QUOTE (Again+Dec 20 2005, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Dec 20 2005, 09:04 PM)
By conservation of energy, a destructive collapse
of the WTC towers (a gravity driven event) from above
at anywhere at or near free-fall speeds, was impossible.
Otherwise, parachutes wouldn't work.
This should be pretty elementary, especially at a science board.
That doesn't answer the question no matter how many times you say it.
How does the method by which a parachute slows the desent of the load relate to the collapse of a building.
Please be specific.
I understand what the conservation of momentum is and see little relevance to the operation of a parachute so please show the way it relates.
There are some great elementary physics courses
on the net. If you can use a search engine you can
locate them.
They apparently waited till one of the two crew members came out of the cockpit to use the washroom.
They had marshal arts training.
A box cutter, applied to the throat is a VERY lethal device.
If you are attacked in the cockpit your first reaction would be to fight back, but being that you are strapped in, your chances of doing so are slim (not just a seat belt, but a shoulder harness as well). Your FIRST instincts would NOT BE to set the transponder to the hijack code.
Navigation is pretty simple, all of these pilots had learned that already, and guess what, Cessna's use the same system as Commercial jets. In fact the displays are the same.
The flight simulators are VERY realistic and would be more than sufficient to train them on the layout of the panel.
No breath taking pilot skills needed, in fact flying a plane is not that difficult, which is why most people solo in approx 10 hours of instruction, so by that time you know how to take off, use the radios, adjust the trims, manage the engine, control the aircraft and land it again.
They apparently waited till one of the two crew members came out of the cockpit to use the washroom.
They had marshal arts training.
A box cutter, applied to the throat is a VERY lethal device.
If you are attacked in the cockpit your first reaction would be to fight back, but being that you are strapped in, your chances of doing so are slim (not just a seat belt, but a shoulder harness as well). Your FIRST instincts would NOT BE to set the transponder to the hijack code.
Navigation is pretty simple, all of these pilots had learned that already, and guess what, Cessna's use the same system as Commercial jets. In fact the displays are the same.
The flight simulators are VERY realistic and would be more than sufficient to train them on the layout of the panel.
No breath taking pilot skills needed, in fact flying a plane is not that difficult, which is why most people solo in approx 10 hours of instruction, so by that time you know how to take off, use the radios, adjust the trims, manage the engine, control the aircraft and land it again.
hit small targets
What the hell is a BIG target?
Arthur
of the WTC towers (a gravity driven event) from above
at anywhere at or near free-fall speeds, was impossible.
Otherwise, parachutes wouldn't work.
This should be pretty elementary, especially at a science board.
That doesn't answer the question no matter how many times you say it.
How does the method by which a parachute slows the desent of the load relate to the collapse of a building.
Please be specific.
I understand what the conservation of momentum is and see little relevance to the operation of a parachute so please show the way it relates.
There are some great elementary physics courses
on the net. If you can use a search engine you can
locate them.
Not good enough.
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 20 2005, 09:31 PM)
Not good enough.
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
From what I've seen of your posts I don't believe
you have any understanding of physics much less
degrees. So take that bunk elsewhere.
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
From what I've seen of your posts I don't believe
you have any understanding of physics much less
degrees. So take that bunk elsewhere.
DaSchill makes yet another premature declaration of victory on "one of the most popular counterculture and alternative news sites on the 'Net": http://www.gnn.tv/threads/6031/Former_Bush...?page=16#107986
He won! He is outta here! LMAO
He won! He is outta here! LMAO
QUOTE
We are expected to believe that hijackers took over a plane by the crude method of threatening the passengers and crew with box cutters, but somehow managed to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane - but on all four. This alone is almost impossible. Then we are expected to believe that all four pilots were able to navigate the planes successfully to their targets, in spite of their training being restricted to Cessnas and flight simulators, that with the exception of the plane which was allegedly brought down by the passengers, they were able to exhibit breathtaking piloting skills in being able to hit small targets accurately at high speed,
They apparently waited till one of the two crew members came out of the cockpit to use the washroom.
They had marshal arts training.
A box cutter, applied to the throat is a VERY lethal device.
If you are attacked in the cockpit your first reaction would be to fight back, but being that you are strapped in, your chances of doing so are slim (not just a seat belt, but a shoulder harness as well). Your FIRST instincts would NOT BE to set the transponder to the hijack code.
Navigation is pretty simple, all of these pilots had learned that already, and guess what, Cessna's use the same system as Commercial jets. In fact the displays are the same.
The flight simulators are VERY realistic and would be more than sufficient to train them on the layout of the panel.
No breath taking pilot skills needed, in fact flying a plane is not that difficult, which is why most people solo in approx 10 hours of instruction, so by that time you know how to take off, use the radios, adjust the trims, manage the engine, control the aircraft and land it again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are expected to believe that hijackers took over a plane by the crude method of threatening the passengers and crew with box cutters, but somehow managed to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane - but on all four. This alone is almost impossible. Then we are expected to believe that all four pilots were able to navigate the planes successfully to their targets, in spite of their training being restricted to Cessnas and flight simulators, that with the exception of the plane which was allegedly brought down by the passengers, they were able to exhibit breathtaking piloting skills in being able to hit small targets accurately at high speed, |
They apparently waited till one of the two crew members came out of the cockpit to use the washroom.
They had marshal arts training.
A box cutter, applied to the throat is a VERY lethal device.
If you are attacked in the cockpit your first reaction would be to fight back, but being that you are strapped in, your chances of doing so are slim (not just a seat belt, but a shoulder harness as well). Your FIRST instincts would NOT BE to set the transponder to the hijack code.
Navigation is pretty simple, all of these pilots had learned that already, and guess what, Cessna's use the same system as Commercial jets. In fact the displays are the same.
The flight simulators are VERY realistic and would be more than sufficient to train them on the layout of the panel.
No breath taking pilot skills needed, in fact flying a plane is not that difficult, which is why most people solo in approx 10 hours of instruction, so by that time you know how to take off, use the radios, adjust the trims, manage the engine, control the aircraft and land it again.
hit small targets
What the hell is a BIG target?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 20 2005, 09:05 PM)
1) From my frame of reference, having read extensively on the subject, I am TOTALLY convinced that 19 hijackers, financed and planned by Al Qaeda (particularly Atta and Bin Ladin, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh), took control of 4 planes on Sept 11, 2001 and crashed them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and a field in Penn. The planes were not on remote control, the towers were not brought down by explosives, and Silverstein saying "Pull it", was referring to attempts to put out the fire.
2) See 1 above.
Arthur
Wow, if you are TOTALLY convinced of those things, then I'm TOTALLY convinced that you are ONE of the following (select):
1) A perfect candidate for a nazi.
2) A govt shill
3) All of the above
2) See 1 above.
Arthur
Wow, if you are TOTALLY convinced of those things, then I'm TOTALLY convinced that you are ONE of the following (select):
1) A perfect candidate for a nazi.
2) A govt shill
3) All of the above
it´s like waiting for water to flow uphill.....
Disinformation.
Consider Naom Chomsky, hero of the left - "worlds greatest living public intellectual" - and relentless critic of US foreign policy.
Chomsky had this to say on 911 -
"There’s by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I’ve looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There’s a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn’t try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you’ll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky...."
So here we have a man who is as well versed in the Machiavellian arts practiced by the US and other states and with knowledge of prior false flage operations yet he offers an opinion on September 11 after looking at "SOME" of the evidence.
Those familiar with Chomsky will know he chooses words very carefully and is meticulous with his research. The "some" here may be provide a position from which he can maneuovre if necessary
Stranger still he offers the chaos of quantum physics to denigrate ALL the evidence that can be cited to show the official fairy tale is a hoax. If Chomsky genuinely believed what he is saying here it renders almost all science and almost everything he himself has ever written worthless.
Yes the jam jar is empty, yes there is jam all over my face - but are you familiar with uncertainty?
Why would Chomsky adopt such a bizzare position?
It may be that Chomsky is not what he appears or it may be that he takes the elitist position adopted by many - we the masses could not handle such a revelation as chaos would ensue making government impossible. It cannot be allowed for all our sakes.
I say to hell with Chomsky and his kind.
Consider Naom Chomsky, hero of the left - "worlds greatest living public intellectual" - and relentless critic of US foreign policy.
Chomsky had this to say on 911 -
"There’s by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I’ve looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There’s a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn’t try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you’ll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky...."
So here we have a man who is as well versed in the Machiavellian arts practiced by the US and other states and with knowledge of prior false flage operations yet he offers an opinion on September 11 after looking at "SOME" of the evidence.
Those familiar with Chomsky will know he chooses words very carefully and is meticulous with his research. The "some" here may be provide a position from which he can maneuovre if necessary
Stranger still he offers the chaos of quantum physics to denigrate ALL the evidence that can be cited to show the official fairy tale is a hoax. If Chomsky genuinely believed what he is saying here it renders almost all science and almost everything he himself has ever written worthless.
Yes the jam jar is empty, yes there is jam all over my face - but are you familiar with uncertainty?
Why would Chomsky adopt such a bizzare position?
It may be that Chomsky is not what he appears or it may be that he takes the elitist position adopted by many - we the masses could not handle such a revelation as chaos would ensue making government impossible. It cannot be allowed for all our sakes.
I say to hell with Chomsky and his kind.
December 20, 2005
A CounterPunch Special Report
--Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here." --
http://www.counterpunch.com/
A CounterPunch Special Report
--Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here." --
http://www.counterpunch.com/
oh, MAN! that chomsky stuff is RICH!
what an a-hole.
ironically, a speech he gave to university students(and published on the web, lol) soon after 911 was one of the things that clued me into the story behind the story. i never used to pay attention to politics and lying media. 911 changed all that.
however, chomsky's not stupid, even if he's shillin' these days. when he says the 'end of the left' i think he might really mean, the end. already, the 'evils' of socialism are a given for many people. forget about successful socialist democracies. think kim jong! or red china! that's 'socialism', right, righties? (i'm a centrist, so no need to call me comrade)
looks like chomksy's a flip-floppin' sucker fish. he feeds at the same trough as the right. what a hypocrite.
an older 'great intellectual' feat
maybe gnome doesn't have a mirror.
what an a-hole.
ironically, a speech he gave to university students(and published on the web, lol) soon after 911 was one of the things that clued me into the story behind the story. i never used to pay attention to politics and lying media. 911 changed all that.
however, chomsky's not stupid, even if he's shillin' these days. when he says the 'end of the left' i think he might really mean, the end. already, the 'evils' of socialism are a given for many people. forget about successful socialist democracies. think kim jong! or red china! that's 'socialism', right, righties? (i'm a centrist, so no need to call me comrade)
looks like chomksy's a flip-floppin' sucker fish. he feeds at the same trough as the right. what a hypocrite.
an older 'great intellectual' feat
maybe gnome doesn't have a mirror.
Re: Chomsky,
...it could be due to his advanced number of years.
who is to take his crown ?
...it could be due to his advanced number of years.
who is to take his crown ?
December 20, 2005
A CounterPunch Special Report
Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
http://www.counterpunch.com/
A CounterPunch Special Report
Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
http://www.counterpunch.com/
QUOTE (galdur+Dec 20 2005, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 20 2005, 09:31 PM)
Not good enough.
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
From what I've seen of your posts I don't believe
you have any understanding of physics much less
degrees. So take that bunk elsewhere.
A non-answer.
Why are you so reluctant to actually state your case about the conservation of momentum relating to a parachute and thus to the collapse of the buildings.
This IS a physics forum, let's see some physics from you.
A side note
These are NOT physics
-political motivations
-speculations on 'who done it'
-hijackers being alive or dead
-motivations of the posters on this forum
-speculations of what the term"pull it" means or does not mean
Once again I state that I have been told that there is ample evidence that unabiguously shows that the events of the collapse of the buildings could not have been caused by a combination of aircraft impacts and fires using only the engineering and physics of the situation. Yet time and again we are assailed here with posts concerning the above list of non-science issues.
I have not read BZ's paper, but if I follow what you have done (and thanks for getting back to physics) that is if the structure does not fail before t=0.04578
Since you were at 31x typical load at only t=0.00274 that would appear a most likely outcome.
Arthur
Yes, BZ doubtless believe that the columns failed before the WTC "spring" could possibly reverse the motion of the top of the building. Hopefully, my math is correct and I have not exaggerated the very short time scale.
Yes, BZ doubtless believe that the columns failed before the WTC "spring" could possibly reverse the motion of the top of the building. Hopefully, my math is correct and I have not exaggerated the very short time scale.
(and thanks for getting back to physics)
You're quite welcome, and I agree that, while occasional and brief excursions into politics are OK ( I have done so, myself), posters should respect the fact that this board is supposed to be physics - oriented. Qualitative arguments are also OK, of course, so non-tecchies can and do contribute.
Pictures of a dead Mussolini are over the top ....
Since you were at 31x typical load at only t=0.00274 that would appear a most likely outcome.
Well, I believe that if BZ really take their paper seriously, they would say that failure occurred well before even 31x overload.
I'd be very surprised if BZ really take their paper seriously, though. I have taken a brief look at the FEMA "earthquake-proofing" reference that Schneibster recently posted, and there are many, many techniques for approaching many different aspects of a buildings' response to earthquakes, many of which are non-linear. (BZ is linear, which is simpler to solve, but generally not as useful for real life problems.)
The solution to the ordinary differential equation I had lifted from Fowles is on page 59 of a 350 + page undergraduate text. Thus, to take BZ seriously, you have to assume that a simple physics calculation can really give you as much insight as you need. Ironically, though, that more resembles the likely complaint of an engineer against a physicist, who is out of his area of expertise, than anything else.
I can't imagine Steven Jones getting away with the equivalent of BZ's paper....
As far as I know... you could be Schneibster (who is fond of using 'hand-puppets' - 'CHUCKLES' is one of his favourites when he feels 'threatened') ... or Rumsfield himself.
HEY FUXXY! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE SOME PROFITEERING CONSPIRACY MERCHANDISE PEDDLERS' HAND UP YOUR OWN *SS DON'T MEAN I LIKE TO HAVE ANY HANDS UP MINE!!! YOU PERVE*TED SLOB!!!REAL PEOPLE LIKE ME AIN'T SOCK-PUPPETS FOR NOBODY!!!SPECIALLY FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER POOR SLOBS WHO TRY TO TALK TO IDIOTS AND CRO*KS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FURRY FRIENDS!!! WHO SHOW UP FROM TIME TO TIME JUST LIKE I DO JUST TO STIR THIS IDIOCY POT THAT PHYSORGFORUMS HAS BECOME BY HOSTING THESE CONSPIRACY MORONS IN A PHYSICS FORUM!!!THAT'S WHY I DON'T REGISTER!!!COS YOU'RE ALL MORONS HERE!!!WHO NEEDS IT EXCEPT FOR A GOOD LAUGH ONCE IN A WHILE!!BUT IT'S WEARING OFF NOW!!!I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT HAVING TO DREDGE THROUGH SO MUCH MUCK TO GET MY JOLLIES!!!THERE'S FASTER PICKINS IN OTHER FORUMS!!!YOU ST*PID RET*RDS!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
NOPE
As the investigation gathered strength yesterday, unusual leads began to surface, among them the possibility that some of the hijackers may have received training at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida or other U.S. military facilities.
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.
"Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. military courses," the Air Force acknowledged in a statement. "However, discrepancies in their biographical data, such as birth dates 20 years off, indicate we are probably not talking about the same people."
Their ACTUAL training at CIVILIAN Flight schools is well documented.
Arthur
I have high school physics and post secondary physics so do not be afraid to explain this to me.
1) relate conservation of momentum to a parachute's operation
2) relate the operation of a parachute to the collapse of a building.
Stop messing about and just say something concrete.
From what I've seen of your posts I don't believe
you have any understanding of physics much less
degrees. So take that bunk elsewhere.
A non-answer.
Why are you so reluctant to actually state your case about the conservation of momentum relating to a parachute and thus to the collapse of the buildings.
This IS a physics forum, let's see some physics from you.
A side note
These are NOT physics
-political motivations
-speculations on 'who done it'
-hijackers being alive or dead
-motivations of the posters on this forum
-speculations of what the term"pull it" means or does not mean
Once again I state that I have been told that there is ample evidence that unabiguously shows that the events of the collapse of the buildings could not have been caused by a combination of aircraft impacts and fires using only the engineering and physics of the situation. Yet time and again we are assailed here with posts concerning the above list of non-science issues.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 20 2005, 11:00 PM)
Re: Chomsky,
...it could be due to his advanced number of years.
who is to take his crown ?
it's a big world. i think we can have more than one 'greatest intellectual', lol.
just more pyramid hats for dunces as far as i'm concerned.
"LOOK MOM! they gave me a SMART HAT!"
HAHA!
...it could be due to his advanced number of years.
who is to take his crown ?
it's a big world. i think we can have more than one 'greatest intellectual', lol.
just more pyramid hats for dunces as far as i'm concerned.
"LOOK MOM! they gave me a SMART HAT!"
HAHA!
2.5 The World Trade Centre Towers and the WTC 7 building were brought down with controlled demolitions.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth2.html
According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals this as a physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn't like to talk so much about the identical collapse of WTC 7 - a 47 story building which was not hit by anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept 11, it allegedly happened 3 times - all three buildings collapsing miraculously straight down so as not to damage any of the valuable nearby real estate. Why was the debris rushed away for recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert opinions indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ?
2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26, 2001.
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC collapse, see
2.5:2 http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html
2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael
http://serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
Selling out the investigation by Bill manning Fire Engineering Magazine Jan 2002
2.5.5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
2.5.6 A fire-fighter says "we think there were bombs set in the building"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.html
2.5.7 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks, and eyewitness accounts from fire-fighters at the scene reveal serious flaws in the official accounts.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/912.shtml
2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php
2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/how-hot.htm
2.5.10 Where's the inferno?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm
WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August 2003
5.17 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct 2001, the book in question was written in 1999, and argued that the WTC was built as a "pre-packaged ruin". It was a financial and logistical disaster occupying valuable real estate.
The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5 2001.
Excerpt from "Divided we stand" by Eric Darton
5.18 http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...001105_5320.htm
Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards ) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition ?
Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban house fires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning jet fuel melting steel?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth2.html
According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals this as a physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn't like to talk so much about the identical collapse of WTC 7 - a 47 story building which was not hit by anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept 11, it allegedly happened 3 times - all three buildings collapsing miraculously straight down so as not to damage any of the valuable nearby real estate. Why was the debris rushed away for recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert opinions indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ?
2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26, 2001.
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC collapse, see
2.5:2 http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html
2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael
http://serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
Selling out the investigation by Bill manning Fire Engineering Magazine Jan 2002
2.5.5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
2.5.6 A fire-fighter says "we think there were bombs set in the building"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.html
2.5.7 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks, and eyewitness accounts from fire-fighters at the scene reveal serious flaws in the official accounts.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/912.shtml
2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php
2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/how-hot.htm
2.5.10 Where's the inferno?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm
WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August 2003
5.17 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct 2001, the book in question was written in 1999, and argued that the WTC was built as a "pre-packaged ruin". It was a financial and logistical disaster occupying valuable real estate.
The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5 2001.
Excerpt from "Divided we stand" by Eric Darton
5.18 http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...001105_5320.htm
Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards ) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition ?
Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban house fires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning jet fuel melting steel?
Hey galdur....
Endlessly posting cut & paste and links to the kook sites does nothing to help your case and makes the thread difficult to follow.
We've all seen this stuff.
Knock it off, please.
Endlessly posting cut & paste and links to the kook sites does nothing to help your case and makes the thread difficult to follow.
We've all seen this stuff.
Knock it off, please.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 20 2005, 11:40 PM)
Hey galdur....
Endlessly posting cut & paste and links to the kook sites does nothing to help your case and makes the thread difficult to follow.
We've all seen this stuff.
Knock it off, please.
Nobody appointed you spokesman for the people here
and besides you don't have the guts to register.
I take contentless shills like you as counterindicators.
You are really asking me to post more information.
Endlessly posting cut & paste and links to the kook sites does nothing to help your case and makes the thread difficult to follow.
We've all seen this stuff.
Knock it off, please.
Nobody appointed you spokesman for the people here
and besides you don't have the guts to register.
I take contentless shills like you as counterindicators.
You are really asking me to post more information.
Solution to equation of motion, suggested by Bazant & Zhou's Paper
I have been looking at the Bazant Zhou paper. I herein solve the eqn of motion.
Any mistakes made in interpreting BZ's paper are purely my own. I assume a 1 floor free fall ( and so neglect KE dissipation )
Mr . Isaac Newton tells us that :
m * d2x/dt2 = -kx + mg
So, we have to solve
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
Initial Conditions:
1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
using the following constants
m = 5.8 x 10 ^^ 7 (BZ)
g = 9.87 ( God)
k = 7.1 x 10^^10 (BZ)
The solution to this is give by the homogeneous eqn:
m * d2x/dt2 + kx = 0
plus a particular solution of
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
a particular solution is:
2] x(t) = mg/k = .00806
The general solution to the homogenous problem is given in my old physics statics and dynmics textbook (Fowles), and probably everybody else's, too. It is:
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta )
where omega = square_root( k / m ) = 34.99
and A and theta are constants to be determined by our initial conditions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From 1A] , we see that
0 = A cos (theta) + .00806
so
3] A cos (theta) = -.00806
From 1B] , we see that
4) 8.55 = - A omega sin (theta)
From 3] and 4]
theta = inverse(tan (8.55 / (34.99 * .00806))) = 1.54
plugging into 1A], we get
A = -.2617
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our final solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = -.2617 cos( 34.99 * t + 1.54 ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
COMMENTARY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my next post. BTW, as a sanity check, I calculated the potential energy of the loaded spring at time such that velocity is (very close to) zero, and came within about 10% of the kinetic energy present after a free fall of h meters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SOURCE CODE (VB)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dim i As Long
Dim step As Double
Dim t As Single
Dim x As Double
Dim F As Double
Dim W As Double
Dim xA As Double
Dim xB As Double
Dim bStopExceed1x As Boolean
Dim bStopExceed3_5x As Boolean
Dim bStopExceed31x As Boolean
Dim sResults As String
Debug.Print "step | time | x(t) | F(x(t)) | W(x(t)) "
For i = 1 To 20000000
t = i * 0.00001
x = -0.2617 * (Cos(34.99 * t + 1.54)) + 0.00806
F = -71000000000# * x
xB = x
If i > 1 Then
W = W + F * (xB - xA)
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 And bStopExceed1x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the typical load weight"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the typical load weight"
bStopExceed1x = True
sResults = "You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 * 3.5 And bStopExceed3_5x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the the safety factor limit of 3.5"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the safety factor limit of 3.5"
bStopExceed3_5x = True
sResults = sResults & "You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 * 31 And bStopExceed31x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the typical load weight"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the typical load weight"
bStopExceed31x = True
sResults = sResults & "You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If i = 1 Then
Debug.Print i & " | " & t & " | " & x & " | 0 | " & F & " | 0"
Else
Debug.Print i & " | " & t & " | " & x & " | " & xB - xA & " | " & F & " | " & W & " | "
If xB - xA < 0 Then
sResults = sResults & "Velocity became negative at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
Debug.Print
Debug.Print sResults
Debug.Assert False
End If
End If
xA = xB
Next
I have been looking at the Bazant Zhou paper. I herein solve the eqn of motion.
