951
Rereading the work of our Finnish friend, though, I see that he believes that not only were micro-nukes used, but that they were directed micro-nukes. This is what "bunker busters" amount to.
I don't know why this didn't sink in previously, but this notion fits well with a localized source of explosion, and the fact that the columns were demolished along their entire lengths. If would also explain how Rodriguez could possibly survive - he was not in the path of the directed weapon, which was pointing upwards.
So, why did the cutter charges go off so far below the collapse zone? Well, perhaps they DIDN'T. I.e., the pressure from the vaporized core may have simply overwhelmed the windows at a lower floor before their appropriate time.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...245&#entry39696
I don't know if you are a liar or your memory sucks.
But you DID support the Mini-Nuke idea, and the vaporization of the steel in the towers and Hoffman's idiotic Pyroclastic flow.
The fact is you have spent YEARS defending silly ideas, one after the other TRYING to find SOMETHING that will support your CONCLUSION that the towers were brought down by ANYTHING other than the planes.
Real Science doesn't work like that and your pathetic attempts to ACT as if you understood the scientific method are an insult to the actual scientists at NIST whose YEARS of hard work you dismiss so lightly.
Arthur
thanks, david for explaining my explosions.
i think there is a better explanation, yet.
one that includes flashes of light, and explains how expulsions from inside the tower can outpace freefalling debris on the outside. something that also gives a sideways 'kick'. something that puts 95% of the debris outside the footprint.
still don't know about those cylindrical holes in towers 5 and 6, though. might be space based particle beam weapons.
you OCTs are so fried. the (significant portion of)truth is out there. no one has to wait. they just need to do their own research, or simply watch a few good 911 films.
flash, flash, boom, boom.
say 'cheese', shadows.
i think there is a better explanation, yet.
one that includes flashes of light, and explains how expulsions from inside the tower can outpace freefalling debris on the outside. something that also gives a sideways 'kick'. something that puts 95% of the debris outside the footprint.
still don't know about those cylindrical holes in towers 5 and 6, though. might be space based particle beam weapons.
you OCTs are so fried. the (significant portion of)truth is out there. no one has to wait. they just need to do their own research, or simply watch a few good 911 films.
flash, flash, boom, boom.
say 'cheese', shadows.
QUOTE
still don't know about those cylindrical holes in towers 5 and 6, though. might be space based particle beam weapons.
you OCTs are so fried.
you OCTs are so fried.
See, once you accept the notion that the world is run by a secret society including 9-foot-tall lizards, everything else just falls into place.
not really. every 'answer' creates a hundred more questions.
i do not 'accept', nor 'reject' the reptile theory. it is filed in the 'either/or/insufficient data' category.
i do not 'accept', nor 'reject' the reptile theory. it is filed in the 'either/or/insufficient data' category.
Shagster:
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 28 2007, 12:01 AM)
I've never claimed that it was, though I've described the collapse of the spire as "powderizing", which is somewhat close.
QUOTE (Metamars=Oct 20+ 2005)
The following is my post on the Randi Rhodes forum. At the time I wrote it, I didn't know that at least some of the dust was indeed hot:
Except for cutter charges, I don't believe that explosives were used in the WTC 1 & 2 demolition. Explosive don't make steel vaporize, slowly (AFAIK).
The Strange Collapse of the Spire
This is about a steel spire, about which survived the main demolition, at first. It's an invaluable clue as to what really happened, as our view of the amazing demolition of this spire is not obstructed by concrete or a dust cloud. The author's description is:
QUOTE
In this view the spire can be seen in the wake of the debris cloud just as it reaches the ground. (And incidentally at that moment the scene to the left of the dust cloud gets much brighter, a brightness visible in many images. Its possible source is beyond the scope of this discussion.) This remnant of the core remains standing for a little less than 20 seconds, swaying a bit from side to side but showing remarkably little inclination to topple over. It then abruptly begins to drop straight down on itself in an apparent free fall, but after falling for about a quarter of its height it suddenly turns to dust. It is heavy dust that continues to drop straight down in place with very little dispersion or wind drift, suggesting that the particles were dense, more or less what one would expect to see if the steel of the columns had turned all at once into a coarse powder.
(This last sentence is not what I see, but take a look and you be the judge.)