Any mistakes made in interpreting BZ's paper are purely my own. I assume a 1 floor free fall ( and so neglect KE dissipation )
Mr . Isaac Newton tells us that :
m * d2x/dt2 = -kx + mg
So, we have to solve
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
Initial Conditions:
1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
using the following constants
m = 5.8 x 10 ^^ 7 (BZ)
g = 9.87 ( God)
k = 7.1 x 10^^10 (BZ)
The solution to this is give by the homogeneous eqn:
m * d2x/dt2 + kx = 0
plus a particular solution of
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
a particular solution is:
2] x(t) = mg/k = .00806
The general solution to the homogenous problem is given in my old physics statics and dynmics textbook (Fowles), and probably everybody else's, too. It is:
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta )
where omega = square_root( k / m ) = 34.99
and A and theta are constants to be determined by our initial conditions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From 1A] , we see that
0 = A cos (theta) + .00806
so
3] A cos (theta) = -.00806
From 1B] , we see that
4) 8.55 = - A omega sin (theta)
From 3] and 4]
theta = inverse(tan (8.55 / (34.99 * .00806))) = 1.54
plugging into 1A], we get
A = -.2617
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our final solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = -.2617 cos( 34.99 * t + 1.54 ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
COMMENTARY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my next post. BTW, as a sanity check, I calculated the potential energy of the loaded spring at time such that velocity is (very close to) zero, and came within about 10% of the kinetic energy present after a free fall of h meters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SOURCE CODE (VB)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dim i As Long
Dim step As Double
Dim t As Single
Dim x As Double
Dim F As Double
Dim W As Double
Dim xA As Double
Dim xB As Double
Dim bStopExceed1x As Boolean
Dim bStopExceed3_5x As Boolean
Dim bStopExceed31x As Boolean
Dim sResults As String
Debug.Print "step | time | x(t) | F(x(t)) | W(x(t)) "
For i = 1 To 20000000
t = i * 0.00001
x = -0.2617 * (Cos(34.99 * t + 1.54)) + 0.00806
F = -71000000000# * x
xB = x
If i > 1 Then
W = W + F * (xB - xA)
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 And bStopExceed1x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the typical load weight"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the typical load weight"
bStopExceed1x = True
sResults = "You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 * 3.5 And bStopExceed3_5x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the the safety factor limit of 3.5"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the safety factor limit of 3.5"
bStopExceed3_5x = True
sResults = sResults & "You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If Abs(F) > 5800000 * 9.87 * 31 And bStopExceed31x = False Then
MsgBox "you exceeded the typical load weight"
Debug.Print "you exceeded the typical load weight"
bStopExceed31x = True
sResults = sResults & "You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
End If
If i = 1 Then
Debug.Print i & " | " & t & " | " & x & " | 0 | " & F & " | 0"
Else
Debug.Print i & " | " & t & " | " & x & " | " & xB - xA & " | " & F & " | " & W & " | "
If xB - xA < 0 Then
sResults = sResults & "Velocity became negative at t = " & t & " and x = " & x & vbCrLf
Debug.Print
Debug.Print sResults
Debug.Assert False
End If
End If
xA = xB
Next
QUOTE
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
I have not read BZ's paper, but if I follow what you have done (and thanks for getting back to physics) that is if the structure does not fail before t=0.04578
Since you were at 31x typical load at only t=0.00274 that would appear a most likely outcome.
Arthur
What are the defects of BZ's paper? Let me count the ways...
1] The Initiation of Collapse is Idealized In a Way that Favors the FEMA Fairy Tale, in highly questionable ways
=================================================================
=================================================================
BZ states, "Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer bucking (stage 3) , the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part."
What is wrong with this?
A ) The asymmetry of a real world collapse means that loads would be shifted to accommodate columns that failed first.
=================================================================
In their idealized model, this is discounted because their entire approach is based on looking at a symmetric collapse, realizing that, in this idealized case, stress is the same on all columns, so if you can show failure on one column, you have shown failure on all columns, since they must fail in an identical (and thus simultaneous) manner. (And really, from the mathematics, you can see that they have abstracted away (at least mathematically) the notion of many columns, and their calculation is the that of a SINGLE giant spring.)
However, taking a more realistic, asymmetric, approach, load shifting would guarantee non-simultaneity of both the compensatory loading and failure of columns.
This is particularly important because even if you considered all of the columns as eventually failing on the initial collapse floor, the fact that the failures were not simultaneous argues strongly against the notion that the top of the building could just begin to "free fall" In the real world,
B ) No real account is made of the energy dissipated in the plastic deformation stage of a column failure
=================================================================
"The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated.....This causes failure ... accompanied or quickly followed by bucking of the core columns ... The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges"
(emphasis mine)
I find the phrase "but quickly leads to fracturing" to be misleading. To see why, I note that above, where I actually solved the equations of motions as per BZ, a 3.5 overload condition is achieved in a mere .00031 seconds. Since buckling has to occur BEFORE fracturing, one has a similarly small amount of time to achieve this bending. (Well, as always, it's more complicated than that. I don't take their model seriously, and I believe that a more realistic model would show MUCH more time consuming bending events, which would not be "rushed" to occur within the time interval suggested by their actual paper. However, as BZ don't consider this, it's their problem, should they decide to incorporate bending and still keep their essential dynamics the same, how to get it to occur so quickly.)
BZ glosses over buckling in this fashion, but a real solution has to concern itself with the real question: "How much energy is dissipated in buckling a column?" Furthermore, depending on the details, it is NOT a given that every column that buckles must fracture, afterwards. A column that buckles without fracturing transfers some loading to more sound parts of the structure.
I have spent a fair amount of time online looking for this very basic type of info. I did find a few articles that looked relevant from Engineering Journals, but they were charging $25 per article. No way, Jose.
So, for now, we are left with my sometimes marvelous, and sometimes not, intuition regarding the key question: is the energy associated with bending a WTC column negligible, or not?
My answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOT", and my analogy supporting this is driving nails into boards or yes, even into concrete (don't ask). I have never, ever shattered (fractured) a nail. However, I have managed to bend a few in my day, not always being the best shot. :-) Intuitively, the energy associated with a hammer strike is far greater then what you could get by dropping the hammer onto the nail from 3.7 meters.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
I'm sure BZ doesn't believe this, because they've seen far more stress/strain diagrams than I ever will. The question is, on what basis do they feel entitled to ignore these non-trivial, energy dissipative effects?
Do BZ account for WTC buckle-before-breaking or buckle-and-don't-break columns? No, they DON'T, even though it is a given in their model that at least half the columns in the impact area fail initially due to plane impact and fires, and that this dooms the remaining columns in the impact area.
Like NIST, they are glossing over the details of column "failure", in a way that's very unconvincing.
Unlike NIST, this allows BZ to speculate what the initiation of the global collapse is like. However, in doing so, they allow themselves to take a tremendous "leap", which is extraordinarily favorable to what they're trying to show.
BZ states "The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through a distance h almost in free fall"
Just to give everybody an idea what this extraordinary statement implies, I also note, from my calculations above, that a 3.5 overload in force is reached after a distance of .0028 meters, or 2.8 millimeters! Since a floor height is 3.7 meters, and since they state almost free fall speed and small KE dissipation, they (seemingly) imply that the 2nd half of the columns fractured near the top of the "fracture floor", in about 1/1000 th of a height of a floor, h.
To be sure, the fracture floor's columns (column portions, actually) are considered to be weaker than the sound floor columns (portions), and thus this is overstating the case. However, just how much weaker is weaker? I recently posted the results of a steady state heat equation solution, that implied that very little of the heat of the WTC fires made it into the steel. Thus (and here, I am waving my hands, mostly), I still believe that less than 15% of the heat energy generated by fires went into the WTC steel, and even less went into the frames.
I really need to finish looking at the heat eqn. for more realistic initial conditions, but it's seems clear that BZ's assumption about catastrophic weakening of the impact zone column portions, sufficient to allow an initial collapse at near free fall speed is just that - an ASSUMPTION, and not a very good one, either, even in terms of their own model.
2 ) BZ assumes the mass of the upper floors is perfectly rigid (this is a standard idealization). However, the real life upper portion of the WTC had a structure just mostly like the bottom - with one major difference - it was WEAKER.
=================================================================
=================================================================
Now, here I again resort to qualitative arguments to illustrate a point: In my family, we have a custom of cracking Easter eggs. Fat ends are used to hit fat ends, and skinny ends are used to hit skinny ends.
I have never, ever, witnessed two eggs breaking at the same time. Only one egg will break. Thus, in the case of the WTC towers, BZ's idealization is more likely to be wrong, than right, in the sense that it is the top that should have fractured, before the bottom.
So, how do they justify taking a counter-intuitive approach to whether the top or bottom of the WTC building disintegrates? THEY DON'T.
IN SUMMARY
=================================================================
=================================================================
I still claim that BZ, as written, is useless for understanding what happened to the WTC. To be sure, now that I understand the paper better, it probably is useful in a more developed model wherein energy dissipated in compression is soon exceeded by energy dissipated by bending, ( if, in fact, a collapse CAN proceed more than a a few millimeters. )
Mathematically, we might have something like:
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x -1 ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0 , so that the exponential decay eventually dominates and decreases the reaction force to compression (and, of course, some other term is added to represent the resistive effects of bending columns which exceeds the spring force). Thus, the answer to my question about whether or not BZ even models first order, second order, or some other order effects seems to be: it initially gives us first order effects with great plausibility, but should, in a more realistic model, quickly become a second order effect in columns that deviate from plumb. Extrapolating a first order effect beyond a plausible domain to reach a politically correct conclusion is a poor way to approach a technical problem....
Considering the extremely large stiffness constant that BZ used, their paper really only tells us something accurate for the first fraction of a second.
Of course, once we are seriously looking at bending, we have a MUCH more complicated situation, even before we consider the effects of fracturing, assumptions about the bends NOT being simultaneous and in the same plane, etc., etc. Almost for sure we would need at least something like perturbation theory to give us a good solution.
1] The Initiation of Collapse is Idealized In a Way that Favors the FEMA Fairy Tale, in highly questionable ways
=================================================================
=================================================================
BZ states, "Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer bucking (stage 3) , the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part."
What is wrong with this?
A ) The asymmetry of a real world collapse means that loads would be shifted to accommodate columns that failed first.
=================================================================
In their idealized model, this is discounted because their entire approach is based on looking at a symmetric collapse, realizing that, in this idealized case, stress is the same on all columns, so if you can show failure on one column, you have shown failure on all columns, since they must fail in an identical (and thus simultaneous) manner. (And really, from the mathematics, you can see that they have abstracted away (at least mathematically) the notion of many columns, and their calculation is the that of a SINGLE giant spring.)
However, taking a more realistic, asymmetric, approach, load shifting would guarantee non-simultaneity of both the compensatory loading and failure of columns.
This is particularly important because even if you considered all of the columns as eventually failing on the initial collapse floor, the fact that the failures were not simultaneous argues strongly against the notion that the top of the building could just begin to "free fall" In the real world,
B ) No real account is made of the energy dissipated in the plastic deformation stage of a column failure
=================================================================
"The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated.....This causes failure ... accompanied or quickly followed by bucking of the core columns ... The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges"
(emphasis mine)
I find the phrase "but quickly leads to fracturing" to be misleading. To see why, I note that above, where I actually solved the equations of motions as per BZ, a 3.5 overload condition is achieved in a mere .00031 seconds. Since buckling has to occur BEFORE fracturing, one has a similarly small amount of time to achieve this bending. (Well, as always, it's more complicated than that. I don't take their model seriously, and I believe that a more realistic model would show MUCH more time consuming bending events, which would not be "rushed" to occur within the time interval suggested by their actual paper. However, as BZ don't consider this, it's their problem, should they decide to incorporate bending and still keep their essential dynamics the same, how to get it to occur so quickly.)
BZ glosses over buckling in this fashion, but a real solution has to concern itself with the real question: "How much energy is dissipated in buckling a column?" Furthermore, depending on the details, it is NOT a given that every column that buckles must fracture, afterwards. A column that buckles without fracturing transfers some loading to more sound parts of the structure.
I have spent a fair amount of time online looking for this very basic type of info. I did find a few articles that looked relevant from Engineering Journals, but they were charging $25 per article. No way, Jose.
So, for now, we are left with my sometimes marvelous, and sometimes not, intuition regarding the key question: is the energy associated with bending a WTC column negligible, or not?
My answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOT", and my analogy supporting this is driving nails into boards or yes, even into concrete (don't ask). I have never, ever shattered (fractured) a nail. However, I have managed to bend a few in my day, not always being the best shot. :-) Intuitively, the energy associated with a hammer strike is far greater then what you could get by dropping the hammer onto the nail from 3.7 meters.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
I'm sure BZ doesn't believe this, because they've seen far more stress/strain diagrams than I ever will. The question is, on what basis do they feel entitled to ignore these non-trivial, energy dissipative effects?
Do BZ account for WTC buckle-before-breaking or buckle-and-don't-break columns? No, they DON'T, even though it is a given in their model that at least half the columns in the impact area fail initially due to plane impact and fires, and that this dooms the remaining columns in the impact area.
Like NIST, they are glossing over the details of column "failure", in a way that's very unconvincing.
Unlike NIST, this allows BZ to speculate what the initiation of the global collapse is like. However, in doing so, they allow themselves to take a tremendous "leap", which is extraordinarily favorable to what they're trying to show.
BZ states "The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through a distance h almost in free fall"
Just to give everybody an idea what this extraordinary statement implies, I also note, from my calculations above, that a 3.5 overload in force is reached after a distance of .0028 meters, or 2.8 millimeters! Since a floor height is 3.7 meters, and since they state almost free fall speed and small KE dissipation, they (seemingly) imply that the 2nd half of the columns fractured near the top of the "fracture floor", in about 1/1000 th of a height of a floor, h.
To be sure, the fracture floor's columns (column portions, actually) are considered to be weaker than the sound floor columns (portions), and thus this is overstating the case. However, just how much weaker is weaker? I recently posted the results of a steady state heat equation solution, that implied that very little of the heat of the WTC fires made it into the steel. Thus (and here, I am waving my hands, mostly), I still believe that less than 15% of the heat energy generated by fires went into the WTC steel, and even less went into the frames.
I really need to finish looking at the heat eqn. for more realistic initial conditions, but it's seems clear that BZ's assumption about catastrophic weakening of the impact zone column portions, sufficient to allow an initial collapse at near free fall speed is just that - an ASSUMPTION, and not a very good one, either, even in terms of their own model.
2 ) BZ assumes the mass of the upper floors is perfectly rigid (this is a standard idealization). However, the real life upper portion of the WTC had a structure just mostly like the bottom - with one major difference - it was WEAKER.
=================================================================
=================================================================
Now, here I again resort to qualitative arguments to illustrate a point: In my family, we have a custom of cracking Easter eggs. Fat ends are used to hit fat ends, and skinny ends are used to hit skinny ends.
I have never, ever, witnessed two eggs breaking at the same time. Only one egg will break. Thus, in the case of the WTC towers, BZ's idealization is more likely to be wrong, than right, in the sense that it is the top that should have fractured, before the bottom.
So, how do they justify taking a counter-intuitive approach to whether the top or bottom of the WTC building disintegrates? THEY DON'T.
IN SUMMARY
=================================================================
=================================================================
I still claim that BZ, as written, is useless for understanding what happened to the WTC. To be sure, now that I understand the paper better, it probably is useful in a more developed model wherein energy dissipated in compression is soon exceeded by energy dissipated by bending, ( if, in fact, a collapse CAN proceed more than a a few millimeters. )
Mathematically, we might have something like:
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x -1 ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0 , so that the exponential decay eventually dominates and decreases the reaction force to compression (and, of course, some other term is added to represent the resistive effects of bending columns which exceeds the spring force). Thus, the answer to my question about whether or not BZ even models first order, second order, or some other order effects seems to be: it initially gives us first order effects with great plausibility, but should, in a more realistic model, quickly become a second order effect in columns that deviate from plumb. Extrapolating a first order effect beyond a plausible domain to reach a politically correct conclusion is a poor way to approach a technical problem....
Considering the extremely large stiffness constant that BZ used, their paper really only tells us something accurate for the first fraction of a second.
Of course, once we are seriously looking at bending, we have a MUCH more complicated situation, even before we consider the effects of fracturing, assumptions about the bends NOT being simultaneous and in the same plane, etc., etc. Almost for sure we would need at least something like perturbation theory to give us a good solution.
QUOTE
I have not read BZ's paper, but if I follow what you have done (and thanks for getting back to physics) that is if the structure does not fail before t=0.04578
Yes, BZ doubtless believe that the columns failed before the WTC "spring" could possibly reverse the motion of the top of the building. Hopefully, my math is correct and I have not exaggerated the very short time scale.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have not read BZ's paper, but if I follow what you have done (and thanks for getting back to physics) that is if the structure does not fail before t=0.04578 |
Yes, BZ doubtless believe that the columns failed before the WTC "spring" could possibly reverse the motion of the top of the building. Hopefully, my math is correct and I have not exaggerated the very short time scale.
(and thanks for getting back to physics)
You're quite welcome, and I agree that, while occasional and brief excursions into politics are OK ( I have done so, myself), posters should respect the fact that this board is supposed to be physics - oriented. Qualitative arguments are also OK, of course, so non-tecchies can and do contribute.
Pictures of a dead Mussolini are over the top ....
QUOTE
Since you were at 31x typical load at only t=0.00274 that would appear a most likely outcome.
Well, I believe that if BZ really take their paper seriously, they would say that failure occurred well before even 31x overload.
I'd be very surprised if BZ really take their paper seriously, though. I have taken a brief look at the FEMA "earthquake-proofing" reference that Schneibster recently posted, and there are many, many techniques for approaching many different aspects of a buildings' response to earthquakes, many of which are non-linear. (BZ is linear, which is simpler to solve, but generally not as useful for real life problems.)
The solution to the ordinary differential equation I had lifted from Fowles is on page 59 of a 350 + page undergraduate text. Thus, to take BZ seriously, you have to assume that a simple physics calculation can really give you as much insight as you need. Ironically, though, that more resembles the likely complaint of an engineer against a physicist, who is out of his area of expertise, than anything else.
I can't imagine Steven Jones getting away with the equivalent of BZ's paper....
QUOTE (newton+Dec 20 2005, 08:31 PM)
nobody has done more to spread 'terror' than the mass media. there's even a colour coded scale to let you know exactly just how scared you should be.
BUY DUCT TAPE AND PLASTIC!!!! (flying camels are bringing billions of tons of mustard gas across the ocean. LOOK OUT!) boy, that run on duct tape went right in to rummy's bank account. no conflict of interest here.... move along.....
the 'terror' of 911 is not so much the randomness of it, as the SENSELESSNESS of it. how the heck do obl and crew benefit? it's like a three yr. old banging a drum in the underfed lion cage.
here's the highly logical terror planners of al-queda....
okay, we have 'pilots' and boxcutters. there are nineteen of us. right now, america is mostly ignoring us(in fact being ORDERED to IGNORE them). here's the plan....
we do big terror act on american soil...
america sends it's massive high tech army to exterminate us...
any questions?
oh, yeah, and the REAL reason is glory in god's eyes.
i heard there's no booze, dope or hookers in heaven, so let's go get smashed on alcohol. last chance before we go to heaven for being so pious.
oh yeah. don't forget to bring a koran or two to leave behind....
Yep, makes sense to me alright.
Obl did it!!!
Very odd though that some of his crew were trained on american soil at military training bases...and 'ATTA's connection to the drug runners in Florida?
Oh just 'ignore' that
Nothing 'fishy' here at all say the official CT supporters... ( placing their hands over their eyes & ears... but forget to cover their mouths and continue to blab their insanity that ...'everything appears' to be quite right).
I reiterate my question... if 'we' are just idiots, why waste inordinate amounts of time conversing with idiots? From my viewpoint that would make 'you' idiots.
However, I don't believe 'you' are idiots', which leaves only one purpose for 'your' being here ...
(this, of course is discounting serious psychological problems which leads you somehow to think it appropriate to spend inordinate amounts of time conversing with 'Idiots').
BUY DUCT TAPE AND PLASTIC!!!! (flying camels are bringing billions of tons of mustard gas across the ocean. LOOK OUT!) boy, that run on duct tape went right in to rummy's bank account. no conflict of interest here.... move along.....
the 'terror' of 911 is not so much the randomness of it, as the SENSELESSNESS of it. how the heck do obl and crew benefit? it's like a three yr. old banging a drum in the underfed lion cage.
here's the highly logical terror planners of al-queda....
okay, we have 'pilots' and boxcutters. there are nineteen of us. right now, america is mostly ignoring us(in fact being ORDERED to IGNORE them). here's the plan....
we do big terror act on american soil...
america sends it's massive high tech army to exterminate us...
any questions?
oh, yeah, and the REAL reason is glory in god's eyes.
i heard there's no booze, dope or hookers in heaven, so let's go get smashed on alcohol. last chance before we go to heaven for being so pious.
oh yeah. don't forget to bring a koran or two to leave behind....
Yep, makes sense to me alright.
Obl did it!!!
Very odd though that some of his crew were trained on american soil at military training bases...and 'ATTA's connection to the drug runners in Florida?
Oh just 'ignore' that
Nothing 'fishy' here at all say the official CT supporters... ( placing their hands over their eyes & ears... but forget to cover their mouths and continue to blab their insanity that ...'everything appears' to be quite right).
I reiterate my question... if 'we' are just idiots, why waste inordinate amounts of time conversing with idiots? From my viewpoint that would make 'you' idiots.
However, I don't believe 'you' are idiots', which leaves only one purpose for 'your' being here ...
(this, of course is discounting serious psychological problems which leads you somehow to think it appropriate to spend inordinate amounts of time conversing with 'Idiots').
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 20 2005, 07:16 AM)
As far as I know... you could be Schneibster (who is fond of using 'hand-puppets' - 'CHUCKLES' is one of his favourites when he feels 'threatened') ... or Rumsfield himself.
HEY FUXXY! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE SOME PROFITEERING CONSPIRACY MERCHANDISE PEDDLERS' HAND UP YOUR OWN *SS DON'T MEAN I LIKE TO HAVE ANY HANDS UP MINE!!! YOU PERVE*TED SLOB!!!REAL PEOPLE LIKE ME AIN'T SOCK-PUPPETS FOR NOBODY!!!SPECIALLY FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER POOR SLOBS WHO TRY TO TALK TO IDIOTS AND CRO*KS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FURRY FRIENDS!!! WHO SHOW UP FROM TIME TO TIME JUST LIKE I DO JUST TO STIR THIS IDIOCY POT THAT PHYSORGFORUMS HAS BECOME BY HOSTING THESE CONSPIRACY MORONS IN A PHYSICS FORUM!!!THAT'S WHY I DON'T REGISTER!!!COS YOU'RE ALL MORONS HERE!!!WHO NEEDS IT EXCEPT FOR A GOOD LAUGH ONCE IN A WHILE!!BUT IT'S WEARING OFF NOW!!!I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT HAVING TO DREDGE THROUGH SO MUCH MUCK TO GET MY JOLLIES!!!THERE'S FASTER PICKINS IN OTHER FORUMS!!!YOU ST*PID RET*RDS!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
QUOTE
Very odd though that some of his crew were trained on american soil at military training bases
NOPE
As the investigation gathered strength yesterday, unusual leads began to surface, among them the possibility that some of the hijackers may have received training at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida or other U.S. military facilities.
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.
"Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. military courses," the Air Force acknowledged in a statement. "However, discrepancies in their biographical data, such as birth dates 20 years off, indicate we are probably not talking about the same people."
Their ACTUAL training at CIVILIAN Flight schools is well documented.
Arthur
Attention everyone- Schneibster (Dr. Jeckyll) is off his meds again. He should stay clear of airport security when chuckles (Mr. Hyde) has taken possession, as is apparently the case now. The new air marshals have a shoot first, ask questions later policy. On second thought, lets all chip in and buy him a ticket to somewhere.
Heh...
So the 'Schieb' has gone, and has instead reverted to posting under the 'CHUCKLES' puppet (who coincidentally uses the same 'attacks' that Schneibster has been voicing).
How OBVIOUS is that? I'm sure we will see CHUCKLES next referring to all the LIES of 'Faux' on this thread. Get 'help' Schneibster.
Actually I don't believe Schneibster is a paid government shill. The government is not SO stupid as to hire emotional 'loose cannons' to do their dirty work... (are they ??? )
He is one of those I previously referred to as having serious emotional (or psychological) problems, which should be quite obvious through the use of hand-puppets to 'reinforce' his stated position.
I guess the courtroom exposure of his lies were too much for him to handle and he has run back to GNN - where it appears he is getting about as much 'support' as he was getting here.
Man, I see everyone must be 'ill' and 'off-work' today (like YID was yesterday). At least you did not disappoint me YID with that sophist dance. It brought a smile to my face
It has taken me 2 hours to read through all the pages from where I left off yesterday, so my apologies ... I'm not even going to 'attempt' to take another couple of hours to go back through all the shill nonsense posted here today, to address numerous issues I'd like to.
Metamars ---
Thanks for that extensive investigation into the BZ theory.
If I might make a suggestion... once you refine your expose... send it to Hoffman for inclusion to his 'papers presented'. I must admit that I myself can only follow about half of your physics (never claimed to be a physics maestro, myself), from what I can follow it is an excellently written piece. This 'idea' of instantly fracturing massive steel columns (at NEAR the rate of free-fall) has always bothered me.
It seems to me that all the previous mathematical calculations done by 'fairy tale supporters' have been presented from the position of...
PURELY THEORETICAL basis...
'Floor' A falls to 'Floor' B, and then extrapolating that this process IS unstoppable and facing NO resistance (apart from AIR)...
In essence... there were NO MASSIVE COLUMNS, (UNAFFECTED by structural or fire damage from the dozens of stories below the weakened impact zone), which provided ANY support or RESISTANCE at all to the 'momentum' of the 'piston'
From THIS position people have taken the 'theory of falling bodies', applied them through numbers to the 'falling floors' and tried to claim that it is POSSIBLE for the towers to have 'collapsed' as quickly as they did.
In my view, this is ONLY possible if you have a stack of 'floating floors' which were 'somehow' held up by Magical forces, and suddenly REMOVED the Magical Forces.
Through mathematical THEORY (such as proposed by Schneibster / and even yourself) this formula can be made to 'FIT' the collapse times, however from an ENGINEERING point of view, this theory does not hold water. It is sophistry - a 'plausible-sounding' explaination which is erroneous. It COMPLETELY ignores the resistance provided by sound/unaffected columns below the collapse zone.
Many keep referring to this 'MASSIVE WEIGHT' which was suddenly dropped 12' through thin air to impact the lower section. CAN NOT HAPPEN (in the real world of engineering UNLESS ALL (or the vast majority of columns in that 'floor/story) suddenly gave up the ghost.
The gov apologists would have us believe that 'once started' the mathematical theory 'proves' that it will inevitably continue right to the ground. That might be true IF they were magical floating floors. So they don't have to contend with the 'fracturing' or 'immediate' destruction of All columns at each subsequent ' floor' at the same time for this theoretical process to continue in a symmetrical fashion exhibiting no RESISTANCE at all (except what might be shown through the parachute analogy).
This is IMPOSSIBLE in the real world (apart from some input of energy - like explosives to account for the instant removal of ALL columns on stories below the 'piston' in a timed fashion).
The gov't apologists wish to insert here the alleged MASSIVE WEIGHT of the PISTON.
WRONG on 3 counts.
1 --- the piston was of much lighter weight than the mass it was allegedly crushing
2 --- the intact lower (unaffected) section was designed to hold ALL of the above weight (5 times over)... this becomes a circular argument because 'they' then appeal to 'dynamic impact'... yet this 'Dynamic Impact' of the 'piston' COULD NOT have happened APART from the instant removal of ALL columnar RESISTANCE to allow the 'free-fall' drop. Even IF only 75% of the columns 'failed' this would have led to an asymmetrical collapse of the 'piston' and it most likely would have sloughed-off in one direction.
3 --- As is clearly evident from all videos the upper mass 'alleged piston' was being energetically disintegrated & thrown horizontally outwards from the path of gravity-fall... Hence lessening of mass to exert dynamic force on the lower sections.
PS
Adoucette - It may be different where you live, but around my area I have never seen a BBQ powered by kerosene. We only use propane BBQ's in my locale.
Not sure if I would like to cook over a kerosene fire? Like you say it would probably be not effeciently burning and may impart a kerosene flavour to my steaks?
So the 'Schieb' has gone, and has instead reverted to posting under the 'CHUCKLES' puppet (who coincidentally uses the same 'attacks' that Schneibster has been voicing).
How OBVIOUS is that?
I'm sure we will see CHUCKLES next referring to all the LIES of 'Faux' on this thread. Get 'help' Schneibster. Actually I don't believe Schneibster is a paid government shill. The government is not SO stupid as to hire emotional 'loose cannons' to do their dirty work... (are they ??? )
He is one of those I previously referred to as having serious emotional (or psychological) problems, which should be quite obvious through the use of hand-puppets to 'reinforce' his stated position.
I guess the courtroom exposure of his lies were too much for him to handle and he has run back to GNN - where it appears he is getting about as much 'support' as he was getting here.
Man, I see everyone must be 'ill' and 'off-work' today (like YID was yesterday
). At least you did not disappoint me YID with that sophist dance. It brought a smile to my face It has taken me 2 hours to read through all the pages from where I left off yesterday, so my apologies ... I'm not even going to 'attempt' to take another couple of hours to go back through all the shill nonsense posted here today, to address numerous issues I'd like to.
Metamars ---
Thanks for that extensive investigation into the BZ theory.
If I might make a suggestion... once you refine your expose... send it to Hoffman for inclusion to his 'papers presented'. I must admit that I myself can only follow about half of your physics (never claimed to be a physics maestro, myself), from what I can follow it is an excellently written piece. This 'idea' of instantly fracturing massive steel columns (at NEAR the rate of free-fall) has always bothered me.
It seems to me that all the previous mathematical calculations done by 'fairy tale supporters' have been presented from the position of...
PURELY THEORETICAL basis...
'Floor' A falls to 'Floor' B, and then extrapolating that this process IS unstoppable and facing NO resistance (apart from AIR)...
In essence... there were NO MASSIVE COLUMNS, (UNAFFECTED by structural or fire damage from the dozens of stories below the weakened impact zone), which provided ANY support or RESISTANCE at all to the 'momentum' of the 'piston'
From THIS position people have taken the 'theory of falling bodies', applied them through numbers to the 'falling floors' and tried to claim that it is POSSIBLE for the towers to have 'collapsed' as quickly as they did.
In my view, this is ONLY possible if you have a stack of 'floating floors' which were 'somehow' held up by Magical forces, and suddenly REMOVED the Magical Forces.
Through mathematical THEORY (such as proposed by Schneibster / and even yourself) this formula can be made to 'FIT' the collapse times, however from an ENGINEERING point of view, this theory does not hold water. It is sophistry - a 'plausible-sounding' explaination which is erroneous. It COMPLETELY ignores the resistance provided by sound/unaffected columns below the collapse zone.
Many keep referring to this 'MASSIVE WEIGHT' which was suddenly dropped 12' through thin air to impact the lower section. CAN NOT HAPPEN (in the real world of engineering UNLESS ALL (or the vast majority of columns in that 'floor/story) suddenly gave up the ghost.
The gov apologists would have us believe that 'once started' the mathematical theory 'proves' that it will inevitably continue right to the ground. That might be true IF they were magical floating floors. So they don't have to contend with the 'fracturing' or 'immediate' destruction of All columns at each subsequent ' floor' at the same time for this theoretical process to continue in a symmetrical fashion exhibiting no RESISTANCE at all (except what might be shown through the parachute analogy).
This is IMPOSSIBLE in the real world (apart from some input of energy - like explosives to account for the instant removal of ALL columns on stories below the 'piston' in a timed fashion).
The gov't apologists wish to insert here the alleged MASSIVE WEIGHT of the PISTON.
WRONG on 3 counts.
1 --- the piston was of much lighter weight than the mass it was allegedly crushing
2 --- the intact lower (unaffected) section was designed to hold ALL of the above weight (5 times over)... this becomes a circular argument because 'they' then appeal to 'dynamic impact'... yet this 'Dynamic Impact' of the 'piston' COULD NOT have happened APART from the instant removal of ALL columnar RESISTANCE to allow the 'free-fall' drop. Even IF only 75% of the columns 'failed' this would have led to an asymmetrical collapse of the 'piston' and it most likely would have sloughed-off in one direction.
3 --- As is clearly evident from all videos the upper mass 'alleged piston' was being energetically disintegrated & thrown horizontally outwards from the path of gravity-fall... Hence lessening of mass to exert dynamic force on the lower sections.
PS
Adoucette - It may be different where you live, but around my area I have never seen a BBQ powered by kerosene. We only use propane BBQ's in my locale.
Not sure if I would like to cook over a kerosene fire? Like you say it would probably be not effeciently burning and may impart a kerosene flavour to my steaks?
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 21 2005, 12:06 AM)
Solution to equation of motion, suggested by Bazant & Zhou's Paper
I have been looking at the Bazant Zhou paper. I herein solve the eqn of motion.
Any mistakes made in interpreting BZ's paper are purely my own. I assume a 1 floor free fall ( and so neglect KE dissipation )
Mr . Isaac Newton tells us that :
m * d2x/dt2 = -kx + mg
So, we have to solve
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
Initial Conditions:
1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
using the following constants
m = 5.8 x 10 ^^ 7 (BZ)
g = 9.87 ( God)
k = 7.1 x 10^^10 (BZ)
The solution to this is give by the homogeneous eqn:
m * d2x/dt2 + kx = 0
plus a particular solution of
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
a particular solution is:
2] x(t) = mg/k = .00806
The general solution to the homogenous problem is given in my old physics statics and dynmics textbook (Fowles), and probably everybody else's, too. It is:
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta )
where omega = square_root( k / m ) = 34.99
and A and theta are constants to be determined by our initial conditions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From 1A] , we see that
0 = A cos (theta) + .00806
so
3] A cos (theta) = -.00806
From 1B] , we see that
4) 8.55 = - A omega sin (theta)
From 3] and 4]
theta = inverse(tan (8.55 / (34.99 * .00806))) = 1.54
plugging into 1A], we get
A = -.2617
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our final solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = -.2617 cos( 34.99 * t + 1.54 ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
COMMENTARY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my next post. BTW, as a sanity check, I calculated the potential energy of the loaded spring at time such that velocity is (very close to) zero, and came within about 10% of the kinetic energy present after a free fall of h meters.
At time =0 distance fallen =0
at time =0 velocity = 8.55m/s
???
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
Anyway;
At time =0 distance fallen =0
at time =0 velocity = 8.55m/s
???
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
Anyway;
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
You state that at 0.00274seconds the force has reached 31 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that you will not reach t=0.04578seconds with the same elastic conditions applying, that fracturing will have started in all columns before this time.
The PE of m = 5.8 x 10E7 grams at 0.26975999185302 meters height
is (5.8E7)(9.8)(0.26976)=1.53^8
This should be the value of PE stored in the spring at your time of zero velocity. Was it? I don't see the calc anywhere.
Real men use Charcoal, not wussy propane.
(of course we light it with Charcoal Starter (aka Kerosene))
By the time the coals are red hot and ready to cook over, the kerosene has all burnt off.
Arthur
Can you point me to the page in any NIST or FEMA report that says that the collpase was caused by 'melted' columns.
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. A better analogy would have the nail welded to the hammer then have the hammer come down. Even better weld cross pieces to the point of the nail so that it cannot slip sideways on the surface it hits, and do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
I have fractured bolts with this type of strike.
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. A better analogy would have the nail welded to the hammer then have the hammer come down. Even better weld cross pieces to the point of the nail so that it cannot slip sideways on the surface it hits, and do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
I have fractured bolts with this type of strike.
Like the EverReady Bunny... The YID just keeps going... and going... and going.
I'm getting ready for bed now (on the Pacific Coast)... YID is 3 hours ahead of me (IF he's actually posting from the Canadian 'back east'), yet he's still posting !
Good to see you 'got-over' your illness, YID...
Carry On
Adoucette - nice --- get a REAL BBQ before posting analogies. (nice attempt at a 'save' though
HEY FUXXY! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE SOME PROFITEERING CONSPIRACY MERCHANDISE PEDDLERS' HAND UP YOUR OWN *SS DON'T MEAN I LIKE TO HAVE ANY HANDS UP MINE!!! YOU PERVE*TED SLOB!!!REAL PEOPLE LIKE ME AIN'T SOCK-PUPPETS FOR NOBODY!!!SPECIALLY FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER POOR SLOBS WHO TRY TO TALK TO IDIOTS AND CRO*KS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FURRY FRIENDS!!! WHO SHOW UP FROM TIME TO TIME JUST LIKE I DO JUST TO STIR THIS IDIOCY POT THAT PHYSORGFORUMS HAS BECOME BY HOSTING THESE CONSPIRACY MORONS IN A PHYSICS FORUM!!!THAT'S WHY I DON'T REGISTER!!!COS YOU'RE ALL MORONS HERE!!!WHO NEEDS IT EXCEPT FOR A GOOD LAUGH ONCE IN A WHILE!!BUT IT'S WEARING OFF NOW!!!I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT HAVING TO DREDGE THROUGH SO MUCH MUCK TO GET MY JOLLIES!!!THERE'S FASTER PICKINS IN OTHER FORUMS!!!YOU ST*PID RET*RDS!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
.
.
CHUCKLES,
Why do you call everyone on both sides idiots? While some may be here for reasons other than physics, it's not fair to say we're ALL idiots...especially those who only want to discuss physics (like myself, metamars, adoucette, schneibster, yesitdid and (sometimes) even foxx, for instance). I take personal umbrage at your comments; so if ever you DO come back and read this thread again, I demand you retract said comments and apologise to all concerned.
RealityCheck.
.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
I'm sorry, but my A value was way off. More precise values for my constants are:
A = -0.244573869067802
omega = 34.9876825616456
theta = 1.53782355621916
which gives the following results
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.0001 and x = 8.55289751362663E-04 and velocity = 8.55335632631552
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00033 and x = 2.8227739472741E-03 And velocity = 8.5551086532782
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00293 and x = 2.50570570494154E-02 And velocity = 8.53639035754818
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at t = .0009 seconds
========================================
The t and x results aren't a whole lot different, but when you compute the velocity with the old, wrong values, you get essentially an instantaneous bump in velocity of about .7 m/sec at t=0, which is impossible.
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
yes, exactly. And that is also x is 0. x is increasing going downwards.
yes, exactly. And that is also x is 0. x is increasing going downwards.
You state that at 0.00274seconds the force has reached 31 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that you will not reach t=0.04578seconds with the same elastic conditions applying, that fracturing will have started in all columns before this time.
Correct. Of course, before fracturing, you will get plastic deformation, which in "normal" scenarios (car crashes, stepping on an empty soda can, etc.) dissipates energy - apparently in sufficient quantities as to prevent fracturing. Why should the WTC towers be any different? BZ doesn't say ....
The PE of m = 5.8 x 10E7 grams at 0.26975999185302 meters height
is (5.8E7)(9.8)(0.26976)=1.53^8
This should be the value of PE stored in the spring at your time of zero velocity. Was it? I don't see the calc anywhere.
No, at such a tiny displacement from x = 0, the additional gravitational PE that this represents is neglibible compared to the kinetic energy already attained by the top of the tower as it fell freely though a height h = 3.7 meters. Thus, it is this energy which is getting stored in the "spring", and creating such huge pressures.
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
You raise a good point, here, because different steels have different properties. I'm doubtful that deltas in steels would change the conclusion, but I don't really know.
Once again, we could use the input of engineers....
From THIS position people have taken the 'theory of falling bodies', applied them through numbers to the 'falling floors' and tried to claim that it is POSSIBLE for the towers to have 'collapsed' as quickly as they did.
Strangely enough, you hit on another defect of BZ, though not the one you indicate, exactly.
If you take BZ seriously, it is easy to get a VERY close to free fall speed of collapse. Just have one failure, which occurs very near the top of the first sound floor, and call it a day.
What is hard is getting one that takes a few seconds longer.
Consider:
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00033 and x = 2.8227739472741E-03 And velocity = 8.5551086532782
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00293 and x = 2.50570570494154E-02 And velocity = 8.53639035754818
But the free fall speed at x = 0 was 8.55 m/s. Therefore, after the "first" failure in BZ, we have only decreased speed by under 0.2% (or so).
You therefore have to postulate a whole sequence of failures. You might get the idea that you need 1 per floor, but that is not nearly enough to increase the time of collapse by 4 to 8 seconds. So, BZ raises a question (implicitly) that they never answer. If they did try to answer it, they would have to make some attempt to explain whatever sequence of failures they come up with - hopefully on the basis of some underlying physics (which I find doubtful), but more likely via ad hoc assumptions (kind of like what cosmologists appear to be doing, much too frequently for van Flandern's taste at metaresearch.org)
I'm very rusty, and was probably thinking of the infinity that you get at x = 0 with the natural logarithm function (which implies x + 1, not x -1 , anyways), which is the inverse of the exponential. Well, whatever I was thinking, this really should be something like
I'm very rusty, and was probably thinking of the infinity that you get at x = 0 with the natural logarithm function (which implies x + 1, not x -1 , anyways), which is the inverse of the exponential. Well, whatever I was thinking, this really should be something like
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0
This should read:
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 2.8 centimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This is getting embarassing.,,,
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
You raise a good point, here, because different steels have different properties. I'm doubtful that deltas in steels would change the conclusion, but I don't really know.
Once again, we could use the input of engineers....
Hitting the nail directly was the thrust of my suggesting welding the nail to the hammer. You bring up another point though in the analogy that is also non-trivial. The nail is being driven into something which will translate into two things
a)the nail will have motion, that means some of the KE is being used to move the nail, not bend or fracture it
b)some of the KE will be used in splitting the material the nail is being driven into. In fact in the normal course of nailing anything, most of the KE is used to do this.
The analogy can, as I pointed out be modified to better model what we want.
I stated that I had fractured a bolt by driving it. This was a 1/2" galvanised bolt(yes I know the galvanising process lowers the strength of the bolt by about 10%) This bolt had been in place for several years, the nut came off without too much trouble but the bolt would not budge. A 2 pound small sledge hammer was used to coax it out. First hit,,, no movement,,, second hit ,,, no movement, third hit(frustration building) ,,, no movement,,, wind up and smack it hard and dead on and in addition to the clang(bolt was through three pieces of angle iron) there was a distinct 'tink' and I fought to hold onto the hammer which was continueing past where I had thought it could go and ricocheting off the ironwork. The bolt had snapped, with very little bending, about at the third thread from the surface of the angle iron.
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers. No 'pulverization" of the top of the towers occurs until AFTER the first impact. Whle the tilted tower would have a slightly smaller vector of force upon the lower part of the tower, it still would easily be more than sufficient. I know many of you CT don't believe this last paragraph and unfortunately, I don't think ANYTHING that anyone could produce would convince you, since none of us have the ability to model the results of the impact to a level that WOULD convince you.
Were was this shown?
This should read:
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 2.8 centimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This is getting embarassing.,,,
Don't worry about it.
As far as your calcs supporting the idea that fracturing could not occur so quickly, as far as I am concerned it does not. I would say that there are points in the calculated parameters that support both sides.
Your calcs have velocity of zero at a point close to the max impact(makes sense). But that is at 31 times the typical load weight. Published safety factors it seems, are about 5 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that failure would occur at that point or soon after it is reached. You show that the 3.5 times load was reached when the fall had slowed only to 8.53 m/s. Just a guess but there would not be a great slowing between 3.5 and say double that, 7 times typical load. Call it 5.0 m/s for starters(I would be interested in what your calcs show for 5 times , 7 times and 10 times).
This is a slowing of less than half the t=0 velocity using this simplified calculation.
Now BZ said 30 times the limit of what the structure could withstand(IIRC). That is what your calcs show at the time of zero velocity. BZ states that their calcs are an approximation but that at 31 times the ability of the structure to withstand the impact failure was inevitable.
We come back to BZ's call for a more precise calculation of the collapse. However as adoucette points out this quickly gets very complicated. NIST, in running their computer sims of the aircraft impact ran the same sim several times and changed the parameters each time to see what happens and where the sim best matches what was observed. If this were to be done for the collapse then it would likely have to be run dozens of times since there are so many more variable parameters to consider. So multiply what NIST spent on the sims by 12.
Not that I don't see that there might be a benefit in doing so, though how significant or useful it will be would be the question.
Yes metamars it would be good if more engineers and Masters or Ph.D. level physicists posted here but I can't drag them in to post any more than you can.
Well now , with what you post that makes you quite the hero doesn't it Foxx.
Now I understand your motivation.
(does a Christian martyr get 70 virgins too?)
While it won't settle the matter, what could be done, for starters, is a more detailed analysis of a single column being impacted by a mass equal to it's "share" of the top of the WTC. BZ's approach is way too simple, but some insight could be gained (I believe) by a perturbation analysis that could take into account plastic deformation and even elastic deformation of a non-compressive sort. Discretizing your analytical results and then solving numerically should not be all that big a deal (although getting your analytical results to begin with is beyond me). I'm very skeptical that even using perturbation theory alone, you could model fractures, because of the 'discontinuous' nature of fracturing. However, if you got results suggesting that fracturing was neglible, or likely constrained to some manageable amount, then you would have some confidence in what a more full blown model would tell you.
My guess is that to handle fracturing,you would need some kind of computer simulation that had discontinuous features statistically incorporated. My guess is that some folks already have this type of program written. I would think that bullet and missile manufacturers care a lot about what happens to their projectile when it strikes a model object - both to the projectile, and to the object.
It's not a given that even if you could show that, in this scenario, you could arrest a collapse of 1 floor height in, say, 2 meters, then you know you can do so for a whole building. But I think it more likely than not, especially since the calculation I sketched out above would not benefit from cross bracing.
OTOH, if you could accurately model the effects of cross bracing in a single column, and it still was unable to arrest collapse, I would assume that the whole building would not arrest collapse, either.
Even if that is the result, though, the question of collapse time might tell you all you need to know about whether or not the buildings were demolished. If accurate sims gave a collapse time of 5 minutes, well, we know that more than Mr. Bin Laden's evil minions were at work that day.
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00095 and x = 8.12775821325292E-03 and velocity = 8.55707259215806
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00331 and x = 2.82992886931111E-02 And velocity = 8.52773087765122
You exceeded 5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00473 and x = 0.040378716093761 And velocity = 8.48204621783164
You exceeded 7x the typical load weight at t = 0.00664 and x = 5.64952349771859E-02 And velocity = 8.38761212990369
You exceeded 10x the typical load weight at t = 0.00956 and x = 0.080691945276082 And velocity = 8.17105750880275
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.0416 and x = 0.249952836853888 And velocity = 1.26421089706542
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at 9.39999998081476E-04
It seems to me that you, like NIST, and the rest of the 'yes-did-it-men' --- (those who believe the NIST obfuscation) that a 'local collapse' means the collapse of one entire floor down to the next floor.
This is IMPOSSIBLE in a structure like the towers, (apart from demolition of ALL central core columns AND perimeter columns at that story at the same instant).
There has never been a 'local collapse' of one whole story in any steel framed building (apart from the explosives answer).
A 'local collapse' happens frequently in major building fires. (such as the Edficio Windsor in Spain and the Parque Central in Caracas).
In the Windsor a whole section of the truss floors (which spanned from the central core to the perimeter columns collapsed spectacularly.
However, even in that 'local collapse' the falling mass was arrested, and didn't lead to the fantasy of this alleged 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'.