Scroll down to "Video Clips of the Disintegration", and click on the link http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/spire_1.mpg
(You may have to install the Divx codec)
Observe:
at 13.4 sec. the spire is still vertical, but begins to bend
at 16.9 sec. it begins to collapse into it's footprint
by 17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete) and by 20.1 sec., it appears that it has been completely "particularized", as the rate of descent slows down and the steel-beam-mist appears to act more like gas diffusing and not at all like a liquid or solid falling at free-fall speed
by 23.8 sec., it's clear that the spire-turned-to-mist is still there, still diffusing, and still falling SLOWLY. (The entire collapse took about 11 seconds. Subtract 23.8 seconds from 17.8 seconds, and you get 6 seconds. It's obviously not a solid or liquid falling at free fall speed.)
When you combine these observations with the observation of the strange glow, plus other observations that I made here, it's pretty clear to me that these phenomena were not due to "explosives". I have to admit, I don't know much at all about explosives, including exotic ones. Anybody care to inform us about a reasonable candidate?
However, even if there was a chemical agent that could turn solids like steel and concrete into fine powder (and do so without a significant shock wave, so that the very term "explosive" becomes problematical) , how would you apply it evenly along all the length of steel beams?
This spire seems to be vaporizing globally (unfortunately, these pictures lack sufficient detail to say that with much confidence.). The vaporization doesn't seem to start at the top, or at the bottom. It seems to be global. Wouldn't you have to ignite this "explosive", somehow? (Presumably from the bottom, since there's nothing above the top to do the job, and it seems unlikely that there was some type of ignition device right at the top that would have survived the initial demolition.)
I am not aware of anybody claiming that the dust was hot, just like I am not aware of anybody claiming to have found residues of any explosive.
Jim Hoffman, of wtc7.net, has speculated that perhaps a maser was used. Would not a maser create an enormous amount of heat? Enough to make the dust hot? Enough to turn the steel red hot before it vaporized?
I believe some type of exotic, directed energy weapon was used. I believe our military has such weapons operational already, and the reason why ABM tests often mysteriously fail, even when they give the target a homing signal, is because they want an excuse not to deploy an inferior system, and simultaneously have an excuse for requesting money for development, which they can use for other purposes.
The details of such an exotic weapon, you'll have to ask DOD. I'm not in that loop. I do vaguely recall, though, that DOD has sponsored research into chemical powered lasers strong enough to take out ICBMs. Did such a chemical source of energy provide the power for the WTC collapses? If so, was the explosion in the basement due to some malfunction of this chemical power source? Or, perhaps, if these are "one and done" types of weapon power sources, they are expected to explode, and this has no deleterious effect on their function?
To anybody even roughly familiar with the physics involved, the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible. That tells you immediately that it was an inside job, since whether you use explosives, a maser, or some other type of exotic weapon, you need an absolutely ENORMOUS source of energy, which OBL could not have supplied. Thus, we have known enough for quite a while to deduce that this was an inside job.
What this analysis tells us is that the real culprits were not only elements inside the US government, but that these elements included as principle players employees of the DOD.
You see RIGHT from the beginning YOU WERE WRONG, there was NO EVIDENCE at all that this was "an inside job".
There was NO MINI-NUKES.
There was NO Exotic Space Based Weapon.
There was NO Pyroclastic flow.
The collapse was NOT energetically impossible, but here you are over two years later STILL trying to find PROOF for the ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION you came to way back then.
You need to seek Help to over come your PARANOID DELUSIONS.
Arthur
QUOTE
Except for cutter charges, I don't believe that explosives were used in the WTC 1 & 2 demolition. Explosive don't make steel vaporize, slowly (AFAIK).
The Strange Collapse of the Spire
This is about a steel spire, about which survived the main demolition, at first. It's an invaluable clue as to what really happened, as our view of the amazing demolition of this spire is not obstructed by concrete or a dust cloud. The author's description is:
QUOTE
In this view the spire can be seen in the wake of the debris cloud just as it reaches the ground. (And incidentally at that moment the scene to the left of the dust cloud gets much brighter, a brightness visible in many images. Its possible source is beyond the scope of this discussion.) This remnant of the core remains standing for a little less than 20 seconds, swaying a bit from side to side but showing remarkably little inclination to topple over. It then abruptly begins to drop straight down on itself in an apparent free fall, but after falling for about a quarter of its height it suddenly turns to dust. It is heavy dust that continues to drop straight down in place with very little dispersion or wind drift, suggesting that the particles were dense, more or less what one would expect to see if the steel of the columns had turned all at once into a coarse powder.