In the Parque Central (as in MOST other MAJOR fires)ONLY some interior floors (or parts thereof) 'collapsed' leaving the perimeter and core columns standing.
It is these types of partial collapses which have always been termed (outside of the three WTC towers) a 'LOCAL COLLAPSE'.
NIST seems to be deliberatly confusing people with the idea that a 'local collapse' means the instant removal of all columns to promote the false idea that ALL columns on an entire story just 'disappeared' through some gravity driven cause, thus leading to this Amazing Free-Fall drop of the entire upper structure 12' through thin air to commence this fairy tale of pancaking floors.
This Initiation of Collapse CAN NOT happen (apart from explosives taking out all columns on that one story simultaneously).
You know this yourself (if you allow the removal of your bias and blinders)... I know it's a scary thought.
The ONLY way this fairy tale can begin would be if the floors were supported merely by the perimeter columns and there was no 47 Massive Central Core columns.
The truss floors were like a square donut which ringed the central core. The floors within the core which were thicker concrete than the truss floors and were not suspended on trusses but rather huge transverse steel beams which braced all directions between all central core columns. The floors within and outside the core were not connected. They were distinct, diverse and totally separate construction systems.
The way most people visualize the 'floors' within the towers is akin to the FEMA and NOVA jokes, so that all you need do is somehow magically remove all the columns at that story, and the entire floor (from perimeter wall to perimeter wall) falls to the next floor... leading to the 'piston concept'.
This could not happen in the WTC because the core was built exactly the same as all traditional buildings - a 'post and beam' (post & lintel construction). Why can't you bring your mind to accept this?
Try to FORGET the WTC buildings for a moment, (Forget the suspended truss floors) and try to imagine HOW this mystical pancaking floors scenario would ever be possible (or even PLAUSIBLE) in a traditional post & beam building. IT CAN NOT HAPPEN (apart from the sequential blasting/cutting of each of the main support columns).
This initiation of collapse cannot even begin in a post & beam construction apart from the use of explosives (or until the day that all columns rust away to the point that become like swiss cheese and lose structural integrity).
IF this was the cause of the intergranular melting of solid steel columns, This is an absolute engineering emergency which needs addressing to understand how those columns just 'rusted away' in a mere 30 years...
Acid rain??? My goodness we should evacuate ALL high-rises immediately until we discover whether acid rain may have contributed to the fall of these buildings !!!
It is because of certain facts that I have come to believe that the towers were somehow demo'd.
Although from day 1, I was shocked to see the speed of fall and struggled to understand how 'such' would be possible... the NOVA 'bull'; sold me into believing that it would be possible...(for a few years)... IF the floors were suspended from perimeter wall to perimeter wall such as promoted by FEMA & NOVA..
The engineering facts of the core construction has absolutely refuted that 'belief' (for me).
Metamars - please try to convince Walters to change the parameters of his million-dollar challenge, because (as for myself - I KNOW for a FACT that it is possible to prove that it is impossible to collapse the core right to the ground, through any structural methods apart from the input of additional energy which was not contained in the building) to perform this miracle.
Oh, never mind... I get it... That's WHY he has worded his challenge as it stands. He wants to hold onto his million !
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
>Foxx shakes his head again<
Ehhhh... Merry Christian Christmas... or do you just believe in Santa Claus? (and 'elves')
I have been looking at the Bazant Zhou paper. I herein solve the eqn of motion.
Any mistakes made in interpreting BZ's paper are purely my own. I assume a 1 floor free fall ( and so neglect KE dissipation )
Mr . Isaac Newton tells us that :
m * d2x/dt2 = -kx + mg
So, we have to solve
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
Initial Conditions:
1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
using the following constants
m = 5.8 x 10 ^^ 7 (BZ)
g = 9.87 ( God)
k = 7.1 x 10^^10 (BZ)
The solution to this is give by the homogeneous eqn:
m * d2x/dt2 + kx = 0
plus a particular solution of
1] m * d2x/dt2 + kx = mg
a particular solution is:
2] x(t) = mg/k = .00806
The general solution to the homogenous problem is given in my old physics statics and dynmics textbook (Fowles), and probably everybody else's, too. It is:
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta )
where omega = square_root( k / m ) = 34.99
and A and theta are constants to be determined by our initial conditions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = A cos( omega * t + theta ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From 1A] , we see that
0 = A cos (theta) + .00806
so
3] A cos (theta) = -.00806
From 1B] , we see that
4) 8.55 = - A omega sin (theta)
From 3] and 4]
theta = inverse(tan (8.55 / (34.99 * .00806))) = 1.54
plugging into 1A], we get
A = -.2617
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Therefore, our final solution to our problem is given by
x(t) = -.2617 cos( 34.99 * t + 1.54 ) + .00806
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
NOTE: Velocity being negative means that BZ's WTC "spring" has just arrested the downward fall, trapping it's Kinetic energy within the spring itself, and this spring is now pushing the mass of the top of the WTC building UPWARDS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
COMMENTARY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my next post. BTW, as a sanity check, I calculated the potential energy of the loaded spring at time such that velocity is (very close to) zero, and came within about 10% of the kinetic energy present after a free fall of h meters.
QUOTE
1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s
At time =0 distance fallen =0
at time =0 velocity = 8.55m/s
???
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
Anyway;
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1.A] x ( 0 ) = 0 1.B] dx/dt ( 0 ) = free fall speed after falling a height of 1 floor = 8.55 m/s |
At time =0 distance fallen =0
at time =0 velocity = 8.55m/s
???
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
Anyway;
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
You state that at 0.00274seconds the force has reached 31 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that you will not reach t=0.04578seconds with the same elastic conditions applying, that fracturing will have started in all columns before this time.
QUOTE
See my next post. BTW, as a sanity check, I calculated the potential energy of the loaded spring at time such that velocity is (very close to) zero, and came within about 10% of the kinetic energy present after a free fall of h meters.
The PE of m = 5.8 x 10E7 grams at 0.26975999185302 meters height
is (5.8E7)(9.8)(0.26976)=1.53^8
This should be the value of PE stored in the spring at your time of zero velocity. Was it? I don't see the calc anywhere.
QUOTE
Adoucette - It may be different where you live, but around my area I have never seen a BBQ powered by kerosene. We only use propane BBQ's in my locale.
Not sure if I would like to cook over a kerosene fire? Like you say it would probably be not effeciently burning and may impart a kerosene flavour to my steaks?
Not sure if I would like to cook over a kerosene fire? Like you say it would probably be not effeciently burning and may impart a kerosene flavour to my steaks?
Real men use Charcoal, not wussy propane.
(of course we light it with Charcoal Starter (aka Kerosene))
By the time the coals are red hot and ready to cook over, the kerosene has all burnt off.
Arthur
QUOTE
Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards ) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition ?
Can you point me to the page in any NIST or FEMA report that says that the collpase was caused by 'melted' columns.
QUOTE
My answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOT", and my analogy supporting this is driving nails into boards or yes, even into concrete (don't ask). I have never, ever shattered (fractured) a nail. However, I have managed to bend a few in my day, not always being the best shot. :-) Intuitively, the energy associated with a hammer strike is far greater then what you could get by dropping the hammer onto the nail from 3.7 meters.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. A better analogy would have the nail welded to the hammer then have the hammer come down. Even better weld cross pieces to the point of the nail so that it cannot slip sideways on the surface it hits, and do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
I have fractured bolts with this type of strike.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 21 2005, 04:48 AM)
QUOTE
My answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOT", and my analogy supporting this is driving nails into boards or yes, even into concrete (don't ask). I have never, ever shattered (fractured) a nail. However, I have managed to bend a few in my day, not always being the best shot. :-) Intuitively, the energy associated with a hammer strike is far greater then what you could get by dropping the hammer onto the nail from 3.7 meters.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
After a free fall of 3.7 meters, a hammer will only be traveling at 8.55 meters per second. However, a professional baseball pitcher can throw at 90 mph easily. That is 145 km/hr. Take half of that as more typical of hammering, and you are still striking the nail at over 10 times the speed of free fall. Kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed, so the difference in Kinetic Energy is something like a factor of 100.
So, when dealing with nails, you do NOT go from compression straight to fracture, but instead from compression to bending, but to take BZ literally, for some reason WTC steel is such that it must "automatically" go from compression straight to fracturing.
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. A better analogy would have the nail welded to the hammer then have the hammer come down. Even better weld cross pieces to the point of the nail so that it cannot slip sideways on the surface it hits, and do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
I have fractured bolts with this type of strike.
Like the EverReady Bunny... The YID just keeps going... and going... and going.
I'm getting ready for bed now (on the Pacific Coast)... YID is 3 hours ahead of me (IF he's actually posting from the Canadian 'back east'), yet he's still posting !
Good to see you 'got-over' your illness, YID...
Carry On
Adoucette - nice
--- get a REAL BBQ before posting analogies. (nice attempt at a 'save' though QUOTE (brian+Dec 20 2005, 09:08 PM)
Foxx, I have taken your point and registered. I kept forgetting to post my name then thought it of no importance but you are correct.
When you are the terrorist, or an apologist for terror, a hard neck is necessary, this is evident enough here on this thread but your Vice President took the biscuit yesterday -
Nationwide spying could have averted 9/11: Cheney
WASHINGTON:
-In his first comment on a new rights controversy that has hit the US administration, Cheney said: “It’s the kind of capability if we’d had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.”
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...0-12-2005_pg4_7
In the light of Michael Ruppert's statement to The Commonwealth Club California it would appear Mr Cheney has no intention of pleading guilty -
"In my book I will make several key points:
1. I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command, control and communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC, or the White House Situation Room......"
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/159
Nice move, 'brian'
Hey... Cheney's NOT my vice-pres. (I live in Canada)
I'm NOT 'american'.
However, Based upon evidence already submitted here & elsewhere I have to logically assume that Cheney MUST rank as a prime suspect.
He needs to be placed under SERIOUS cross-examination (apart from the 'protections' of illusory 'national-security protections')...
...not like I would expect him to tell the truth under those circumstances.... BUT
the TRUTH will OUT under a serious investigation.
IMHO, the l'il Bush is nothing more than a puppet for the REAL perps.
"just do as 'we' say, and you'll be OK"
When you are 'under the gun', you do as you are told...
"Don't mess with us - Remember John & Robert?"
Even their brother Teddy avoids confrontation with the 'puppet-masters'.
JF junior was getting ready to 'do battle', but unfortunately he followed his father.
You REALLY don't want to mess with these guys.
Unbelievably Unfortunate THINGS happen.
When you are the terrorist, or an apologist for terror, a hard neck is necessary, this is evident enough here on this thread but your Vice President took the biscuit yesterday -
Nationwide spying could have averted 9/11: Cheney
WASHINGTON:
-In his first comment on a new rights controversy that has hit the US administration, Cheney said: “It’s the kind of capability if we’d had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.”
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...0-12-2005_pg4_7
In the light of Michael Ruppert's statement to The Commonwealth Club California it would appear Mr Cheney has no intention of pleading guilty -
"In my book I will make several key points:
1. I will name Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command, control and communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the NMCC, or the White House Situation Room......"
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/159
Nice move, 'brian'
Hey... Cheney's NOT my vice-pres. (I live in Canada)
I'm NOT 'american'.
However, Based upon evidence already submitted here & elsewhere I have to logically assume that Cheney MUST rank as a prime suspect.
He needs to be placed under SERIOUS cross-examination (apart from the 'protections' of illusory 'national-security protections')...
...not like I would expect him to tell the truth under those circumstances.... BUT
the TRUTH will OUT under a serious investigation.
IMHO, the l'il Bush is nothing more than a puppet for the REAL perps.
"just do as 'we' say, and you'll be OK"
When you are 'under the gun', you do as you are told...
"Don't mess with us - Remember John & Robert?"
Even their brother Teddy avoids confrontation with the 'puppet-masters'.
JF junior was getting ready to 'do battle', but unfortunately he followed his father.
You REALLY don't want to mess with these guys.
Unbelievably Unfortunate THINGS happen.
QUOTE (galdur+Dec 20 2005, 09:09 PM)
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
What these investigative journalists should have done was to spend a little time listening to those whom they cite as “reputable” sources for their arguments. Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
....We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That’s ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago."
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called “survivors,” but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, “all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we’re dealing with are coincidentally identical names.” In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are “as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
That's ridiculous!
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
What these investigative journalists should have done was to spend a little time listening to those whom they cite as “reputable” sources for their arguments. Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
....We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That’s ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago."
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called “survivors,” but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, “all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we’re dealing with are coincidentally identical names.” In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are “as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
That's ridiculous!
andrew, where are you ?
Have you reached any conclusions over the last 129 pages ?
Heavy Metal
The steel from the debris of the World Trade Centers provides evidence that the buildings were demolished.
Specifically, metal tests on steel remains from the world trade center show something never before seen in building fires: reactions which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Sulfur and other elements commonly used in high-explosives were also found. The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." (this quote is contained in the following link)
As stated by the scientists who studied this phenomenon:
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges -- which are curled like a paper scroll -- have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes -- some larger than a silver dollar -- let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending -- but not holes"
Moreover, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7 (the third building in the World Trade Center to collapse on 9/11):
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view); or see a cached version of the article here.
Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
In addition, there was molten metal running under ground zero for months after 9/11. So far, no reports of molten metal from any previous building fire have surfaced.
And while some have attempted to argue that molten metal under the Twin Towers was caused by the enormous friction created by the collapse of the 110-story giants, building 7 -- which was only 47 stories high -- seems to have experienced the same temperatures as the Twin Towers. Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image. The friction argument simply doesn't work, since a 47-story building cannot have experienced nearly as much friction as 110-story buildings. And remember it was building 7 which experienced partial evaporation of its steel beams.
The sulfur and other unusual chemicals, gaping holes, partial evaporation of steel, and molten metal from the trade centers are therefore very strong evidence of controlled demolition.
full version at link below
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...eavy-metal.html
Have you reached any conclusions over the last 129 pages ?
Heavy Metal
QUOTE
The steel from the debris of the World Trade Centers provides evidence that the buildings were demolished.
Specifically, metal tests on steel remains from the world trade center show something never before seen in building fires: reactions which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Sulfur and other elements commonly used in high-explosives were also found. The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." (this quote is contained in the following link)
As stated by the scientists who studied this phenomenon:
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges -- which are curled like a paper scroll -- have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes -- some larger than a silver dollar -- let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending -- but not holes"
Moreover, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7 (the third building in the World Trade Center to collapse on 9/11):
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view); or see a cached version of the article here.
Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
In addition, there was molten metal running under ground zero for months after 9/11. So far, no reports of molten metal from any previous building fire have surfaced.
And while some have attempted to argue that molten metal under the Twin Towers was caused by the enormous friction created by the collapse of the 110-story giants, building 7 -- which was only 47 stories high -- seems to have experienced the same temperatures as the Twin Towers. Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image. The friction argument simply doesn't work, since a 47-story building cannot have experienced nearly as much friction as 110-story buildings. And remember it was building 7 which experienced partial evaporation of its steel beams.
The sulfur and other unusual chemicals, gaping holes, partial evaporation of steel, and molten metal from the trade centers are therefore very strong evidence of controlled demolition.
full version at link below
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...eavy-metal.html
QUOTE (CHUCKLES+Dec 21 2005, 02:57 AM)
HEY FUXXY! JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE SOME PROFITEERING CONSPIRACY MERCHANDISE PEDDLERS' HAND UP YOUR OWN *SS DON'T MEAN I LIKE TO HAVE ANY HANDS UP MINE!!! YOU PERVE*TED SLOB!!!REAL PEOPLE LIKE ME AIN'T SOCK-PUPPETS FOR NOBODY!!!SPECIALLY FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER POOR SLOBS WHO TRY TO TALK TO IDIOTS AND CRO*KS LIKE YOU AND YOUR FURRY FRIENDS!!! WHO SHOW UP FROM TIME TO TIME JUST LIKE I DO JUST TO STIR THIS IDIOCY POT THAT PHYSORGFORUMS HAS BECOME BY HOSTING THESE CONSPIRACY MORONS IN A PHYSICS FORUM!!!THAT'S WHY I DON'T REGISTER!!!COS YOU'RE ALL MORONS HERE!!!WHO NEEDS IT EXCEPT FOR A GOOD LAUGH ONCE IN A WHILE!!BUT IT'S WEARING OFF NOW!!!I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT HAVING TO DREDGE THROUGH SO MUCH MUCK TO GET MY JOLLIES!!!THERE'S FASTER PICKINS IN OTHER FORUMS!!!YOU ST*PID RET*RDS!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
.
.
CHUCKLES,
Why do you call everyone on both sides idiots? While some may be here for reasons other than physics, it's not fair to say we're ALL idiots...especially those who only want to discuss physics (like myself, metamars, adoucette, schneibster, yesitdid and (sometimes) even foxx, for instance). I take personal umbrage at your comments; so if ever you DO come back and read this thread again, I demand you retract said comments and apologise to all concerned.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RESULTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00009 and x = 8.25642462412266E-04
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00031 and x = 2.83958132212634E-03
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00274 and x = 2.50784419673099E-02
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04578 and x = 0.26975999185302
I'm sorry, but my A value was way off. More precise values for my constants are:
A = -0.244573869067802
omega = 34.9876825616456
theta = 1.53782355621916
which gives the following results
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.0001 and x = 8.55289751362663E-04 and velocity = 8.55335632631552
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00033 and x = 2.8227739472741E-03 And velocity = 8.5551086532782
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00293 and x = 2.50570570494154E-02 And velocity = 8.53639035754818
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at t = .0009 seconds
========================================
The t and x results aren't a whole lot different, but when you compute the velocity with the old, wrong values, you get essentially an instantaneous bump in velocity of about .7 m/sec at t=0, which is impossible.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 21 2005, 05:39 AM)
Good to see you 'got-over' your illness, YID...
Carry On
Adoucette - nice --- get a REAL BBQ before posting analogies. (nice attempt at a 'save' though
Thanks, still a bit queasy. Slept in yesterday.
Your concern means more to me than you can imagine, really.
Carry On
Adoucette - nice
--- get a REAL BBQ before posting analogies. (nice attempt at a 'save' though Thanks, still a bit queasy. Slept in yesterday.
Your concern means more to me than you can imagine, really.
QUOTE
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section?
yes, exactly. And that is also x is 0. x is increasing going downwards.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Where are you setting time=0? At the time the upper section hits the lower section? |
yes, exactly. And that is also x is 0. x is increasing going downwards.
You state that at 0.00274seconds the force has reached 31 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that you will not reach t=0.04578seconds with the same elastic conditions applying, that fracturing will have started in all columns before this time.
Correct. Of course, before fracturing, you will get plastic deformation, which in "normal" scenarios (car crashes, stepping on an empty soda can, etc.) dissipates energy - apparently in sufficient quantities as to prevent fracturing. Why should the WTC towers be any different? BZ doesn't say ....
QUOTE
The PE of m = 5.8 x 10E7 grams at 0.26975999185302 meters height
is (5.8E7)(9.8)(0.26976)=1.53^8
This should be the value of PE stored in the spring at your time of zero velocity. Was it? I don't see the calc anywhere.
No, at such a tiny displacement from x = 0, the additional gravitational PE that this represents is neglibible compared to the kinetic energy already attained by the top of the tower as it fell freely though a height h = 3.7 meters. Thus, it is this energy which is getting stored in the "spring", and creating such huge pressures.
QUOTE
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this.
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. |
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
You raise a good point, here, because different steels have different properties. I'm doubtful that deltas in steels would change the conclusion, but I don't really know.
Once again, we could use the input of engineers....
QUOTE
From THIS position people have taken the 'theory of falling bodies', applied them through numbers to the 'falling floors' and tried to claim that it is POSSIBLE for the towers to have 'collapsed' as quickly as they did.
Strangely enough, you hit on another defect of BZ, though not the one you indicate, exactly.
If you take BZ seriously, it is easy to get a VERY close to free fall speed of collapse. Just have one failure, which occurs very near the top of the first sound floor, and call it a day.
What is hard is getting one that takes a few seconds longer.
Consider:
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00033 and x = 2.8227739472741E-03 And velocity = 8.5551086532782
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.00293 and x = 2.50570570494154E-02 And velocity = 8.53639035754818
But the free fall speed at x = 0 was 8.55 m/s. Therefore, after the "first" failure in BZ, we have only decreased speed by under 0.2% (or so).
You therefore have to postulate a whole sequence of failures. You might get the idea that you need 1 per floor, but that is not nearly enough to increase the time of collapse by 4 to 8 seconds. So, BZ raises a question (implicitly) that they never answer. If they did try to answer it, they would have to make some attempt to explain whatever sequence of failures they come up with - hopefully on the basis of some underlying physics (which I find doubtful), but more likely via ad hoc assumptions (kind of like what cosmologists appear to be doing, much too frequently for van Flandern's taste at metaresearch.org)
QUOTE
Mathematically, we might have something like:
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x -1 ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0 , so that the exponential decay eventually dominates
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x -1 ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0 , so that the exponential decay eventually dominates
I'm very rusty, and was probably thinking of the infinity that you get at x = 0 with the natural logarithm function (which implies x + 1, not x -1 , anyways), which is the inverse of the exponential. Well, whatever I was thinking, this really should be something like
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mathematically, we might have something like: F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x -1 ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0 , so that the exponential decay eventually dominates |
I'm very rusty, and was probably thinking of the infinity that you get at x = 0 with the natural logarithm function (which implies x + 1, not x -1 , anyways), which is the inverse of the exponential. Well, whatever I was thinking, this really should be something like
F = -kx * exp (- alpha * (x ) ) , for the compressive force, where alpha > 0
Sorry, kimosobe's, another error.
In my algorithm, I had used 5800000, instead of 58000000, to calculate the force of gravity of the top of the WTC building. Using the correct value gives:
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00095 and x = 8.12775821325292E-03 and velocity = 8.55707259215806
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00331 and x = 2.82992886931111E-02 And velocity = 8.52773087765122
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.0416 and x = 0.249952836853888 And velocity = 1.26421089706542
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at 9.39999998081476E-04
==================
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 3.3 millimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
For 31x overload, the displacements are .249 meters vs. .025 meters. So, the new 31x displacement is 10 x larger, but still small compared the height of a floor, 3.7 meters, which is a ratio of about 1:15.
In my algorithm, I had used 5800000, instead of 58000000, to calculate the force of gravity of the top of the WTC building. Using the correct value gives:
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00095 and x = 8.12775821325292E-03 and velocity = 8.55707259215806
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00331 and x = 2.82992886931111E-02 And velocity = 8.52773087765122
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.0416 and x = 0.249952836853888 And velocity = 1.26421089706542
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at 9.39999998081476E-04
==================
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 3.3 millimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
For 31x overload, the displacements are .249 meters vs. .025 meters. So, the new 31x displacement is 10 x larger, but still small compared the height of a floor, 3.7 meters, which is a ratio of about 1:15.
metamars has taken the trouble to show that even under the conditions imagined by the official inquirers their scenarios just dont hold water, but just as important, as metamars has said, in the real world scenario, on video for all to see, the forces imagined in the official scenario simply could not have existed.
The upper portions of the buildings were pulverised and a great deal of them spread outside their perimeter meaning the gravitational forces acting on the lower portion were greatly reduced.
This is worth repeating for any newcomers as someone said the other day they had not looked at all the thread.
Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
The upper portions of the buildings were pulverised and a great deal of them spread outside their perimeter meaning the gravitational forces acting on the lower portion were greatly reduced.
This is worth repeating for any newcomers as someone said the other day they had not looked at all the thread.
Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
QUOTE (brian+Dec 21 2005, 09:27 PM)
metamars has taken the trouble to show that even under the conditions imagined by the official inquirers their scenarios just dont hold water, but just as important, as metamars has said, in the real world scenario, on video for all to see, the forces imagined in the official scenario simply could not have existed.
The upper portions of the buildings were pulverised and a great deal of them spread outside their perimeter meaning the gravitational forces acting on the lower portion were greatly reduced.
This is worth repeating for any newcomers as someone said the other day they had not looked at all the thread.
Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
Not really, metamars is dealing with BZ's analysis, which is not the "official" anything.
It is interesting, but not definitive.
The problem BZ as well as NIST faced when dealing with the mechanism of the global collapse is that too many variable existed to actually model what happened with any degree of confidence.
Look at it this way, they modeled the aircraft impact. This entailed simulating a KNOWN Aircraft hitting a KNOWN object (both of whose structural properties were fairly well known), the main variables were speed of impact and angle of impact and to a lesser extent weight of the aircraft.
This analysis stretched the limitations of existing software. When finally complete the actual model took two weeks on a 12 node computer to come up with one set of results.
From that point NIST analyzed the damage caused (based upon the model results and external pictures) and the spread of the fire (again based on model results from actually burning workstations and testing the fire retardant on structural members and testing the adsorption of heat by the structural members.
From all of that they modeled the spread of the fire and came up with the probable local collapse sequence.
By this time however we are deep into modeled results.
To take this and then extrapolate to a global collapse would be FAR MORE complex than the analysis that they did on the collision of two KNOWN objects, because now the range of possibilities becomes so much greater.
To ACTUALLY model the Global collapse would probably have taken near as much effort as it took to produce the results that they did.
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers. No 'pulverization" of the top of the towers occurs until AFTER the first impact. Whle the tilted tower would have a slightly smaller vector of force upon the lower part of the tower, it still would easily be more than sufficient. I know many of you CT don't believe this last paragraph and unfortunately, I don't think ANYTHING that anyone could produce would convince you, since none of us have the ability to model the results of the impact to a level that WOULD convince you.
I believe NIST focused on what WAS important. How to prevent the LOCAL collapse. From what I have seen, given a local collapse, a global collapse was inevitable. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it wasn't? No.
So we appear to be at a stalemate, since neither side is willing to accept the other sides assumptions.
Good luck on reopening the research into HOW the towers fell. I don't think it will happen, and not for some nefarious reason, but simply because you are unlikely to convince anyone to spend that kind of money to provide answers of little value except to conspiracy theorists.
Arthur
The upper portions of the buildings were pulverised and a great deal of them spread outside their perimeter meaning the gravitational forces acting on the lower portion were greatly reduced.
This is worth repeating for any newcomers as someone said the other day they had not looked at all the thread.
Evidence of Explosives In The Twin Tower Collapses.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
Not really, metamars is dealing with BZ's analysis, which is not the "official" anything.
It is interesting, but not definitive.
The problem BZ as well as NIST faced when dealing with the mechanism of the global collapse is that too many variable existed to actually model what happened with any degree of confidence.
Look at it this way, they modeled the aircraft impact. This entailed simulating a KNOWN Aircraft hitting a KNOWN object (both of whose structural properties were fairly well known), the main variables were speed of impact and angle of impact and to a lesser extent weight of the aircraft.
This analysis stretched the limitations of existing software. When finally complete the actual model took two weeks on a 12 node computer to come up with one set of results.
From that point NIST analyzed the damage caused (based upon the model results and external pictures) and the spread of the fire (again based on model results from actually burning workstations and testing the fire retardant on structural members and testing the adsorption of heat by the structural members.
From all of that they modeled the spread of the fire and came up with the probable local collapse sequence.
By this time however we are deep into modeled results.
To take this and then extrapolate to a global collapse would be FAR MORE complex than the analysis that they did on the collision of two KNOWN objects, because now the range of possibilities becomes so much greater.
To ACTUALLY model the Global collapse would probably have taken near as much effort as it took to produce the results that they did.
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers. No 'pulverization" of the top of the towers occurs until AFTER the first impact. Whle the tilted tower would have a slightly smaller vector of force upon the lower part of the tower, it still would easily be more than sufficient. I know many of you CT don't believe this last paragraph and unfortunately, I don't think ANYTHING that anyone could produce would convince you, since none of us have the ability to model the results of the impact to a level that WOULD convince you.
I believe NIST focused on what WAS important. How to prevent the LOCAL collapse. From what I have seen, given a local collapse, a global collapse was inevitable. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove it wasn't? No.
So we appear to be at a stalemate, since neither side is willing to accept the other sides assumptions.
Good luck on reopening the research into HOW the towers fell. I don't think it will happen, and not for some nefarious reason, but simply because you are unlikely to convince anyone to spend that kind of money to provide answers of little value except to conspiracy theorists.
Arthur
QUOTE
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 3.3 millimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This should read:
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 2.8 centimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This is getting embarassing.,,,
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 21 2005, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE
But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this.
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this. |
A great deal of slippage means that you're not hitting the nail very well. If you slip enough, you will hit whatever it is you're driving the nail into.
do not use a common nail either since this is a steel that has been specifically selected to take being hammered.(older nails did indeed sometimes fracture) Instead I suggest a similarily sized bolt.
You raise a good point, here, because different steels have different properties. I'm doubtful that deltas in steels would change the conclusion, but I don't really know.
Once again, we could use the input of engineers....
Hitting the nail directly was the thrust of my suggesting welding the nail to the hammer. You bring up another point though in the analogy that is also non-trivial. The nail is being driven into something which will translate into two things
a)the nail will have motion, that means some of the KE is being used to move the nail, not bend or fracture it
b)some of the KE will be used in splitting the material the nail is being driven into. In fact in the normal course of nailing anything, most of the KE is used to do this.
The analogy can, as I pointed out be modified to better model what we want.
I stated that I had fractured a bolt by driving it. This was a 1/2" galvanised bolt(yes I know the galvanising process lowers the strength of the bolt by about 10%) This bolt had been in place for several years, the nut came off without too much trouble but the bolt would not budge. A 2 pound small sledge hammer was used to coax
it out. First hit,,, no movement,,, second hit ,,, no movement, third hit(frustration building) ,,, no movement,,, wind up and smack it hard and dead on and in addition to the clang(bolt was through three pieces of angle iron) there was a distinct 'tink' and I fought to hold onto the hammer which was continueing past where I had thought it could go and ricocheting off the ironwork. The bolt had snapped, with very little bending, about at the third thread from the surface of the angle iron.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 21 2005, 09:53 PM)
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers. No 'pulverization" of the top of the towers occurs until AFTER the first impact. Whle the tilted tower would have a slightly smaller vector of force upon the lower part of the tower, it still would easily be more than sufficient. I know many of you CT don't believe this last paragraph and unfortunately, I don't think ANYTHING that anyone could produce would convince you, since none of us have the ability to model the results of the impact to a level that WOULD convince you.
Were was this shown?
In this thread, which pages I'm no longer certain, but probably 20 or more pages back. Like I said, not everyone agrees with the conclusions posted. I do, because I accept the assumptions. Make different assumptions, you arrive at a different conclusion.
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 21 2005, 10:58 PM)
QUOTE
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 3.3 millimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This should read:
The new distance for 3.5x overload is 2.8 centimeter, whereas before it was 2.8 millimeters.
This is getting embarassing.,,,
Don't worry about it.
As far as your calcs supporting the idea that fracturing could not occur so quickly, as far as I am concerned it does not. I would say that there are points in the calculated parameters that support both sides.
Your calcs have velocity of zero at a point close to the max impact(makes sense). But that is at 31 times the typical load weight. Published safety factors it seems, are about 5 times the typical load weight. It stands to reason then that failure would occur at that point or soon after it is reached. You show that the 3.5 times load was reached when the fall had slowed only to 8.53 m/s. Just a guess but there would not be a great slowing between 3.5 and say double that, 7 times typical load. Call it 5.0 m/s for starters(I would be interested in what your calcs show for 5 times , 7 times and 10 times).
This is a slowing of less than half the t=0 velocity using this simplified calculation.
Now BZ said 30 times the limit of what the structure could withstand(IIRC). That is what your calcs show at the time of zero velocity. BZ states that their calcs are an approximation but that at 31 times the ability of the structure to withstand the impact failure was inevitable.
We come back to BZ's call for a more precise calculation of the collapse. However as adoucette points out this quickly gets very complicated. NIST, in running their computer sims of the aircraft impact ran the same sim several times and changed the parameters each time to see what happens and where the sim best matches what was observed. If this were to be done for the collapse then it would likely have to be run dozens of times since there are so many more variable parameters to consider. So multiply what NIST spent on the sims by 12.
Not that I don't see that there might be a benefit in doing so, though how significant or useful it will be would be the question.
Yes metamars it would be good if more engineers and Masters or Ph.D. level physicists posted here but I can't drag them in to post any more than you can.
QUOTE
When you are 'under the gun', you do as you are told...
"Don't mess with us - Remember John & Robert?"
Even their brother Teddy avoids confrontation with the 'puppet-masters'.
JF junior was getting ready to 'do battle', but unfortunately he followed his father.
You REALLY don't want to mess with these guys.
Unbelievably Unfortunate THINGS happen.
"Don't mess with us - Remember John & Robert?"
Even their brother Teddy avoids confrontation with the 'puppet-masters'.
JF junior was getting ready to 'do battle', but unfortunately he followed his father.
You REALLY don't want to mess with these guys.
Unbelievably Unfortunate THINGS happen.
Well now , with what you post that makes you quite the hero doesn't it Foxx.
Now I understand your motivation.
(does a Christian martyr get 70 virgins too?)
Speaking of NIST, Hoffman released a new version of his NIST article
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005
The delta is a new section called
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
Here 'tis:
(emphasis mine)
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
The main difference between the Draft and the Final Report is the addition in the Final Report of Section 6.14.4, "Events Following Collapse Initiation," which consists of five paragraphs filling half a page. This section apparently constitutes the "little analysis of the structural behavior" following "collapse initiation" mentioned in the Executive Summary. Section 6.14.4 promotes the pile-driver theory with a circular argument; cherry-picks, misrepresents, and dismisses with faulty arguments evidence of controlled demolition; and attacks the demolition hypothesis by melding it with hoaxes.
The Pile-Driver Theory, Again
The first two paragraphs of the new section reiterate the pile-driver theory using similar language and vagueness to many earlier tellings of the theory.
Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structures below to absorb that through energy of deformation. (p 146/196)
Note the observations that the structure below was "not able to arrest this initial movement," and "offered minimal resistance." The Report implies that this was because the force of the falling mass destroyed the intact structure below it. It does not actually state this, however, or rule out the shattering of structure by explosives as the reason for the minimal resistance. Instead, it states that the energy of the falling mass exceeded the "energy of deformation" that the intact structures could supply. That may or may not be true, but the intact structure could have arrested the downward movement of the top without deforming by simply transmitting the impact forces to the ground. These nuances of meaning will not be noticed by the casual reader but could provide the investigators with an out in the event that they are charged with covering up the crime of the intentional controlled demolition of the Towers. Statements that are grossly misleading but legally defensible because they are technically true are one of the hallmarks of a sophisticated cover-up.
Perfunctory Explanations of Two Features
The next two paragraphs in the new section are the only places in the Report where NIST addresses critiques that the Draft Report avoided considering evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. The third paragraph addresses the rapid rate of fall. It reads:
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)
This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.
The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
Like virtually every other endorsement of the pile-driver theory, NIST's is entirely free of quantitative detail. Why does NIST not even attempt to quantify the amount of energy that the top of each Tower would accumulate after a free-fall of one story -- an easy calculation? Perhaps because it would draw attention to the many problems of the pile-driver theory, including:
* No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.
* Photographs and videos show the top of both Towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, disproving the existence of the supposed pile drivers.
* Most of the rubble appears to fall outside of the Towers' footprint, thus being unavailable to crush the intact structure.
* Rubble falls through the air outside of the Towers' profiles at about the same speed it falls through their profile, showing that the structure below provided little to no more resistance than air.
The fourth paragraph addresses the jets of dust, often called "squibs." It reads:
NIST attempts to explain away without disclosing evidence for or even accurately describing this demolition feature: energetic jets of dust emerging symmetrically from the Tower's faces. (Image copyright: Richard Lethin)
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. (p 146/196)
NIST conceals the nature of the energetic ejections by describing them only as material "forc[ed] ... out the windows". It does not mention any resources for examining this evidence, such as these video frames showing dust ejections from the North Tower.
When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
* No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
* The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
* The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
* The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.
NIST thus attempts to explain away only two of the six features of controlled demolition enumerated in the Conclusion of this essay, and in the essay's earlier version critiquing the NIST's Draft Report.
Playing the Missiles and Basement Bombs Straw Men
In the last paragraph, NIST employs the straw-man tactic used so extensively by the Popular Mechanics article. It reads:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (p 146/196)
It may be true that NIST failed to find corroborating evidence of controlled demolition: perhaps its investigators were careful not to look at any of its 6,977 segments of video footage or 6,899 photographs capturing events after "collapse initiation." It may also be true (and is much more plausible) that NIST didn't find evidence of the missile strikes alleged by letsroll911.org, In Plane Site, and Loose Change. NIST employs the same strategy as these productions: pairing the controlled demolition hypothesis with the nonsensical idea that the crashing planes fired missiles into the Towers, in order to discredit the hypothesis. As with the Popular Mechanics piece before it, the overt apologists for the official story work hand-in-glove with sensational productions that attack the official story with phony evidence.
NIST's second use of the straw-man tactic in the paragraph is more subtle. It implies that controlled demolition would have destroyed the Towers in an order other than that observed -- from the bottom up instead of from the top down. This ignores the fact that controlled demolitions are controlled, and therefore demolition sequences can be effected in any order desired. In the case of the Twin Towers, the demolitions would have been designed so that the destruction could be blamed on the plane crashes and fires, and hence would have been initiated around the crash zones. (Even in that detail, they leave something to be desired, since there is evidence that the top of each tower was broken up before falling into the crash zone.)
NIST does not explicitly mention the basement bombs theory but falsely implies that all controlled demolition theories are synonymous with it, requiring the explosions to start low in the Towers. This suggests a reason that the basement bombs theories have been aggressively promoted in literature purporting to challenge the official story: It provides a convenient straw man that defenders of the official story such as NIST can falsely identify with all demolition hypotheses in order to discredit them.
Interestingly, it appears Hoffman discounts the basement bombs. I wonder what his explanation is of Rodriguez' account, then?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005
The delta is a new section called
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
Here 'tis:
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE
NIST's Vacuous Response to its Critics
The main difference between the Draft and the Final Report is the addition in the Final Report of Section 6.14.4, "Events Following Collapse Initiation," which consists of five paragraphs filling half a page. This section apparently constitutes the "little analysis of the structural behavior" following "collapse initiation" mentioned in the Executive Summary. Section 6.14.4 promotes the pile-driver theory with a circular argument; cherry-picks, misrepresents, and dismisses with faulty arguments evidence of controlled demolition; and attacks the demolition hypothesis by melding it with hoaxes.
The Pile-Driver Theory, Again
The first two paragraphs of the new section reiterate the pile-driver theory using similar language and vagueness to many earlier tellings of the theory.
Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structures below to absorb that through energy of deformation. (p 146/196)
Note the observations that the structure below was "not able to arrest this initial movement," and "offered minimal resistance." The Report implies that this was because the force of the falling mass destroyed the intact structure below it. It does not actually state this, however, or rule out the shattering of structure by explosives as the reason for the minimal resistance. Instead, it states that the energy of the falling mass exceeded the "energy of deformation" that the intact structures could supply. That may or may not be true, but the intact structure could have arrested the downward movement of the top without deforming by simply transmitting the impact forces to the ground. These nuances of meaning will not be noticed by the casual reader but could provide the investigators with an out in the event that they are charged with covering up the crime of the intentional controlled demolition of the Towers. Statements that are grossly misleading but legally defensible because they are technically true are one of the hallmarks of a sophisticated cover-up.
Perfunctory Explanations of Two Features
The next two paragraphs in the new section are the only places in the Report where NIST addresses critiques that the Draft Report avoided considering evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. The third paragraph addresses the rapid rate of fall. It reads:
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)
This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.
The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here.
Like virtually every other endorsement of the pile-driver theory, NIST's is entirely free of quantitative detail. Why does NIST not even attempt to quantify the amount of energy that the top of each Tower would accumulate after a free-fall of one story -- an easy calculation? Perhaps because it would draw attention to the many problems of the pile-driver theory, including:
* No column failure theory excluding demolition can account for the top suddenly starting to fall freely.
* Photographs and videos show the top of both Towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, disproving the existence of the supposed pile drivers.
* Most of the rubble appears to fall outside of the Towers' footprint, thus being unavailable to crush the intact structure.
* Rubble falls through the air outside of the Towers' profiles at about the same speed it falls through their profile, showing that the structure below provided little to no more resistance than air.
The fourth paragraph addresses the jets of dust, often called "squibs." It reads:
NIST attempts to explain away without disclosing evidence for or even accurately describing this demolition feature: energetic jets of dust emerging symmetrically from the Tower's faces. (Image copyright: Richard Lethin)
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. (p 146/196)
NIST conceals the nature of the energetic ejections by describing them only as material "forc[ed] ... out the windows". It does not mention any resources for examining this evidence, such as these video frames showing dust ejections from the North Tower.
When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
* No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
* The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
* The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
* The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.
NIST thus attempts to explain away only two of the six features of controlled demolition enumerated in the Conclusion of this essay, and in the essay's earlier version critiquing the NIST's Draft Report.
Playing the Missiles and Basement Bombs Straw Men
In the last paragraph, NIST employs the straw-man tactic used so extensively by the Popular Mechanics article. It reads:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. (p 146/196)
It may be true that NIST failed to find corroborating evidence of controlled demolition: perhaps its investigators were careful not to look at any of its 6,977 segments of video footage or 6,899 photographs capturing events after "collapse initiation." It may also be true (and is much more plausible) that NIST didn't find evidence of the missile strikes alleged by letsroll911.org, In Plane Site, and Loose Change. NIST employs the same strategy as these productions: pairing the controlled demolition hypothesis with the nonsensical idea that the crashing planes fired missiles into the Towers, in order to discredit the hypothesis. As with the Popular Mechanics piece before it, the overt apologists for the official story work hand-in-glove with sensational productions that attack the official story with phony evidence.
NIST's second use of the straw-man tactic in the paragraph is more subtle. It implies that controlled demolition would have destroyed the Towers in an order other than that observed -- from the bottom up instead of from the top down. This ignores the fact that controlled demolitions are controlled, and therefore demolition sequences can be effected in any order desired. In the case of the Twin Towers, the demolitions would have been designed so that the destruction could be blamed on the plane crashes and fires, and hence would have been initiated around the crash zones. (Even in that detail, they leave something to be desired, since there is evidence that the top of each tower was broken up before falling into the crash zone.)
NIST does not explicitly mention the basement bombs theory but falsely implies that all controlled demolition theories are synonymous with it, requiring the explosions to start low in the Towers. This suggests a reason that the basement bombs theories have been aggressively promoted in literature purporting to challenge the official story: It provides a convenient straw man that defenders of the official story such as NIST can falsely identify with all demolition hypotheses in order to discredit them.
Interestingly, it appears Hoffman discounts the basement bombs. I wonder what his explanation is of Rodriguez' account, then?
[QUOTE=yesitdid,Dec 20 2005, 08:48 PM][QUOTE]But your analogy fails in a non-trivial way. Your hammer strike ends at the point where the hammer slips off the nail. In the case of the tower columns the 'strike' does not end like this.
The hammer strike does end, when it slips off. Lets define the hammer for the south tower. The hammers' "head" is the entire (leaning) upper section. The "face" is the base of the severed core. The "swing"(handle) of course is the distance of the fall. The "nail" is the lower sections' core and the nails' "head" is the top cross-sectional area of said core. Note: The south towers' core eventually severed at or about the impact zone. This means the face of the hammer and the head of the nail were now in a state of mis-alignment. Play>. The hammer falls and hits the nails' head well off the perpedicular. Freeze frame*. Yid believes that the face and head alignment at this very point in time, REMAINS this way through out the collapse. That's a big problem for me in the gravity driven version of events. When I hit a nail off center (a) it deflect off the nail head (
the nail bends (metamars). So, at this point in time, the building is stressed and deformed in response to the impact. Secondly, the very poor interface of the core ends will suggest deflection. -Play>. The hammers' face has deflected off the nails' head and (the head) is now moving downward, along side the nail. The floors and joists are crashing onto the still standing lower core (nail). Meanwhile, off to the side, the hammer head is crashing down through floors in an asymmetrical fashion that would have sent debris mostly off to one side of the building.
The hammer strike does end, when it slips off. Lets define the hammer for the south tower. The hammers' "head" is the entire (leaning) upper section. The "face" is the base of the severed core. The "swing"(handle) of course is the distance of the fall. The "nail" is the lower sections' core and the nails' "head" is the top cross-sectional area of said core. Note: The south towers' core eventually severed at or about the impact zone. This means the face of the hammer and the head of the nail were now in a state of mis-alignment. Play>. The hammer falls and hits the nails' head well off the perpedicular. Freeze frame*. Yid believes that the face and head alignment at this very point in time, REMAINS this way through out the collapse. That's a big problem for me in the gravity driven version of events. When I hit a nail off center (a) it deflect off the nail head (
the nail bends (metamars). So, at this point in time, the building is stressed and deformed in response to the impact. Secondly, the very poor interface of the core ends will suggest deflection. -Play>. The hammers' face has deflected off the nails' head and (the head) is now moving downward, along side the nail. The floors and joists are crashing onto the still standing lower core (nail). Meanwhile, off to the side, the hammer head is crashing down through floors in an asymmetrical fashion that would have sent debris mostly off to one side of the building.
QUOTE
Yes metamars it would be good if more engineers and Masters or Ph.D. level physicists posted here but I can't drag them in to post any more than you can.
While it won't settle the matter, what could be done, for starters, is a more detailed analysis of a single column being impacted by a mass equal to it's "share" of the top of the WTC. BZ's approach is way too simple, but some insight could be gained (I believe) by a perturbation analysis that could take into account plastic deformation and even elastic deformation of a non-compressive sort. Discretizing your analytical results and then solving numerically should not be all that big a deal (although getting your analytical results to begin with is beyond me). I'm very skeptical that even using perturbation theory alone, you could model fractures, because of the 'discontinuous' nature of fracturing. However, if you got results suggesting that fracturing was neglible, or likely constrained to some manageable amount, then you would have some confidence in what a more full blown model would tell you.
My guess is that to handle fracturing,you would need some kind of computer simulation that had discontinuous features statistically incorporated. My guess is that some folks already have this type of program written. I would think that bullet and missile manufacturers care a lot about what happens to their projectile when it strikes a model object - both to the projectile, and to the object.
It's not a given that even if you could show that, in this scenario, you could arrest a collapse of 1 floor height in, say, 2 meters, then you know you can do so for a whole building. But I think it more likely than not, especially since the calculation I sketched out above would not benefit from cross bracing.
OTOH, if you could accurately model the effects of cross bracing in a single column, and it still was unable to arrest collapse, I would assume that the whole building would not arrest collapse, either.
Even if that is the result, though, the question of collapse time might tell you all you need to know about whether or not the buildings were demolished. If accurate sims gave a collapse time of 5 minutes, well, we know that more than Mr. Bin Laden's evil minions were at work that day.
QUOTE
(I would be interested in what your calcs show for 5 times , 7 times and 10 times).