(This last sentence is not what I see, but take a look and you be the judge.)
Scroll down to "Video Clips of the Disintegration", and click on the link http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/spire_1.mpg
(You may have to install the Divx codec)
Observe:
at 13.4 sec. the spire is still vertical, but begins to bend
at 16.9 sec. it begins to collapse into it's footprint
by 17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete) and by 20.1 sec., it appears that it has been completely "particularized", as the rate of descent slows down and the steel-beam-mist appears to act more like gas diffusing and not at all like a liquid or solid falling at free-fall speed
by 23.8 sec., it's clear that the spire-turned-to-mist is still there, still diffusing, and still falling SLOWLY. (The entire collapse took about 11 seconds. Subtract 23.8 seconds from 17.8 seconds, and you get 6 seconds. It's obviously not a solid or liquid falling at free fall speed.)
When you combine these observations with the observation of the strange glow, plus other observations that I made here, it's pretty clear to me that these phenomena were not due to "explosives". I have to admit, I don't know much at all about explosives, including exotic ones. Anybody care to inform us about a reasonable candidate?
However, even if there was a chemical agent that could turn solids like steel and concrete into fine powder (and do so without a significant shock wave, so that the very term "explosive" becomes problematical) , how would you apply it evenly along all the length of steel beams?
This spire seems to be vaporizing globally (unfortunately, these pictures lack sufficient detail to say that with much confidence.). The vaporization doesn't seem to start at the top, or at the bottom. It seems to be global. Wouldn't you have to ignite this "explosive", somehow? (Presumably from the bottom, since there's nothing above the top to do the job, and it seems unlikely that there was some type of ignition device right at the top that would have survived the initial demolition.)
I am not aware of anybody claiming that the dust was hot, just like I am not aware of anybody claiming to have found residues of any explosive.
Jim Hoffman, of wtc7.net, has speculated that perhaps a maser was used. Would not a maser create an enormous amount of heat? Enough to make the dust hot? Enough to turn the steel red hot before it vaporized?
I believe some type of exotic, directed energy weapon was used. I believe our military has such weapons operational already, and the reason why ABM tests often mysteriously fail, even when they give the target a homing signal, is because they want an excuse not to deploy an inferior system, and simultaneously have an excuse for requesting money for development, which they can use for other purposes.
The details of such an exotic weapon, you'll have to ask DOD. I'm not in that loop. I do vaguely recall, though, that DOD has sponsored research into chemical powered lasers strong enough to take out ICBMs. Did such a chemical source of energy provide the power for the WTC collapses? If so, was the explosion in the basement due to some malfunction of this chemical power source? Or, perhaps, if these are "one and done" types of weapon power sources, they are expected to explode, and this has no deleterious effect on their function?
To anybody even roughly familiar with the physics involved, the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible. That tells you immediately that it was an inside job, since whether you use explosives, a maser, or some other type of exotic weapon, you need an absolutely ENORMOUS source of energy, which OBL could not have supplied. Thus, we have known enough for quite a while to deduce that this was an inside job.
What this analysis tells us is that the real culprits were not only elements inside the US government, but that these elements included as principle players employees of the DOD.
You see RIGHT from the beginning YOU WERE WRONG, there was NO EVIDENCE at all that this was "an inside job".
There was NO MINI-NUKES.
There was NO Exotic Space Based Weapon.
There was NO Pyroclastic flow.
The collapse was NOT energetically impossible, but here you are over two years later STILL trying to find PROOF for the ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION you came to way back then.
You need to seek Help to over come your PARANOID DELUSIONS.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 28 2007, 03:20 PM)
Shagster:
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
right. and if the chunk was broken off of a section that's leaning out, then the other piece of this imagined broken block should be falling alongside.
of course, never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. i think it's because a boxcutter behaves like a ruler under tension. probably the boxcutters got bent, and had a lot of enery stored as tension. once collapse initiated, OBVIOUSLY, the boxcutters kicked the wall out.
oh, those crafty ayrabs.
wow, how about that swedish film, 'explosive reality'? "flashy" stuff.
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
right. and if the chunk was broken off of a section that's leaning out, then the other piece of this imagined broken block should be falling alongside.
of course, never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. i think it's because a boxcutter behaves like a ruler under tension. probably the boxcutters got bent, and had a lot of enery stored as tension. once collapse initiated, OBVIOUSLY, the boxcutters kicked the wall out.
oh, those crafty ayrabs.
wow, how about that swedish film, 'explosive reality'? "flashy" stuff.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 28 2007, 12:05 PM)
never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
You never have.
newton is the classic UNDER achiever, blaming the world for his failures.
So, go have another beer and see if you can figure out if the Reptilian Alians running your world are real or not.
Arthur
You never have.
newton is the classic UNDER achiever, blaming the world for his failures.
So, go have another beer and see if you can figure out if the Reptilian Alians running your world are real or not.
Arthur
Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job
nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
QUOTE (Daru+Jul 28 2007, 12:39 PM)
Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job
nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
From this pointless article:
Arthur
nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
From this pointless article:
QUOTE
Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.”
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 28 2007, 08:20 AM)
By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
The only aftermath evidence is of exterior wall panels.
If the west wall of WTC 1 rotated as it fell, one sees more than a line from the north. Indeed, such rotation must have occurred to part of the west wall, since it finally broke apart as it impacted West Street.
Consider the geometry.
The only aftermath evidence is of exterior wall panels.
If the west wall of WTC 1 rotated as it fell, one sees more than a line from the north. Indeed, such rotation must have occurred to part of the west wall, since it finally broke apart as it impacted West Street.
Consider the geometry.
I hate to point this out, but even a section of steel perimeter wall will tend to glide from the aerodynamics involved, and I'd fully expect it to reach the sorts of 10m/s (if that's a reliable number - I'm dubious) glide speed cited.
They seem to keep forgetting the effects of the air. I guess it's due to the fact that in high school physics, they always leave out wind resistance rather than go into it, but that's one of those "spherical chicken" type simplifying assumptions. If it's falling, you need to consider the aerodynamics in order to understand the phenomena.
That goes for entrained dusts, too, so if your high school physics teacher never got around to discussing aerodynamics, I'd suggest you look into the subject on your own before accusing us of being idiots when we incorporate perfectly valid expectations into discussions of what happened. Lots of air inside the WTC, lots of air outside, and it all played its part in what you see in the videos.
No explosives needed, no evidence of supersonic blasts seen in the videos, no explosives smelled/detected after-the-fact, no explosives were used. Get over it.
They seem to keep forgetting the effects of the air. I guess it's due to the fact that in high school physics, they always leave out wind resistance rather than go into it, but that's one of those "spherical chicken" type simplifying assumptions. If it's falling, you need to consider the aerodynamics in order to understand the phenomena.
That goes for entrained dusts, too, so if your high school physics teacher never got around to discussing aerodynamics, I'd suggest you look into the subject on your own before accusing us of being idiots when we incorporate perfectly valid expectations into discussions of what happened. Lots of air inside the WTC, lots of air outside, and it all played its part in what you see in the videos.
No explosives needed, no evidence of supersonic blasts seen in the videos, no explosives smelled/detected after-the-fact, no explosives were used. Get over it.
Guh.
I can't believe some of the rot that people are willing to spout.
The composition of Duralumin:
93.5% Al, 4.4% copper, 1.5% magnesium and 0.6% manganese.
But wait, I notice the conspiracy theorists have conveniently left out useful information like the percentage ratios of the elements they're citing. My point here is that these Spherules can be almost completely accounted for by the fuselage of the air craft.
I can't believe some of the rot that people are willing to spout.
QUOTE
Torin then gets into the science of thermite, and what its actual chemical composition is. The same chemical composition found in the previously molten metal microspheres found in the WTC dust, discovered by professor Steven Jones. “The WTC 'microsphere' samples showed the presence of aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), copper (Cu), and sulphur (S).”
The composition of Duralumin:
93.5% Al, 4.4% copper, 1.5% magnesium and 0.6% manganese.
But wait, I notice the conspiracy theorists have conveniently left out useful information like the percentage ratios of the elements they're citing. My point here is that these Spherules can be almost completely accounted for by the fuselage of the air craft.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 27 2007, 06:40 PM)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc1exp11.html
even states this is the North Tower. *blush*
The exterior wall section farthest to the left is, by counting windows, 6 stories high. That means the trail of crushed materials behind it is over 24 stories high.