You exceeded 1x the typical load weight at t = 0.00095 and x = 8.12775821325292E-03 and velocity = 8.55707259215806
You exceeded 3.5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00331 and x = 2.82992886931111E-02 And velocity = 8.52773087765122
You exceeded 5x the typical load weight at t = 0.00473 and x = 0.040378716093761 And velocity = 8.48204621783164
You exceeded 7x the typical load weight at t = 0.00664 and x = 5.64952349771859E-02 And velocity = 8.38761212990369
You exceeded 10x the typical load weight at t = 0.00956 and x = 0.080691945276082 And velocity = 8.17105750880275
You exceeded 31x the typical load weight at t = 0.0416 and x = 0.249952836853888 And velocity = 1.26421089706542
Velocity became negative at t = 0.04585 and x = 0.252636664787112
Maximum velocity is equal to 8.55707286337697 and it was attained at 9.39999998081476E-04
QUOTE
by Adoucette
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers.
The value would be minimal because as has been shown (repeatedly) that the energy available following a local collapse is many times more than necessary to collapse the towers.
It seems to me that you, like NIST, and the rest of the 'yes-did-it-men' --- (those who believe the NIST obfuscation) that a 'local collapse' means the collapse of one entire floor down to the next floor.
This is IMPOSSIBLE in a structure like the towers, (apart from demolition of ALL central core columns AND perimeter columns at that story at the same instant).
There has never been a 'local collapse' of one whole story in any steel framed building (apart from the explosives answer).
A 'local collapse' happens frequently in major building fires. (such as the Edficio Windsor in Spain and the Parque Central in Caracas).
In the Windsor a whole section of the truss floors (which spanned from the central core to the perimeter columns collapsed spectacularly.
However, even in that 'local collapse' the falling mass was arrested, and didn't lead to the fantasy of this alleged 'Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse'.
In the Parque Central (as in MOST other MAJOR fires)ONLY some interior floors (or parts thereof) 'collapsed' leaving the perimeter and core columns standing.
It is these types of partial collapses which have always been termed (outside of the three WTC towers) a 'LOCAL COLLAPSE'.
NIST seems to be deliberatly confusing people with the idea that a 'local collapse' means the instant removal of all columns to promote the false idea that ALL columns on an entire story just 'disappeared' through some gravity driven cause, thus leading to this Amazing Free-Fall drop of the entire upper structure 12' through thin air to commence this fairy tale of pancaking floors.
This Initiation of Collapse CAN NOT happen (apart from explosives taking out all columns on that one story simultaneously).
You know this yourself (if you allow the removal of your bias and blinders)... I know it's a scary thought.
The ONLY way this fairy tale can begin would be if the floors were supported merely by the perimeter columns and there was no 47 Massive Central Core columns.
The truss floors were like a square donut which ringed the central core. The floors within the core which were thicker concrete than the truss floors and were not suspended on trusses but rather huge transverse steel beams which braced all directions between all central core columns. The floors within and outside the core were not connected. They were distinct, diverse and totally separate construction systems.
The way most people visualize the 'floors' within the towers is akin to the FEMA and NOVA jokes, so that all you need do is somehow magically remove all the columns at that story, and the entire floor (from perimeter wall to perimeter wall) falls to the next floor... leading to the 'piston concept'.
This could not happen in the WTC because the core was built exactly the same as all traditional buildings - a 'post and beam' (post & lintel construction). Why can't you bring your mind to accept this?
Try to FORGET the WTC buildings for a moment, (Forget the suspended truss floors) and try to imagine HOW this mystical pancaking floors scenario would ever be possible (or even PLAUSIBLE) in a traditional post & beam building. IT CAN NOT HAPPEN (apart from the sequential blasting/cutting of each of the main support columns).
This initiation of collapse cannot even begin in a post & beam construction apart from the use of explosives (or until the day that all columns rust away to the point that become like swiss cheese and lose structural integrity).
IF this was the cause of the intergranular melting of solid steel columns, This is an absolute engineering emergency which needs addressing to understand how those columns just 'rusted away' in a mere 30 years...
Acid rain??? My goodness we should evacuate ALL high-rises immediately until we discover whether acid rain may have contributed to the fall of these buildings !!!
It is because of certain facts that I have come to believe that the towers were somehow demo'd.
Although from day 1, I was shocked to see the speed of fall and struggled to understand how 'such' would be possible... the NOVA 'bull'; sold me into believing that it would be possible...(for a few years)... IF the floors were suspended from perimeter wall to perimeter wall such as promoted by FEMA & NOVA..
The engineering facts of the core construction has absolutely refuted that 'belief' (for me).
Metamars - please try to convince Walters to change the parameters of his million-dollar challenge, because (as for myself - I KNOW for a FACT that it is possible to prove that it is impossible to collapse the core right to the ground, through any structural methods apart from the input of additional energy which was not contained in the building) to perform this miracle.
Oh, never mind... I get it... That's WHY he has worded his challenge as it stands. He wants to hold onto his million !
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
>Foxx shakes his head again<
Ehhhh... Merry Christian Christmas... or do you just believe in Santa Claus? (and 'elves')
Foxx,
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 03:30 AM)
Foxx,
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
Foxx, please recall that the nail and hammer analogy was not mine to begin with.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 04:09 AM)
Foxx, please recall that the nail and hammer analogy was not mine to begin with.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
The Bizarro-Zoo Theory lives
Quack!
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
The Bizarro-Zoo Theory lives
Quack!
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 03:30 AM)
Foxx,
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
Actually NIST has stated that if not for the loss of the insulation that the columns would not have reached temps high enough to cause the creep that did occur.
That is a statement that the buildings would have survived.
The Windsor had a concrete core which is inherently stronger in a fire than steel.
The Windsor did not have an aircraft shatter parts of the core or scour off fire insulation.
The Windsor fire involved floors closer to the top of the tower.
The Windsor collapses started at the top floors which meant much less falling mass.
But then you knew all of this didn't you.
Still holding onto the fallacious idea that the Windsor is a perfect model to compare with???
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
Actually NIST has stated that if not for the loss of the insulation that the columns would not have reached temps high enough to cause the creep that did occur.
That is a statement that the buildings would have survived.
The Windsor had a concrete core which is inherently stronger in a fire than steel.
The Windsor did not have an aircraft shatter parts of the core or scour off fire insulation.
The Windsor fire involved floors closer to the top of the tower.
The Windsor collapses started at the top floors which meant much less falling mass.
But then you knew all of this didn't you.
Still holding onto the fallacious idea that the Windsor is a perfect model to compare with???
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 04:09 AM)
Foxx, please recall that the nail and hammer analogy was not mine to begin with.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
Oh, by all means, I encourage interested parties to read that entire page of posts you link to. Thank you Foxx.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
YID --- you have reverted to the Bizarro-Zoo theory with your Amazing Hammer-on-the-Nail Theory.
Please calculate the forces applied to that nail by swinging a hammer down onto it, and then explain why we didn't see the asteroid hitting the top of the towers to apply similar {scaled} forces?
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?...15&pagenumber=1
Oh, by all means, I encourage interested parties to read that entire page of posts you link to. Thank you Foxx.
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 03:30 AM)
Foxx,
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
You can talk about "oxygen starved fires" all you want, but I notice you don't actually show ANY EVIDENCE that NIST's modeling of the fires was wrong.
They spent a lot of effort on that, since it was key to the structure's failure, but you just wave your hands and say "its impossible".
Well, NIST backs up their claims with extensive modeling and tests and shows the results.
What do you back your claims up with?
Nada.
Just more hand waving.
Arthur
You are still not getting it, YID. There is absolutely NO evidence that the alleged fire temps reached such imaginary computer-tweaked levels. NIST clearly admits this. Smoke is NOT fire - it is heat escaping the building.
You are still not getting it, YID. There is absolutely NO evidence that the alleged fire temps reached such imaginary computer-tweaked levels. NIST clearly admits this. Smoke is NOT fire - it is heat escaping the building.
The Windsor had a concrete core which is inherently stronger in a fire than steel.
inherently stronger? (according to the concrete industry spokespersons who forgot to mention concrete spalling in raging infernos). While it may be true that steel re-inforced concrete MAY survive better (in certain circumstances) they 'forget' to mention the partial 'LOCAL Collapse' of the steel-reinforced concrete core in the Windsor.
Round and round the mulberry Bush. Aircraft cause structural damage to steel. So does FIRE, given enough intensity, time, and heat. Smoke doesn't cause structural damage.
Round and round the mulberry Bush. Aircraft cause structural damage to steel. So does FIRE, given enough intensity, time, and heat. Smoke doesn't cause structural damage.
The Windsor fire involved floors closer to the top of the tower. The Windsor collapses started at the top floors which meant much less falling mass.
Nonsense, The Windsor 'local collapse' initiated from about mid-point of the building. I'll have to check the actual floor numbers.
I have never claimed that the Windsor (or any other building is exactly the same as the WTC). Actually, you miss the point of comparison.
The comparison is NOT 'structural' (even though the Windsor WAS a tube-within-a-tube design)... but rather the intensity and duration of 'steel-buckling' FIRES
Got any comparative pictures of 'steel-buckling' SMOKE ?
Up late again, YID ?
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
You can talk about "oxygen starved fires" all you want, but I notice you don't actually show ANY EVIDENCE that NIST's modeling of the fires was wrong.
They spent a lot of effort on that, since it was key to the structure's failure, but you just wave your hands and say "its impossible".
Well, NIST backs up their claims with extensive modeling and tests and shows the results.
What do you back your claims up with?
Nada.
Just more hand waving.
Arthur
QUOTE
by YID
Actually NIST has stated that if not for the loss of the insulation that the columns would not have reached temps high enough to cause the creep that did occur.
Actually NIST has stated that if not for the loss of the insulation that the columns would not have reached temps high enough to cause the creep that did occur.
You are still not getting it, YID. There is absolutely NO evidence that the alleged fire temps reached such imaginary computer-tweaked levels. NIST clearly admits this. Smoke is NOT fire - it is heat escaping the building.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by YID Actually NIST has stated that if not for the loss of the insulation that the columns would not have reached temps high enough to cause the creep that did occur. |
You are still not getting it, YID. There is absolutely NO evidence that the alleged fire temps reached such imaginary computer-tweaked levels. NIST clearly admits this. Smoke is NOT fire - it is heat escaping the building.
The Windsor had a concrete core which is inherently stronger in a fire than steel.
inherently stronger? (according to the concrete industry spokespersons who forgot to mention concrete spalling in raging infernos). While it may be true that steel re-inforced concrete MAY survive better (in certain circumstances) they 'forget' to mention the partial 'LOCAL Collapse' of the steel-reinforced concrete core in the Windsor.
QUOTE
The Windsor did not have an aircraft shatter parts of the core or scour off fire insulation.
Round and round the mulberry Bush. Aircraft cause structural damage to steel. So does FIRE, given enough intensity, time, and heat. Smoke doesn't cause structural damage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Windsor did not have an aircraft shatter parts of the core or scour off fire insulation. |
Round and round the mulberry Bush. Aircraft cause structural damage to steel. So does FIRE, given enough intensity, time, and heat. Smoke doesn't cause structural damage.
The Windsor fire involved floors closer to the top of the tower. The Windsor collapses started at the top floors which meant much less falling mass.
Nonsense, The Windsor 'local collapse' initiated from about mid-point of the building. I'll have to check the actual floor numbers.
QUOTE
Still holding onto the fallacious idea that the Windsor is a perfect model to compare with???
I have never claimed that the Windsor (or any other building is exactly the same as the WTC). Actually, you miss the point of comparison.
The comparison is NOT 'structural' (even though the Windsor WAS a tube-within-a-tube design)... but rather the intensity and duration of 'steel-buckling' FIRES
Got any comparative pictures of 'steel-buckling' SMOKE ?
Up late again, YID ?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 21 2005, 11:26 PM)
In this thread, which pages I'm no longer certain, but probably 20 or more pages back. Like I said, not everyone agrees with the conclusions posted. I do, because I accept the assumptions. Make different assumptions, you arrive at a different conclusion.
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
How are you calculating the energy needed to collapse the core and exterior columns during global collapse. Are they folding in the middle between each floor? I cannot figure out how to get the core to pancake without columns collapsing like a telescope. The energy needed to get a column to collapse straight down is unbelievably large. Here is a test, put a 4 inch long 1-inch diameter steel pipe in the Home Depot 50 ton press and see if you can make it collapse straight down( not only will it not collapse, it will not visibly compress either). It is not physically possible for the core to fall straight down without explosives or somehow melting the columns the entire length of the core.
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
How are you calculating the energy needed to collapse the core and exterior columns during global collapse. Are they folding in the middle between each floor? I cannot figure out how to get the core to pancake without columns collapsing like a telescope. The energy needed to get a column to collapse straight down is unbelievably large. Here is a test, put a 4 inch long 1-inch diameter steel pipe in the Home Depot 50 ton press and see if you can make it collapse straight down( not only will it not collapse, it will not visibly compress either). It is not physically possible for the core to fall straight down without explosives or somehow melting the columns the entire length of the core.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 22 2005, 04:57 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 21 2005, 11:26 PM)
In this thread, which pages I'm no longer certain, but probably 20 or more pages back. Like I said, not everyone agrees with the conclusions posted. I do, because I accept the assumptions. Make different assumptions, you arrive at a different conclusion.
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
How are you calculating the energy needed to collapse the core and exterior columns during global collapse. Are they folding in the middle between each floor? I cannot figure out how to get the core to pancake without columns collapsing like a telescope. The energy needed to get a column to collapse straight down is unbelievably large. Here is a test, put a 4 inch long 1-inch diameter steel pipe in the Home Depot 50 ton press and see if you can make it collapse straight down( not only will it not collapse, it will not visibly compress either). It is not physically possible for the core to fall straight down without explosives or somehow melting the columns the entire length of the core.
Try the same test with a 10ft pipe.
Arthur
Which is why I think we are at an impass.
Our ability to apply physics to the problem is limited by our knowledge of the structure at the point of the local collapse.
Saying "it couldn't happen" does not prove it couldn't.
Showing there is a "significant overload" that should cause a collapse, doesn't really prove the building couldn't have withstood it.
Arthur
How are you calculating the energy needed to collapse the core and exterior columns during global collapse. Are they folding in the middle between each floor? I cannot figure out how to get the core to pancake without columns collapsing like a telescope. The energy needed to get a column to collapse straight down is unbelievably large. Here is a test, put a 4 inch long 1-inch diameter steel pipe in the Home Depot 50 ton press and see if you can make it collapse straight down( not only will it not collapse, it will not visibly compress either). It is not physically possible for the core to fall straight down without explosives or somehow melting the columns the entire length of the core.
Try the same test with a 10ft pipe.
Arthur
Now THIS is a steel-buckling Raging Inferno...
Show me FIRE pics like this at WTC?
I'm talking FIRE, and your talking STRUCTURE.
(the same old circular arguement)
You are correct that they are intertwined, however BEFORE you arrive at the hypothesis of 'It was the fires'... you need to produce some pictures of COMPARATIVE FIRES (Intensity & Duration)...
You have been able to produce ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH... Nothing except SMOKE.
Ask my Why I'm sceptical?
I have 'EYES' !!!
Adoucette - OK... a 10 foot pipe? What diameter and wall thickness? Are we talking aluminum soda straws 10 feet long???... or 'pipes' with dimensions of 1 feet by 3 feet constructed of 5 inch thick steel???
Show me FIRE pics like this at WTC?
I'm talking FIRE, and your talking STRUCTURE.
(the same old circular arguement)
You are correct that they are intertwined, however BEFORE you arrive at the hypothesis of 'It was the fires'... you need to produce some pictures of COMPARATIVE FIRES (Intensity & Duration)...
You have been able to produce ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH... Nothing except SMOKE.
Ask my Why I'm sceptical?
I have 'EYES' !!!
Adoucette - OK... a 10 foot pipe? What diameter and wall thickness? Are we talking aluminum soda straws 10 feet long???... or 'pipes' with dimensions of 1 feet by 3 feet constructed of 5 inch thick steel???
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 03:30 AM)
Foxx,
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
You can talk about "oxygen starved fires" all you want, but I notice you don't actually show ANY EVIDENCE that NIST's modeling of the fires was wrong.
They spent a lot of effort on that, since it was key to the structure's failure, but you just wave your hands and say "its impossible".
Well, NIST backs up their claims with extensive modeling and tests and shows the results.
What do you back your claims up with?
Nada.
Just more hand waving.
Arthur
WRONG !
I back it up with common engineering sense.
I'd like to see a poll of all NIST engineers who worked on this 'project' (which was simply an 'attempt-to-prove' the official stance).
I suspect that MOST engineers believe there is something seriously wrong with the official story, but hey... like ad-ht (who-ever?), said...
'don't get ME involved in any controversies. 'Managers' don't wan't any more scandals'. (plus I have a job and 'family to support'... Don't get ME involved).
Sorry... too lazy to look up the actual quote, but the essence of what he said is there for all to see at the beginning of this thread.
Wake UP !!!
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
You can write "its IMPOSSIBLE" as many times as you like.
Saying it does not make it so.
You've not SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE that it is in fact impossible.
Using OTHER buildings where there was ONLY a fire as evidence that it wouldn't occur is bogus, as even NIST has said, without the impact (and resultant loss of insulation) the WTC wouldn't have collapsed.
Arthur
heh... you must have been sitting on the edge of your seat and waiting 'Arthur'
Nonsense, NIST said that even given the 'stuctural damage' done by the plane impacts... the buildings would have stood indefinately ('cept for them danged 'imaginary' Raging Infernos of smoke... produced from oxygen-starved fires). Same old circular argument and I'm tired of going round in circles.
I've got other things to do... Hope you get a real KEROSENE BBQ for Christmas
You can talk about "oxygen starved fires" all you want, but I notice you don't actually show ANY EVIDENCE that NIST's modeling of the fires was wrong.
They spent a lot of effort on that, since it was key to the structure's failure, but you just wave your hands and say "its impossible".
Well, NIST backs up their claims with extensive modeling and tests and shows the results.
What do you back your claims up with?
Nada.
Just more hand waving.
Arthur
WRONG !
I back it up with common engineering sense.
I'd like to see a poll of all NIST engineers who worked on this 'project' (which was simply an 'attempt-to-prove' the official stance).
I suspect that MOST engineers believe there is something seriously wrong with the official story, but hey... like ad-ht (who-ever?), said...
'don't get ME involved in any controversies. 'Managers' don't wan't any more scandals'. (plus I have a job and 'family to support'... Don't get ME involved).
Sorry... too lazy to look up the actual quote, but the essence of what he said is there for all to see at the beginning of this thread.
Wake UP !!!
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 04:09 AM)
Foxx, please recall that the nail and hammer analogy was not mine to begin with.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
yes, zocktoberfest.
you will need to fasten the bottom of the nail, so that it won't skid. and, then you will need to weld the hammer to the nail. and then, you will need to make a latice of nails representing spandrels and columns, about a hundred and ninetey vertical nails, and weld everything together.
okay, now, take you strike.
I know you have a deep problem with all analogies but that is hardly my problem.
zoctoberfest, good point. The nail need only be fastened at the lower end and on a surface that will not allow it to skid or penetrate.
Now that you have shown that the impact on the lower section columns will be off centerline does that suggest anything as to what would happen to them?
yes, zocktoberfest.
you will need to fasten the bottom of the nail, so that it won't skid. and, then you will need to weld the hammer to the nail. and then, you will need to make a latice of nails representing spandrels and columns, about a hundred and ninetey vertical nails, and weld everything together.
okay, now, take you strike.
Letter to Barbara Boxer
Senator Barbara Boxer recently stated "we need to pursue the truth about 9/11 wherever it leads. The truth should be the only priority. And we need the truth." However, she declared, this would probably have to be back-burnered for the immediate future: "My main focus now is to end the war in Iraq."
I wrote the following letter to the Senator. Please feel free to copy or modify it, or to write your own.
You can fax (the best method) Boxer at (415) 956-6701, call her at (202) 224-3553, or (worst method) email her at http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Dear Senator Boxer,
I am writing to thank you for stating that you will investigate 9/11 "wherever it leads". As someone who has researched 9/11 for several years, I can assure you that the Able Danger program is only the tip of the iceberg. Please have your staff review the evidence provided at www.911Proof.com to justify this assertion.
You also, apparently, stated that ending the war in Iraq is a higher priority for you. While I respect your intention -- and also think we should extricate ourselves from Iraq -- I would respectfully argue that waiting on your efforts regarding 9/11 would be a grave tactical mistake.
Specifically, the administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawl from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, I would argue that the Saddam-911 deception was necessary a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.
Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican action which it takes.
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of ther countries? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights? I believe not, not without first exposing that the Reichstag fire - the single thing which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.
Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
I would thus urge your staff to review www.911Proof.com and to pursue the truth wherever it leads AT THE SAME TIME that you work to end the war in Iraq.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...bara-boxer.html
Senator Barbara Boxer recently stated "we need to pursue the truth about 9/11 wherever it leads. The truth should be the only priority. And we need the truth." However, she declared, this would probably have to be back-burnered for the immediate future: "My main focus now is to end the war in Iraq."
I wrote the following letter to the Senator. Please feel free to copy or modify it, or to write your own.
You can fax (the best method) Boxer at (415) 956-6701, call her at (202) 224-3553, or (worst method) email her at http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
QUOTE
Dear Senator Boxer,
I am writing to thank you for stating that you will investigate 9/11 "wherever it leads". As someone who has researched 9/11 for several years, I can assure you that the Able Danger program is only the tip of the iceberg. Please have your staff review the evidence provided at www.911Proof.com to justify this assertion.
You also, apparently, stated that ending the war in Iraq is a higher priority for you. While I respect your intention -- and also think we should extricate ourselves from Iraq -- I would respectfully argue that waiting on your efforts regarding 9/11 would be a grave tactical mistake.
Specifically, the administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawl from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, I would argue that the Saddam-911 deception was necessary a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.
Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican action which it takes.
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of ther countries? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights? I believe not, not without first exposing that the Reichstag fire - the single thing which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.
Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
I would thus urge your staff to review www.911Proof.com and to pursue the truth wherever it leads AT THE SAME TIME that you work to end the war in Iraq.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...bara-boxer.html
It is telling that the NIST Report into the WTC7 collapse has not yet been released, EVEN IN DRAFT FORM!!
The scheduled timetable was for a draft to be published in October 2005, with a final report issued in December 2005. Looks like that is not going to happen.
Upon recently checking the NIST website to see if there was an update on any revised dates, I came across the page linked below.
For all serious 9/11 researchers (& apologists who continue to espouse the Official Story), go to http://wtc.nist.gov/wtc_public_comments.htm to see the comments from the following industry/academic experts:
Public Comments on Draft WTC Reports
David W. Darwin & Daniel W. Falconer, American Concrete Institute
James A. Thomas, ASTM International
Sara C. Yerkes, International Code Council
Robert C. Wilbe, National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards
Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association
Mary Ellen Saville, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Dave Johnston, BOMA International
Claude Cooper, Association of Major City/County Building Officials (AMCBO)
David P. Gustafson, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Ed Huston, The National Council of Structural Engineering Associations
Ray Sweeney, National Association of State Fire Marshals
Ganesh Rao, Underwriters Laboratories
Stephen E. Szoke , Portland Cement Association
Allen Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Andrew Goldberg, The American Institute of Architects
Mike Heimowitz, American Fire Safety Council
Russell E. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Francis J. Lombardi, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Saroj Bhol, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Samuel S. Dannaway, Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Gary P. Schaffer, The City of New York Law Department
Jon Magnusson, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Edward A. Donoghue, National Elevator Industry, Inc.
Thomas Young, Northwest Concrete Masonry Association
Andrew Allsop, Arup London
Conrad Izatt, Arup ATG
Barbara Lane, Arup Fire
John Lyle, Arup ATG
Jim Quiter, Arup ATG
Jeff Tubbs, Arup ATG
Faith Wainwright, Arup ATG
Shawn Bliss
Tim Matthews, AK Productions, LLC
Amitabha Basak, The Kuljian Corporation
Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services
Robert A. Neale, United States Fire Administration
David May
David J. Thomas, MSCE, P.E., Fairfax County Fire Prevention Division
Dr. Jonathan Shimshoni, Escape Rescue Systems Ltd.
Edwina Juillet
Robert Elliott, Fidelity Investements Life Insurance Co.
Genady P. Cherepanov
Harold Sprague, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
Prof. M.Y.H Bangash
James Quintiere, University of Maryland
Roger Peters, Baton Rouge, LA
Arthur Scheuerman, Ret. B.C. FDNY
Charles Jennings, John Jay College
Roger G. Morse AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates
Jeri L.S. Morey, Architect
Kim Clawson, Architect
Paul Conant
John G. Degenkolb, Fire Protection Engineer-Code Consultant
John Dowling, Construction Development Manager
Wayne Holmes, P.E., FSFPE
Paramasivam Jayachandran
Peter Josyph
Wally Parker
Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., The RJA Group
James P. Hurst, P.E., Carl F. Baldassara, P.E., Daniel J. O'Connor, P.E.
Tim Vellrath, P.E.
Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
Alan Reiss, former dir of WTC Port Authority of NY & NJ
Peter Szerlag
Richard C. Schulte
D. Alexander Floum
Dr. F.R. Greening
Eric Douglas
All The Truth's Newsletter
Nico Haupt
Rand Fanshier
Robert R. Grew (Retired Partner)
Larry Dorshkind
Sander Hicks
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
The scheduled timetable was for a draft to be published in October 2005, with a final report issued in December 2005. Looks like that is not going to happen.
Upon recently checking the NIST website to see if there was an update on any revised dates, I came across the page linked below.
For all serious 9/11 researchers (& apologists who continue to espouse the Official Story), go to http://wtc.nist.gov/wtc_public_comments.htm to see the comments from the following industry/academic experts:
Public Comments on Draft WTC Reports
David W. Darwin & Daniel W. Falconer, American Concrete Institute
James A. Thomas, ASTM International
Sara C. Yerkes, International Code Council
Robert C. Wilbe, National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards
Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association
Mary Ellen Saville, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Dave Johnston, BOMA International
Claude Cooper, Association of Major City/County Building Officials (AMCBO)
David P. Gustafson, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Ed Huston, The National Council of Structural Engineering Associations
Ray Sweeney, National Association of State Fire Marshals
Ganesh Rao, Underwriters Laboratories
Stephen E. Szoke , Portland Cement Association
Allen Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Andrew Goldberg, The American Institute of Architects
Mike Heimowitz, American Fire Safety Council
Russell E. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Francis J. Lombardi, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Saroj Bhol, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Samuel S. Dannaway, Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Gary P. Schaffer, The City of New York Law Department
Jon Magnusson, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Edward A. Donoghue, National Elevator Industry, Inc.
Thomas Young, Northwest Concrete Masonry Association
Andrew Allsop, Arup London
Conrad Izatt, Arup ATG
Barbara Lane, Arup Fire
John Lyle, Arup ATG
Jim Quiter, Arup ATG
Jeff Tubbs, Arup ATG
Faith Wainwright, Arup ATG
Shawn Bliss
Tim Matthews, AK Productions, LLC
Amitabha Basak, The Kuljian Corporation
Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services
Robert A. Neale, United States Fire Administration
David May
David J. Thomas, MSCE, P.E., Fairfax County Fire Prevention Division
Dr. Jonathan Shimshoni, Escape Rescue Systems Ltd.
Edwina Juillet
Robert Elliott, Fidelity Investements Life Insurance Co.
Genady P. Cherepanov
Harold Sprague, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
Prof. M.Y.H Bangash
James Quintiere, University of Maryland
Roger Peters, Baton Rouge, LA
Arthur Scheuerman, Ret. B.C. FDNY
Charles Jennings, John Jay College
Roger G. Morse AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates
Jeri L.S. Morey, Architect
Kim Clawson, Architect
Paul Conant
John G. Degenkolb, Fire Protection Engineer-Code Consultant
John Dowling, Construction Development Manager
Wayne Holmes, P.E., FSFPE
Paramasivam Jayachandran
Peter Josyph
Wally Parker
Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., The RJA Group
James P. Hurst, P.E., Carl F. Baldassara, P.E., Daniel J. O'Connor, P.E.
Tim Vellrath, P.E.
Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
Alan Reiss, former dir of WTC Port Authority of NY & NJ
Peter Szerlag
Richard C. Schulte
D. Alexander Floum
Dr. F.R. Greening
Eric Douglas
All The Truth's Newsletter
Nico Haupt
Rand Fanshier
Robert R. Grew (Retired Partner)
Larry Dorshkind
Sander Hicks
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 06:21 AM)
I back it up with common engineering sense.
I'd like to see a poll of all NIST engineers who worked on this 'project' (which was simply an 'attempt-to-prove' the official stance).
I suspect that MOST engineers believe there is something seriously wrong with the official story, but hey... like ad-ht (who-ever?), said...
'don't get ME involved in any controversies. 'Managers' don't wan't any more scandals'. (plus I have a job and 'family to support'... Don't get ME involved).
Sorry... too lazy to look up the actual quote, but the essence of what he said is there for all to see at the beginning of this thread.
Wake UP !!!
I guess what you think is COMMON, isn't as COMMON as you think.
What you "SUSPECT" is irrelevant.
What you can PROVE is.
Arthur
I'd like to see a poll of all NIST engineers who worked on this 'project' (which was simply an 'attempt-to-prove' the official stance).
I suspect that MOST engineers believe there is something seriously wrong with the official story, but hey... like ad-ht (who-ever?), said...
'don't get ME involved in any controversies. 'Managers' don't wan't any more scandals'. (plus I have a job and 'family to support'... Don't get ME involved).
Sorry... too lazy to look up the actual quote, but the essence of what he said is there for all to see at the beginning of this thread.
Wake UP !!!
I guess what you think is COMMON, isn't as COMMON as you think.
What you "SUSPECT" is irrelevant.
What you can PROVE is.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 22 2005, 05:37 AM)
Now THIS is a steel-buckling Raging Inferno...
Show me FIRE pics like this at WTC?
I'm talking FIRE, and your talking STRUCTURE.
(the same old circular arguement)
You are correct that they are intertwined, however BEFORE you arrive at the hypothesis of 'It was the fires'... you need to produce some pictures of COMPARATIVE FIRES (Intensity & Duration)...
You have been able to produce ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH... Nothing except SMOKE.
Ask my Why I'm sceptical?
I have 'EYES' !!!
Use your EYES to see that this building is ~ 1/5th the square footage of the WTC tower. Realize that a fire of this magnitude could have been burning inside the WTC towers and STILL only smoke might be visible at the windows. The fact of the matter, the NIST report SHOWS the amount and extent of buckling of the structure prior to failure which is PROOF that there was INDEED a very hot fire burning inside the structure.
Use your EYES to see that the fire is consuming the TOP of this building, thus there is no massive object above it to FALL and begin a global collapse.
Use your EYES to see that the fire in this building is consuming much of the loading, yet the top of it does ultimately collapse.
Use your EYES to see that you CAN'T see what is happening at the concrete reinforced core of this building, only the outside.
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that the Concrete reinforced columns in this building will last MUCH longer than the steel columns within the WTC since they had lost most of their FIRE PROTECTION.
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that these two fires are in NO WAY comparable.
Use your COMMON SENSE to realize that by comparing them you are spreading disinformation.
Arthur
Show me FIRE pics like this at WTC?
I'm talking FIRE, and your talking STRUCTURE.
(the same old circular arguement)
You are correct that they are intertwined, however BEFORE you arrive at the hypothesis of 'It was the fires'... you need to produce some pictures of COMPARATIVE FIRES (Intensity & Duration)...
You have been able to produce ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH... Nothing except SMOKE.
Ask my Why I'm sceptical?
I have 'EYES' !!!
Use your EYES to see that this building is ~ 1/5th the square footage of the WTC tower. Realize that a fire of this magnitude could have been burning inside the WTC towers and STILL only smoke might be visible at the windows. The fact of the matter, the NIST report SHOWS the amount and extent of buckling of the structure prior to failure which is PROOF that there was INDEED a very hot fire burning inside the structure.
Use your EYES to see that the fire is consuming the TOP of this building, thus there is no massive object above it to FALL and begin a global collapse.
Use your EYES to see that the fire in this building is consuming much of the loading, yet the top of it does ultimately collapse.
Use your EYES to see that you CAN'T see what is happening at the concrete reinforced core of this building, only the outside.
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that the Concrete reinforced columns in this building will last MUCH longer than the steel columns within the WTC since they had lost most of their FIRE PROTECTION.
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that these two fires are in NO WAY comparable.
Use your COMMON SENSE to realize that by comparing them you are spreading disinformation.
Arthur
QUOTE
Nonsense, The Windsor 'local collapse' initiated from about mid-point of the building. I'll have to check the actual floor numbers
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
Does COMMON SENSE suggest that had such a fire, as in Foxx's Madrid picture, been raging in the WTC buildings, as the Arthur-ian legend would have it, survivors would have been seen in its location and lived to tell the tale?
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
Few people, if any survived from those floors or above to tell anyone anything.
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 05:12 PM)
Few people, if any survived from those floors or above to tell anyone anything.
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
YID, one too many survived for the Arthurian legends credibility.
Experiment -
1 -Place steel poker in electric toaster
2 -Place tongue alongside poker in toaster.
3 -Leave for 30 minutes
4 -Remove steel poker and test for malleability.
5-Remove tongue - this may require turning toaster upside down.
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
YID, one too many survived for the Arthurian legends credibility.
Experiment -
1 -Place steel poker in electric toaster
2 -Place tongue alongside poker in toaster.
3 -Leave for 30 minutes
4 -Remove steel poker and test for malleability.
5-Remove tongue - this may require turning toaster upside down.
QUOTE (brian+Dec 22 2005, 04:25 PM)
Does COMMON SENSE suggest that had such a fire, as in Foxx's Madrid picture, been raging in the WTC buildings, as the Arthur-ian legend would have it, survivors would have been seen in its location and lived to tell the tale?
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
I concur!
There was no "raging inferno" at the WTC, there was "raging smoke".
I'm off on holidays now, merry xmas!
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
I concur!
There was no "raging inferno" at the WTC, there was "raging smoke".
I'm off on holidays now, merry xmas!
QUOTE (Sinclair+Dec 22 2005, 01:09 PM)
It is telling that the NIST Report into the WTC7 collapse has not yet been released, EVEN IN DRAFT FORM!!
The scheduled timetable was for a draft to be published in October 2005, with a final report issued in December 2005. Looks like that is not going to happen.
Upon recently checking the NIST website to see if there was an update on any revised dates, I came across the page linked below.
For all serious 9/11 researchers (& apologists who continue to espouse the Official Story), go to http://wtc.nist.gov/wtc_public_comments.htm to see the comments from the following industry/academic experts:
Public Comments on Draft WTC Reports
David W. Darwin & Daniel W. Falconer, American Concrete Institute
James A. Thomas, ASTM International
Sara C. Yerkes, International Code Council
Robert C. Wilbe, National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards
Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association
Mary Ellen Saville, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Dave Johnston, BOMA International
Claude Cooper, Association of Major City/County Building Officials (AMCBO)
David P. Gustafson, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Ed Huston, The National Council of Structural Engineering Associations
Ray Sweeney, National Association of State Fire Marshals
Ganesh Rao, Underwriters Laboratories
Stephen E. Szoke , Portland Cement Association
Allen Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Andrew Goldberg, The American Institute of Architects
Mike Heimowitz, American Fire Safety Council
Russell E. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Francis J. Lombardi, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Saroj Bhol, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Samuel S. Dannaway, Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Gary P. Schaffer, The City of New York Law Department
Jon Magnusson, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Edward A. Donoghue, National Elevator Industry, Inc.
Thomas Young, Northwest Concrete Masonry Association
Andrew Allsop, Arup London
Conrad Izatt, Arup ATG
Barbara Lane, Arup Fire
John Lyle, Arup ATG
Jim Quiter, Arup ATG
Jeff Tubbs, Arup ATG
Faith Wainwright, Arup ATG
Shawn Bliss
Tim Matthews, AK Productions, LLC
Amitabha Basak, The Kuljian Corporation
Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services
Robert A. Neale, United States Fire Administration
David May
David J. Thomas, MSCE, P.E., Fairfax County Fire Prevention Division
Dr. Jonathan Shimshoni, Escape Rescue Systems Ltd.
Edwina Juillet
Robert Elliott, Fidelity Investements Life Insurance Co.
Genady P. Cherepanov
Harold Sprague, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
Prof. M.Y.H Bangash
James Quintiere, University of Maryland
Roger Peters, Baton Rouge, LA
Arthur Scheuerman, Ret. B.C. FDNY
Charles Jennings, John Jay College
Roger G. Morse AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates
Jeri L.S. Morey, Architect
Kim Clawson, Architect
Paul Conant
John G. Degenkolb, Fire Protection Engineer-Code Consultant
John Dowling, Construction Development Manager
Wayne Holmes, P.E., FSFPE
Paramasivam Jayachandran
Peter Josyph
Wally Parker
Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., The RJA Group
James P. Hurst, P.E., Carl F. Baldassara, P.E., Daniel J. O'Connor, P.E.
Tim Vellrath, P.E.
Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
Alan Reiss, former dir of WTC Port Authority of NY & NJ
Peter Szerlag
Richard C. Schulte
D. Alexander Floum
Dr. F.R. Greening
Eric Douglas
All The Truth's Newsletter
Nico Haupt
Rand Fanshier
Robert R. Grew (Retired Partner)
Larry Dorshkind
Sander Hicks
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
This one was out in June 2004. Did you miss it or just ignoring it?
Yes, a long list of comments on the NIST reports. How many of them specifically express concern about the explosives postulated by the non-believers in the official record?
Let's see, the first four all commend, or congratulate NIST.
G.P.Cherepanov disputes the NIST and B-Z findings, because he has, IHHO, a better solution and one in which he suggests but does not actually state could only attribute explosives to the collapse mechanism. However in reading his paper it seems he is stating that the entire struture was fractured in 0.05 seconds and that is why it fell at free fall.
Of course it was actually no faster than 10% greater then free fall and if what he says is true then the entire building should have fallen at the same time. The videos show that the collapse was progressive and not all at once.
There is in fact quite a mix of comments here. I have not read all of them, have you?
The scheduled timetable was for a draft to be published in October 2005, with a final report issued in December 2005. Looks like that is not going to happen.
Upon recently checking the NIST website to see if there was an update on any revised dates, I came across the page linked below.
For all serious 9/11 researchers (& apologists who continue to espouse the Official Story), go to http://wtc.nist.gov/wtc_public_comments.htm to see the comments from the following industry/academic experts:
Public Comments on Draft WTC Reports
David W. Darwin & Daniel W. Falconer, American Concrete Institute
James A. Thomas, ASTM International
Sara C. Yerkes, International Code Council
Robert C. Wilbe, National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards
Gary Keith, National Fire Protection Association
Mary Ellen Saville, Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Dave Johnston, BOMA International
Claude Cooper, Association of Major City/County Building Officials (AMCBO)
David P. Gustafson, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Ed Huston, The National Council of Structural Engineering Associations
Ray Sweeney, National Association of State Fire Marshals
Ganesh Rao, Underwriters Laboratories
Stephen E. Szoke , Portland Cement Association
Allen Weidman, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Andrew Goldberg, The American Institute of Architects
Mike Heimowitz, American Fire Safety Council
Russell E. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc.
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Francis J. Lombardi, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Saroj Bhol, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Samuel S. Dannaway, Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Gary P. Schaffer, The City of New York Law Department
Jon Magnusson, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Edward A. Donoghue, National Elevator Industry, Inc.
Thomas Young, Northwest Concrete Masonry Association
Andrew Allsop, Arup London
Conrad Izatt, Arup ATG
Barbara Lane, Arup Fire
John Lyle, Arup ATG
Jim Quiter, Arup ATG
Jeff Tubbs, Arup ATG
Faith Wainwright, Arup ATG
Shawn Bliss
Tim Matthews, AK Productions, LLC
Amitabha Basak, The Kuljian Corporation
Jake Pauls, Jake Pauls Consulting Services
Robert A. Neale, United States Fire Administration
David May
David J. Thomas, MSCE, P.E., Fairfax County Fire Prevention Division
Dr. Jonathan Shimshoni, Escape Rescue Systems Ltd.
Edwina Juillet
Robert Elliott, Fidelity Investements Life Insurance Co.
Genady P. Cherepanov
Harold Sprague, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation
Prof. M.Y.H Bangash
James Quintiere, University of Maryland
Roger Peters, Baton Rouge, LA
Arthur Scheuerman, Ret. B.C. FDNY
Charles Jennings, John Jay College
Roger G. Morse AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates
Jeri L.S. Morey, Architect
Kim Clawson, Architect
Paul Conant
John G. Degenkolb, Fire Protection Engineer-Code Consultant
John Dowling, Construction Development Manager
Wayne Holmes, P.E., FSFPE
Paramasivam Jayachandran
Peter Josyph
Wally Parker
Randolph W. Tucker, P.E., The RJA Group
James P. Hurst, P.E., Carl F. Baldassara, P.E., Daniel J. O'Connor, P.E.
Tim Vellrath, P.E.
Reijo Yli-Karjanmaa
Alan Reiss, former dir of WTC Port Authority of NY & NJ
Peter Szerlag
Richard C. Schulte
D. Alexander Floum
Dr. F.R. Greening
Eric Douglas
All The Truth's Newsletter
Nico Haupt
Rand Fanshier
Robert R. Grew (Retired Partner)
Larry Dorshkind
Sander Hicks
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
This one was out in June 2004. Did you miss it or just ignoring it?
Yes, a long list of comments on the NIST reports. How many of them specifically express concern about the explosives postulated by the non-believers in the official record?
Let's see, the first four all commend, or congratulate NIST.
G.P.Cherepanov disputes the NIST and B-Z findings, because he has, IHHO, a better solution and one in which he suggests but does not actually state could only attribute explosives to the collapse mechanism. However in reading his paper it seems he is stating that the entire struture was fractured in 0.05 seconds and that is why it fell at free fall.
Of course it was actually no faster than 10% greater then free fall and if what he says is true then the entire building should have fallen at the same time. The videos show that the collapse was progressive and not all at once.
There is in fact quite a mix of comments here. I have not read all of them, have you?
QUOTE (Guest_Temp+Dec 22 2005, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Dec 22 2005, 04:25 PM)
Does COMMON SENSE suggest that had such a fire, as in Foxx's Madrid picture, been raging in the WTC buildings, as the Arthur-ian legend would have it, survivors would have been seen in its location and lived to tell the tale?
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
I concur!
There was no "raging inferno" at the WTC, there was "raging smoke".
I'm off on holidays now, merry xmas!
So 111 people jumped to their certain death to avoid "raging smoke"?
The sides of the building BOWED IN over 50 inches because of "raging smoke"?
The NIST report gives a very detailed accounting for the location and intensity of the fires, which part of it do you dispute and why?
Arthur
Edit - the fireman at the crash level reckoning that the fires could be handled with a couple of hoses would have been a trifle optimistic eh?
adoucette, its the way you tell em - your a scream
I concur!
There was no "raging inferno" at the WTC, there was "raging smoke".
I'm off on holidays now, merry xmas!
So 111 people jumped to their certain death to avoid "raging smoke"?
The sides of the building BOWED IN over 50 inches because of "raging smoke"?
The NIST report gives a very detailed accounting for the location and intensity of the fires, which part of it do you dispute and why?
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Dec 22 2005, 05:26 PM)
YID, one too many survived for the Arthurian legends credibility.
According to NIST none of the 1,355 people at or above the point of impact in WTC 1 survived.
According to a post in this thread, one person did survive, because she got into an express elevator that was still working and rode it down as soon as the plane hit.
I'm assuming her story is true.
If so, then no one except her survived above the impact point.
Now probably about 1,000 people who were at or above the point of impact did survive the initial impact. But if the 111 jumpers and the diminishing trend of 911 calls is any indication there were probably not that many survivors left at the time of the collapse. I'd assume most were overcome by the toxic fumes/smoke and heat.
Arthur
According to NIST none of the 1,355 people at or above the point of impact in WTC 1 survived.
According to a post in this thread, one person did survive, because she got into an express elevator that was still working and rode it down as soon as the plane hit.
I'm assuming her story is true.
If so, then no one except her survived above the impact point.
Now probably about 1,000 people who were at or above the point of impact did survive the initial impact. But if the 111 jumpers and the diminishing trend of 911 calls is any indication there were probably not that many survivors left at the time of the collapse. I'd assume most were overcome by the toxic fumes/smoke and heat.
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Dec 22 2005, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Dec 22 2005, 05:12 PM)
Few people, if any survived from those floors or above to tell anyone anything.
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
YID, one too many survived for the Arthurian legends credibility.
Experiment -
1 -Place steel poker in electric toaster
2 -Place tongue alongside poker in toaster.
3 -Leave for 30 minutes
4 -Remove steel poker and test for malleability.
5-Remove tongue - this may require turning toaster upside down.
Yes, ONE person IIRC did exit past the impact floors. It was afterhe went through that the fire spread and cut off that one remaining exit route.
Now please point to the place in any report that states that all floors were completely on fire at all times. Please also explain to me how anyone would have survived if they were anywhere close to the fireball explosion. After the fireball the fire spread through the floors. Some offices did not get involved. It seems that at least one woman survived until the fire moved past where she was but it is also very obvious that she had no way to exit the building or she would not have been standing there in the impact hole.
Same goes for all those who jumped. If there was any other way out they would have taken it. That or it is a case of a cult mass suicide.
Your test makes little sense even in a sarcastic sense. You smoking Foxx's tabbacco?
Show of hands?
How many Americans here are "crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists"?
I'm not.
Don't know anyone that is actually.
While I'm sure there ARE some, I hardly think the average person gives it much thought. I sincerely doubt it affects their day to day lives.
Arthur
I re-iterate that the firefighters who made it to the 78th floor were on the lowest and least fire involved of the fire floors.
YID, one too many survived for the Arthurian legends credibility.
Experiment -
1 -Place steel poker in electric toaster
2 -Place tongue alongside poker in toaster.
3 -Leave for 30 minutes
4 -Remove steel poker and test for malleability.
5-Remove tongue - this may require turning toaster upside down.
Yes, ONE person IIRC did exit past the impact floors. It was afterhe went through that the fire spread and cut off that one remaining exit route.
Now please point to the place in any report that states that all floors were completely on fire at all times. Please also explain to me how anyone would have survived if they were anywhere close to the fireball explosion. After the fireball the fire spread through the floors. Some offices did not get involved. It seems that at least one woman survived until the fire moved past where she was but it is also very obvious that she had no way to exit the building or she would not have been standing there in the impact hole.
Same goes for all those who jumped. If there was any other way out they would have taken it. That or it is a case of a cult mass suicide.
Your test makes little sense even in a sarcastic sense. You smoking Foxx's tabbacco?
The "impact > fire> gravity driven" collapse scenario has TWO phases that have to be examined. The first is the degradation of the support structures in the impact zone. We've done that one to death, IMHO. The second is the response of the lower core to the initial impact. This one needs some work but it is ultimately the more revealing of the two. It's interesting how much posting and general information is devoted to the inherent "swaying" characteristics designed into the building. So much so, that a shock absorption system was needed to prevent the workers from feeling sea sick. BUT, when the misaligned, core to core impact occurs, we forget about all that "sway"; all that flex, shift and give. Now we have a rigid system that can't get out the way of schneibsters' accelerated mass potential and takes every last joule on its' glass chin. Why wasn't there a momentary pause (at the very least), as the building loaded up the force through deformation of and heat into, its' superstructure? Why didn't you see any repulsive sway reaction? If the spine of the lower core isn't broken immediately, the upper section has time to rotate itself off the top of the building. Why do you think those helicopters were flying around the south tower so frantically on the "eye witness" video? The south tower wasn't following the script; it was ad-libbing (a premature demolition blast?). If the upper section fell off, it would be very difficult to blame the eventual collapse on the plane impact. The command center needed to know, via the eyes in the sky, when to pull the south tower before it literately and figuratively lost its' head.