The exterior aluminum panels were knocked off the wall section by some mighty blow, a extreme event. That is, a rouge pressure pulse in the descending crushed mass. This event sufficed to destroy bolts and the wall section was kicked out, to begin falling freely.
The crushed materials behind and above this opening continue to pour out here so long as there is crushed materials left to pour. (Notice that these materials are too big to escape through the window openings, since little of that is observed.)
even states this is the North Tower. *blush*
The exterior wall section farthest to the left is, by counting windows, 6 stories high. That means the trail of crushed materials behind it is over 24 stories high.
The exterior aluminum panels were knocked off the wall section by some mighty blow, a extreme event. That is, a rouge pressure pulse in the descending crushed mass. This event sufficed to destroy bolts and the wall section was kicked out, to begin falling freely.
The crushed materials behind and above this opening continue to pour out here so long as there is crushed materials left to pour. (Notice that these materials are too big to escape through the window openings, since little of that is observed.)
OneWhiteEye,
Thanks for your data, you were really fast.
I hope it will be usefull for the experts. I have a very thick numerical mathematics book at home, but is still somewhere in a box since I moved to my new house, I really forgot a lot. There are of course a lot of curve-fitting methods, the lineair term should be zero because of the a-priori knowledge. But if I think a little bit longer about it I'm not really sure, it is a smooth function f(t) with f(0)=0, but also f'(0)=0, the first term should be a t^2 term or not ?? it's also late and we had a party.. yes of course it must be a t^2 term
What I think is that the normal crush-down equation should be fitted, maybe then even the energy values could be varied for the first couple of stories. I can tell only one thing and that it is not trivial, far from...
Thanks for your data, you were really fast.
I hope it will be usefull for the experts. I have a very thick numerical mathematics book at home, but is still somewhere in a box since I moved to my new house, I really forgot a lot. There are of course a lot of curve-fitting methods, the lineair term should be zero because of the a-priori knowledge. But if I think a little bit longer about it I'm not really sure, it is a smooth function f(t) with f(0)=0, but also f'(0)=0, the first term should be a t^2 term or not ?? it's also late and we had a party.. yes of course it must be a t^2 term
What I think is that the normal crush-down equation should be fitted, maybe then even the energy values could be varied for the first couple of stories. I can tell only one thing and that it is not trivial, far from...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 28 2007, 09:39 PM)
Guh.
I can't believe some of the rot that people are willing to spout.
The composition of Duralumin:
93.5% Al, 4.4% copper, 1.5% magnesium and 0.6% manganese.
But wait, I notice the conspiracy theorists have conveniently left out useful information like the percentage ratios of the elements they're citing. My point here is that these Spherules can be almost completely accounted for by the fuselage of the air craft.
Hurray Trippy has confirmed molten steel in the twin towers, however since the Duraluminum is unlikely to combine with steel into sphericals I prefer to think the spheres found were once part of the people on the plane that passed though a chemical reaction.
PS.Here is what the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, Has to say on Aluminum, PS, they received the information from OSHA who received the information from industrial accident investigations.
CCOHS
Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?
Interestingly enough I found that at the speed the plane was traveling some duraluminum would become pretty close to powder form.
Also Trippy I tested the duraluminum about a year and a half ago and it would not work the only way it would form spiracles was on impact unless the temperature in the buildings approached 1500c and melted steel.
The impacts did form spheres but not containing potassium.
Duraluminum is the easy answer not the correct one.
Well got to go I am leaving Physorg for a while things I wish to do and at this point debate has become worse than useless.
Oh and did I forget to mention that titanium powder in air can ignite at 450F,
Magnesiums is even lower than that.
Powder Igniting produces heat that can Ignite metal, that produces high shock waves, from heat, and hot hard particulates that increase fire proofing damage and weaken the structures of some steels ex specially exposed floor pans and trusses.
That sets off other chemical reactions and leads to increased localized energy releases near vital structures.
However I will probibly never prove it with half assed experiments, and people wanting to do real experiments on this simply do not exist, so what is the point in arguing something that no one will ever believe?
Well I am sad to be leaving Physorg but I do not see a way I can contribute much more to the discussions here.
I can't believe some of the rot that people are willing to spout.
The composition of Duralumin:
93.5% Al, 4.4% copper, 1.5% magnesium and 0.6% manganese.
But wait, I notice the conspiracy theorists have conveniently left out useful information like the percentage ratios of the elements they're citing. My point here is that these Spherules can be almost completely accounted for by the fuselage of the air craft.
Hurray Trippy has confirmed molten steel in the twin towers, however since the Duraluminum is unlikely to combine with steel into sphericals I prefer to think the spheres found were once part of the people on the plane that passed though a chemical reaction.
PS.Here is what the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, Has to say on Aluminum, PS, they received the information from OSHA who received the information from industrial accident investigations.
CCOHS
Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?
Interestingly enough I found that at the speed the plane was traveling some duraluminum would become pretty close to powder form.
Also Trippy I tested the duraluminum about a year and a half ago and it would not work the only way it would form spiracles was on impact unless the temperature in the buildings approached 1500c and melted steel.
The impacts did form spheres but not containing potassium.
Duraluminum is the easy answer not the correct one.
Well got to go I am leaving Physorg for a while things I wish to do and at this point debate has become worse than useless.
Oh and did I forget to mention that titanium powder in air can ignite at 450F,
Magnesiums is even lower than that.
Powder Igniting produces heat that can Ignite metal, that produces high shock waves, from heat, and hot hard particulates that increase fire proofing damage and weaken the structures of some steels ex specially exposed floor pans and trusses.
That sets off other chemical reactions and leads to increased localized energy releases near vital structures.
However I will probibly never prove it with half assed experiments, and people wanting to do real experiments on this simply do not exist, so what is the point in arguing something that no one will ever believe?
Well I am sad to be leaving Physorg but I do not see a way I can contribute much more to the discussions here.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 28 2007, 12:27 AM)
thanks, david for explaining my explosions.
... one that includes flashes of light,
and explains how expulsions from inside the tower can outpace freefalling debris on the outside.
something that also gives a sideways 'kick'.
something that puts 95% of the debris outside the footprint.
still don't know about those cylindrical holes in towers 5 and 6, ...
(1) You are welcome.
(2) What 'flashes of light'? At collapse initiation, transformer failures?
(3) The progressive collapse proceeds downwards faster and faster. Free-falling debris starts at zero vertical speed. While the acceleration is greater, it takes awhile to overtake.
(4) The air pressure does that for the fines. The pressure of the crushed mass does that for exterior wall sections.
(5) The north wall of WTC 1. Hitting the roof a great speed. The fracture produces round holes in concrete. So now you know.
... one that includes flashes of light,
and explains how expulsions from inside the tower can outpace freefalling debris on the outside.
something that also gives a sideways 'kick'.
something that puts 95% of the debris outside the footprint.
still don't know about those cylindrical holes in towers 5 and 6, ...
(1) You are welcome.
(2) What 'flashes of light'? At collapse initiation, transformer failures?
(3) The progressive collapse proceeds downwards faster and faster. Free-falling debris starts at zero vertical speed. While the acceleration is greater, it takes awhile to overtake.
(4) The air pressure does that for the fines. The pressure of the crushed mass does that for exterior wall sections.
(5) The north wall of WTC 1. Hitting the roof a great speed. The fracture produces round holes in concrete. So now you know.
I dug up a couple pictures taken on Sept.11 that show the north bridge area before clean-up.
(source:"Above Hallowed Ground", p.38-39)
(source:"Above Hallowed Ground", p.38-39)
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 28 2007, 04:42 PM)
I dug up a couple pictures taken on Sept.11 that show the north bridge area before clean-up.
Thanks again.
But alas, I can't make out much other than it was quite messy. What do you think you are seeing?
Thanks again.
But alas, I can't make out much other than it was quite messy. What do you think you are seeing?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 28 2007, 11:55 PM)
Thanks again.
But alas, I can't make out much other than it was quite messy. What do you think you are seeing?
This is the area where the large block we were talking about presumably landed.
I do not really draw any conclusions from the pictures, just posting some information that is all!
But it gives an idea of the size of the thing especially considering some of it pierced the WFC. I count 30+ perimeter columns on the larger section visible in the photograph, which is over half of 59 that each WTC side contained. There also appear to be some thicker columns (in the shade, upper-right quadrant) which may be core columns.
But again, just posting some data. I haven't seen any pictures online of this area prior to the bridge removal.
But alas, I can't make out much other than it was quite messy. What do you think you are seeing?
This is the area where the large block we were talking about presumably landed.
I do not really draw any conclusions from the pictures, just posting some information that is all!
But it gives an idea of the size of the thing especially considering some of it pierced the WFC. I count 30+ perimeter columns on the larger section visible in the photograph, which is over half of 59 that each WTC side contained. There also appear to be some thicker columns (in the shade, upper-right quadrant) which may be core columns.
But again, just posting some data. I haven't seen any pictures online of this area prior to the bridge removal.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 28 2007, 05:03 PM)
... I haven't seen any pictures online of this area prior to the bridge removal.
Before this, I hadn't either.
Thanks for the words. With those I could find the features in the photos.
I am supposing the photos were taken from the southwest? Approximately?
Before this, I hadn't either.
Thanks for the words. With those I could find the features in the photos.
I am supposing the photos were taken from the southwest? Approximately?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 29 2007, 12:12 AM)
I am supposing the photos were taken from the southwest? Approximately?
Rather the northwest of the WTC complex facing south down west street.
The black building on the left is WTC6, on the right 3 World Financial Center. The north bridge extended to the Winter Garden between 3WFC & 2WFC
Rather the northwest of the WTC complex facing south down west street.
The black building on the left is WTC6, on the right 3 World Financial Center. The north bridge extended to the Winter Garden between 3WFC & 2WFC
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 28 2007, 05:29 PM)
Rather the northwest of the WTC complex facing south down west street.
The black building on the left is WTC6, on the right 3 World Financial Center. The north bridge extended to the Winter Garden between 3WFC & 2WFC
Oh, this makes much more sense.
Then yes, the core columns, as those seem to be, could be from the top block of WTC 1, knocked all the way to West Street during crush-up.
Edited to add: Upon reflection, the large columns could also be the exterior wall column members used from floor 6 down. This seems more probable...
Its coming together for me. Thanks once again.
The black building on the left is WTC6, on the right 3 World Financial Center. The north bridge extended to the Winter Garden between 3WFC & 2WFC
Oh, this makes much more sense.
Then yes, the core columns, as those seem to be, could be from the top block of WTC 1, knocked all the way to West Street during crush-up.
Edited to add: Upon reflection, the large columns could also be the exterior wall column members used from floor 6 down. This seems more probable...
Its coming together for me. Thanks once again.
I am still researching the ground impact location of the north tower antenna as a result of the WTC 1 collapse. This would appear to be a pretty important issue for any collapse theory. So far I have found THREE different answers...
1. A picture on pages 152 - 153 in Meyerowitz's book Aftermath showing a large, lower section of the antenna on Liberty Street about 200 meters due south of WTC 1. I believe some of the antenna section visible in this photograph wound up in Hanger 17 at Kennedy Airport.
2. A picture of what is claimed to be the uppermost section of the antenna. The picture was taken by Michael Rieger and is attributed to FEMA News Photos. This antenna section is located in the WTC Plaza about 100 meters due east of WTC 1.
3. A very interesting quote to be found at Bloomberg.com in an article by Dan Levy and Brian Sullivan about the redevelopment of the WTC site. The article includes comments attributed to none other than Larry Silverstein including this:
"The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and cut through the facade of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services."
So I would presume that the remains of the north tower antenna were to be found in the WTC 7 rubble pile?
Interesting, Mr. Silverstein, but is NIST aware of this?
1. A picture on pages 152 - 153 in Meyerowitz's book Aftermath showing a large, lower section of the antenna on Liberty Street about 200 meters due south of WTC 1. I believe some of the antenna section visible in this photograph wound up in Hanger 17 at Kennedy Airport.
2. A picture of what is claimed to be the uppermost section of the antenna. The picture was taken by Michael Rieger and is attributed to FEMA News Photos. This antenna section is located in the WTC Plaza about 100 meters due east of WTC 1.
3. A very interesting quote to be found at Bloomberg.com in an article by Dan Levy and Brian Sullivan about the redevelopment of the WTC site. The article includes comments attributed to none other than Larry Silverstein including this:
"The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and cut through the facade of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services."
So I would presume that the remains of the north tower antenna were to be found in the WTC 7 rubble pile?
Interesting, Mr. Silverstein, but is NIST aware of this?
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.