QUOTE
Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists
Show of hands?
How many Americans here are "crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists"?
I'm not.
Don't know anyone that is actually.
While I'm sure there ARE some, I hardly think the average person gives it much thought. I sincerely doubt it affects their day to day lives.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+)
Why do you think those helicopters were flying around the south tower so frantically on the "eye witness" video? The south tower wasn't following the script; it was add-lipping. If the upper section fell off and how could it not, it would be very difficult to blame the eventual collapse on the plane impact.
OK, what could those helos POSSIBLY do to affect the way the towers fell?
This should be good.
I'm expecting a 'mini' nuke theory myself.
Arthur
OK, what could those helos POSSIBLY do to affect the way the towers fell?
This should be good.
I'm expecting a 'mini' nuke theory myself.
Arthur
YID posts -
Quote
"Yes, a long list of comments on the NIST reports. How many of them specifically express concern about the explosives postulated by the non-believers in the official record?"
A brief look at some of the list shows at least 9 commenting directly or indirectly on the use of explosives -
Nico Haupt - All The Truth - Both Karjanmaa's - Sander Hicks - Rand Fahnier - Larry Dorshkind - D Alexander Floum - Wally Parker
More interesting is have Professor Jones Hoffman etc tried to add their papers to this list.
Perhaps Andrew Johnson can add his contribution that started this thread.
Quote
"Yes, a long list of comments on the NIST reports. How many of them specifically express concern about the explosives postulated by the non-believers in the official record?"
A brief look at some of the list shows at least 9 commenting directly or indirectly on the use of explosives -
Nico Haupt - All The Truth - Both Karjanmaa's - Sander Hicks - Rand Fahnier - Larry Dorshkind - D Alexander Floum - Wally Parker
More interesting is have Professor Jones Hoffman etc tried to add their papers to this list.
Perhaps Andrew Johnson can add his contribution that started this thread.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 07:11 PM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+)
Why do you think those helicopters were flying around the south tower so frantically on the "eye witness" video? The south tower wasn't following the script; it was add-lipping. If the upper section fell off and how could it not, it would be very difficult to blame the eventual collapse on the plane impact.
OK, what could those helos POSSIBLY do to affect the way the towers fell?
This should be good.
I'm expecting a 'mini' nuke theory myself.
Arthur
Obviously they hovered about on the side the tower was leaning towards so as to push it up straight again.
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
----------
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
----------
Originally posted by Adoucette
Realize that a fire of this magnitude could have been burning inside the WTC towers and STILL only smoke might be visible at the windows.
Nonsense.
1 --- Fires do not hide inside buildings. A fire ALWAYS follows the smoke to the windows. This is BECAUSE the most readily available fuel is the preheated and only partially burned soot particulates in the smoke. The darker the smoke, the more 'available' fuel is in that smoke. IF there were raging infernos (or any kind of substantial fires within the building) the flames would be burning after that ideal fuel right out the windows. This is WHY in forest fire infernos the flames can sometimes extend hundreds of feet into the sky. What do you think those flames are feeding upon hundreds of feet ABOVE the tops of the trees? The only-partially combusted smoke. That is also WHY you always see flames leaping out the windows in major fires - the flames are lapping up as much of that optimumly mixed fuel-air combination formed by smoke.
2 --- Fires do not hide inside buildings. The last I heard raging fires give off great amounts of light. Now look behind the woman in the gaping hole... it's Pitch Black. No light from any visible flames at all. Even IF the fire was not directly behind the woman in the photo and was off to the side, it would be providing some light rather than just this pitch black hole. I'm sure you will want to say the fire was 'hiding' in the core. The 'core' was only 35 feet behind the woman. If there was a raging fire in the core, there is no question that there would at least be light behind the woman...
3 --- Fires do not hide in buildings. It couldn't 'hide' in the core because there was essentially nothing but steel, gyprock and concrete stairs in the core except at the sky-lobbies where core space was reclaimed from the elevator shafts which ended at the sky-lobbies (44th & 78th floors). I have yet to read any witness reports from survivors of great infernos burnng in the core. Most of the blockages of stairwells was gyprock which had been smashed from the walls and were blocking the exits. If the burnables from the plane and offices were pushed into the central core this fuel would have fallen through the open elevator shafts down to the 78th floor sky-lobby. (firefighters reached this area and reported only a couple of 'spotty fires' at that level.
LIES !!!
NIST SPECULATES... on these imaginary fires, and had to tweak their models to greater values in order to model postulated infernos. There is no PROOF in speculation. If speculation is PROOF to you, you are looking at the world through blinders.
LIES !!!
NIST SPECULATES... on these imaginary fires, and had to tweak their models to greater values in order to model postulated infernos. There is no PROOF in speculation. If speculation is PROOF to you, you are looking at the world through blinders.
by Adoucette
Use your EYES to see that the fire is consuming the TOP of this building, thus there is no massive object above it to FALL and begin a global collapse.
Of course there WAS... (comparatively speaking).
The Windsor fire broke out on the 11th floor (from the top of the building). That leaves 10 stories above as a 'mass' to act as the mythical pile-driver. There was only about 17 stories above the impact zone at WTC 1 (ONLY six stories MORE than at Windsor), plus the core of the WTC was far more robust than that of the Windsor, so it should have easily supported those few (6 - 7) 'extra' stories.
My eyes see that in the Windsor, all available fuel was incinerated for over 18 hours pouring heat into the steel columns and truss floors which after 18 HRS was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point of collapse.
They must have been using better steel than WTC steel, which allegedly weakened in less that 2 hours of heat input. Only the core columns in the Windsor were steel-reinforced concrete - The perimeter walls were the same as in the WTC - STEEL.
You still need FIRE (FLAMES) to generate the required heat input, and there is no evidence of that. Raging SMOKE does not cause structural damage to steel.
NIST claims the office burnables were consumed in a matter of 15 - 20 minutes, and then the fires moved to other locations. 15 - 20 minutes time is NOT ENOUGH to raise the heat input levels to adjacent steel columns, even IF they were totally devoid of fireproofing.
My eyes see that in the Windsor, all available fuel was incinerated for over 18 hours pouring heat into the steel columns and truss floors which after 18 HRS was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point of collapse.
They must have been using better steel than WTC steel, which allegedly weakened in less that 2 hours of heat input. Only the core columns in the Windsor were steel-reinforced concrete - The perimeter walls were the same as in the WTC - STEEL.
You still need FIRE (FLAMES) to generate the required heat input, and there is no evidence of that. Raging SMOKE does not cause structural damage to steel.
NIST claims the office burnables were consumed in a matter of 15 - 20 minutes, and then the fires moved to other locations. 15 - 20 minutes time is NOT ENOUGH to raise the heat input levels to adjacent steel columns, even IF they were totally devoid of fireproofing.
by Adoucette
Use your EYES to see that you CAN'T see what is happening at the concrete reinforced core of this building, only the outside.
Exactly my point - the flames are so bright, burning up the fuel-air SMOKE leaving the building you can't see past this brilliance into the core of the Madrid fire.
We have been over this dozens of times - engineers specifically looked for (and FOUND) columns and steel from the fire zone.
They found it and picked out the 'most representative' pieces they could find. The fireproofing on these steel pieces was non-existant - only the paint primer was left - This is the empirical PROOF - NO Temps higher than 250 degrees.
Let NIST speculate and postulate all they like about theories which CAN NOT be proven. There IS NO EVIDENCE of heat affecting those columns greater than 250 degrees (and this empirical 'PROOF' must be taken as confirmation of all the above).
We have been over this dozens of times - engineers specifically looked for (and FOUND) columns and steel from the fire zone.
They found it and picked out the 'most representative' pieces they could find. The fireproofing on these steel pieces was non-existant - only the paint primer was left - This is the empirical PROOF - NO Temps higher than 250 degrees.
Let NIST speculate and postulate all they like about theories which CAN NOT be proven. There IS NO EVIDENCE of heat affecting those columns greater than 250 degrees (and this empirical 'PROOF' must be taken as confirmation of all the above).
by Adoucette
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that these two fires are in NO WAY comparable. Use your COMMON SENSE to realize that by comparing them you are spreading disinformation.
Common Sense AND empirical proof says the evidence for FIRE was blatantly obvious at the Windsor, but that there is NO REAL EVIDENCE at all for raging FIRES at WTC...(Only raging SMOKE), and those who use sophist postulations in attempts to prove there were Amazing Hiding Fires at WTC are disinformationists.
This means YOU.
madrid core -
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
It may be 'obvious' to you that the core of the WTC is more robust or better able to withstand fire than that of the Windsor but I have yet to see you back that up with any comparison of their materials or construction style. You will get around to that soon right?
Se post below.
Show of hands?
How many Americans here are "crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists"?
I'm MUCH more fearful of those in here whose job is to sophisize(??), obfuscate, and outright lie on behalf of the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 (actually, I'm much more fearful of the reason these people are here, not the people themselves).
Show of hands on this sentimentality?
Why would I want to do that? I agree he should be impeached for illegal spying on American citizens and for going to war under false pretenses.
Now what does this poll(using the term rather loosely as has been pointed out) have to do with 9/11?
Why would I want to do that? I agree he should be impeached for illegal spying on American citizens and for going to war under false pretenses.
Now what does this poll(using the term rather loosely as has been pointed out) have to do with 9/11?
YID, thanks for those links to the fire-engineering sites regarding the Edificio Windsor. A lot of relevant information contained there.
Have you decided to join the likes of 'Coastal' (the 'Quack') now !!/???
Remember that I always used to chide him about posting links to 'inside' information which actually decimate positions he has held?
Great Job on finding those links. I will use them extensively when I get around to responding to your above posts (and Adoucettes) regarding Windsor tower comparisons.
Great illustrations which help to understand the fire spread at Windsor (that I hadn't run across before)... didn't I say the collapse was to about mid-point of the building?
You must have skipped this part of the article then Foxx.
The collapses occured in bits and pieces, a little at a time specifically because the central core is constructed of concrete columns which DID not fail.
OK, what could those helos POSSIBLY do to affect the way the towers fell?
This should be good.
I'm expecting a 'mini' nuke theory myself.
Arthur
Obviously they hovered about on the side the tower was leaning towards so as to push it up straight again.
Arthurian or Nist legends?
"According to NIST none of the 1,355 people at or above the point of impact in WTC 1 survived."
If you listen to the Baldizzi interview she talks of being hauled into the elevator and guesses "at about 10 people" being in it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_core_baldizzi.html
Quote-
"The NIST report gives a very detailed accounting for the location and intensity of the fires, which part of it do you dispute and why?"
adoucette, can you explain HOW NIST manages to give a detailed account of the fire and show where?
The Collapse of WTC 1:
Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html
"According to NIST none of the 1,355 people at or above the point of impact in WTC 1 survived."
If you listen to the Baldizzi interview she talks of being hauled into the elevator and guesses "at about 10 people" being in it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_core_baldizzi.html
Quote-
"The NIST report gives a very detailed accounting for the location and intensity of the fires, which part of it do you dispute and why?"
adoucette, can you explain HOW NIST manages to give a detailed account of the fire and show where?
The Collapse of WTC 1:
Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html
WTC 1: There Was No Inferno
"Twenty minutes after Flight 11 hit WTC 1 survivors in the impact area were attempting to leave the building. There should have been no survivors between floors 93 and 98 if an 800ºC inferno was raging at the core of WTC 1."
--"Twelve employees of the American Bureau of Shipping, a nonprofit group that promotes safety and property protection at sea, were on the 91st floor of the north tower when the first plane hit almost exactly at their level.
But they were on the northwest corner of the building. The bulk of the plane's fuselage entered the building about 100 feet south of them. The plane's left wing, banked toward the ground, wiped out the east side of the floor. But the plane's right wing, banked toward the sky, sliced through the office above them.
George Sleigh had been at work at ABS since about 7:30 a.m. He was in his cubicle, surrounded by technical shipping manuals.
"I heard this unusual sound. A roaring sound," he said. "As I looked up I saw the plane. I thought: 'This guy is really low.' "
A wing flashed past his eyes, followed by the plane's smooth belly. Then the world caved in. Down the hall from ABS, an office was obliterated. Above them, Marsh USA Inc., an insurance and risk management firm that occupied the 93rd through 100th floors, was hit badly. It would later report as many as 400 workers missing.
Sleigh, who occupied the easternmost desk in the ABS office, was buried under a pile of ceiling tiles and bookshelves. His colleagues were fine, as surprised they were still alive as they were that a plane had just crashed into their building. They dug Sleigh out, and they all escaped." --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
"Twenty minutes after Flight 11 hit WTC 1 survivors in the impact area were attempting to leave the building. There should have been no survivors between floors 93 and 98 if an 800ºC inferno was raging at the core of WTC 1."
--"Twelve employees of the American Bureau of Shipping, a nonprofit group that promotes safety and property protection at sea, were on the 91st floor of the north tower when the first plane hit almost exactly at their level.
But they were on the northwest corner of the building. The bulk of the plane's fuselage entered the building about 100 feet south of them. The plane's left wing, banked toward the ground, wiped out the east side of the floor. But the plane's right wing, banked toward the sky, sliced through the office above them.
George Sleigh had been at work at ABS since about 7:30 a.m. He was in his cubicle, surrounded by technical shipping manuals.
"I heard this unusual sound. A roaring sound," he said. "As I looked up I saw the plane. I thought: 'This guy is really low.' "
A wing flashed past his eyes, followed by the plane's smooth belly. Then the world caved in. Down the hall from ABS, an office was obliterated. Above them, Marsh USA Inc., an insurance and risk management firm that occupied the 93rd through 100th floors, was hit badly. It would later report as many as 400 workers missing.
Sleigh, who occupied the easternmost desk in the ABS office, was buried under a pile of ceiling tiles and bookshelves. His colleagues were fine, as surprised they were still alive as they were that a plane had just crashed into their building. They dug Sleigh out, and they all escaped." --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html
Brian, the lowest IMPACT floor was 94. Of course people survived BELOW the point of impact, and apparently whoever was lucky enough to be in that freight elevator.
Everyone else perished. 111 souls jumped rather than be burned to death. They couldn't have known the tower was going to fall, but they DID know they were going to die from the fire. I'd say one has to be pretty certain of that to jump, wouldn't you?
There was no escape from the floors at and above where the plane impacted as the stairwells were all blocked.
NIST did EXTENSIVE modeling of the impact and the fires. They set fire to the same type of workstations being used inside the buildings to see how they performed. They correlated this to the extensive video evidence of the fires spread. Its all laid out quite well in the Final NIST report. So I ask again, what part of the NIST description of the raging fires do you dispute and why?
Arthur
Everyone else perished. 111 souls jumped rather than be burned to death. They couldn't have known the tower was going to fall, but they DID know they were going to die from the fire. I'd say one has to be pretty certain of that to jump, wouldn't you?
There was no escape from the floors at and above where the plane impacted as the stairwells were all blocked.
NIST did EXTENSIVE modeling of the impact and the fires. They set fire to the same type of workstations being used inside the buildings to see how they performed. They correlated this to the extensive video evidence of the fires spread. Its all laid out quite well in the Final NIST report. So I ask again, what part of the NIST description of the raging fires do you dispute and why?
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
----------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by YID The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor. |
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
----------
Originally posted by Adoucette
Realize that a fire of this magnitude could have been burning inside the WTC towers and STILL only smoke might be visible at the windows.
Nonsense.
1 --- Fires do not hide inside buildings. A fire ALWAYS follows the smoke to the windows. This is BECAUSE the most readily available fuel is the preheated and only partially burned soot particulates in the smoke. The darker the smoke, the more 'available' fuel is in that smoke. IF there were raging infernos (or any kind of substantial fires within the building) the flames would be burning after that ideal fuel right out the windows. This is WHY in forest fire infernos the flames can sometimes extend hundreds of feet into the sky. What do you think those flames are feeding upon hundreds of feet ABOVE the tops of the trees? The only-partially combusted smoke. That is also WHY you always see flames leaping out the windows in major fires - the flames are lapping up as much of that optimumly mixed fuel-air combination formed by smoke.
2 --- Fires do not hide inside buildings. The last I heard raging fires give off great amounts of light. Now look behind the woman in the gaping hole... it's Pitch Black. No light from any visible flames at all. Even IF the fire was not directly behind the woman in the photo and was off to the side, it would be providing some light rather than just this pitch black hole. I'm sure you will want to say the fire was 'hiding' in the core. The 'core' was only 35 feet behind the woman. If there was a raging fire in the core, there is no question that there would at least be light behind the woman...
3 --- Fires do not hide in buildings. It couldn't 'hide' in the core because there was essentially nothing but steel, gyprock and concrete stairs in the core except at the sky-lobbies where core space was reclaimed from the elevator shafts which ended at the sky-lobbies (44th & 78th floors). I have yet to read any witness reports from survivors of great infernos burnng in the core. Most of the blockages of stairwells was gyprock which had been smashed from the walls and were blocking the exits. If the burnables from the plane and offices were pushed into the central core this fuel would have fallen through the open elevator shafts down to the 78th floor sky-lobby. (firefighters reached this area and reported only a couple of 'spotty fires' at that level.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
The fact of the matter, the NIST report SHOWS the amount and extent of buckling of the structure prior to failure which is PROOF that there was INDEED a very hot fire burning inside the structure.
The fact of the matter, the NIST report SHOWS the amount and extent of buckling of the structure prior to failure which is PROOF that there was INDEED a very hot fire burning inside the structure.
LIES !!!
NIST SPECULATES... on these imaginary fires, and had to tweak their models to greater values in order to model postulated infernos. There is no PROOF in speculation. If speculation is PROOF to you, you are looking at the world through blinders.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette The fact of the matter, the NIST report SHOWS the amount and extent of buckling of the structure prior to failure which is PROOF that there was INDEED a very hot fire burning inside the structure. |
LIES !!!
NIST SPECULATES... on these imaginary fires, and had to tweak their models to greater values in order to model postulated infernos. There is no PROOF in speculation. If speculation is PROOF to you, you are looking at the world through blinders.
by Adoucette
Use your EYES to see that the fire is consuming the TOP of this building, thus there is no massive object above it to FALL and begin a global collapse.
Of course there WAS... (comparatively speaking).
The Windsor fire broke out on the 11th floor (from the top of the building). That leaves 10 stories above as a 'mass' to act as the mythical pile-driver. There was only about 17 stories above the impact zone at WTC 1 (ONLY six stories MORE than at Windsor), plus the core of the WTC was far more robust than that of the Windsor, so it should have easily supported those few (6 - 7) 'extra' stories.
QUOTE
by Adoucette
Use your EYES to see that the fire in this building is consuming much of the loading, yet the top of it does ultimately collapse.
Use your EYES to see that the fire in this building is consuming much of the loading, yet the top of it does ultimately collapse.
My eyes see that in the Windsor, all available fuel was incinerated for over 18 hours pouring heat into the steel columns and truss floors which after 18 HRS was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point of collapse.
They must have been using better steel than WTC steel, which allegedly weakened in less that 2 hours of heat input. Only the core columns in the Windsor were steel-reinforced concrete - The perimeter walls were the same as in the WTC - STEEL.
You still need FIRE (FLAMES) to generate the required heat input, and there is no evidence of that. Raging SMOKE does not cause structural damage to steel.
NIST claims the office burnables were consumed in a matter of 15 - 20 minutes, and then the fires moved to other locations. 15 - 20 minutes time is NOT ENOUGH to raise the heat input levels to adjacent steel columns, even IF they were totally devoid of fireproofing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Adoucette Use your EYES to see that the fire in this building is consuming much of the loading, yet the top of it does ultimately collapse. |
My eyes see that in the Windsor, all available fuel was incinerated for over 18 hours pouring heat into the steel columns and truss floors which after 18 HRS was sufficient to weaken the steel to the point of collapse.
They must have been using better steel than WTC steel, which allegedly weakened in less that 2 hours of heat input. Only the core columns in the Windsor were steel-reinforced concrete - The perimeter walls were the same as in the WTC - STEEL.
You still need FIRE (FLAMES) to generate the required heat input, and there is no evidence of that. Raging SMOKE does not cause structural damage to steel.
NIST claims the office burnables were consumed in a matter of 15 - 20 minutes, and then the fires moved to other locations. 15 - 20 minutes time is NOT ENOUGH to raise the heat input levels to adjacent steel columns, even IF they were totally devoid of fireproofing.
by Adoucette
Use your EYES to see that you CAN'T see what is happening at the concrete reinforced core of this building, only the outside.
Exactly my point - the flames are so bright, burning up the fuel-air SMOKE leaving the building you can't see past this brilliance into the core of the Madrid fire.
QUOTE
by Adoucette
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that the Concrete reinforced columns in this building will last MUCH longer than the steel columns within the WTC since they had lost most of their FIRE PROTECTION.
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that the Concrete reinforced columns in this building will last MUCH longer than the steel columns within the WTC since they had lost most of their FIRE PROTECTION.
We have been over this dozens of times - engineers specifically looked for (and FOUND) columns and steel from the fire zone.
They found it and picked out the 'most representative' pieces they could find. The fireproofing on these steel pieces was non-existant - only the paint primer was left - This is the empirical PROOF - NO Temps higher than 250 degrees.
Let NIST speculate and postulate all they like about theories which CAN NOT be proven. There IS NO EVIDENCE of heat affecting those columns greater than 250 degrees (and this empirical 'PROOF' must be taken as confirmation of all the above).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Adoucette Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that the Concrete reinforced columns in this building will last MUCH longer than the steel columns within the WTC since they had lost most of their FIRE PROTECTION. |
We have been over this dozens of times - engineers specifically looked for (and FOUND) columns and steel from the fire zone.
They found it and picked out the 'most representative' pieces they could find. The fireproofing on these steel pieces was non-existant - only the paint primer was left - This is the empirical PROOF - NO Temps higher than 250 degrees.
Let NIST speculate and postulate all they like about theories which CAN NOT be proven. There IS NO EVIDENCE of heat affecting those columns greater than 250 degrees (and this empirical 'PROOF' must be taken as confirmation of all the above).
by Adoucette
Use your COMMON ENGINEERING SENSE to realize that these two fires are in NO WAY comparable. Use your COMMON SENSE to realize that by comparing them you are spreading disinformation.
Common Sense AND empirical proof says the evidence for FIRE was blatantly obvious at the Windsor, but that there is NO REAL EVIDENCE at all for raging FIRES at WTC...(Only raging SMOKE), and those who use sophist postulations in attempts to prove there were Amazing Hiding Fires at WTC are disinformationists.
This means YOU.
madrid core -
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
QUOTE
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
Originally posted by YID
The top six floors Foxx, the top six floors and the first collapse IIRC was at the second from the top floor.
Nonsense...
1 --- the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the Windsor building...
2 --- The fire in WTC 1 was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building.
3 --- It is obvious that the core of WTC 1 was far more robust than the Windsor Building's core. Does this look like 'only 6 floors' .
It may be 'obvious' to you that the core of the WTC is more robust or better able to withstand fire than that of the Windsor but I have yet to see you back that up with any comparison of their materials or construction style. You will get around to that soon right?
Se post below.
The Madrid fire
I do note that all floors seem to have been involved in fire. Those below 21st floor were slower to be invloved. Those above 17 were more heavily damaged than below.
Another study.of the Windsor.
The individual floor area of the Windsor was less than 1/3 of the individual floor area in the towers.
45mX25m(1100m^2) vs. 63mX63m(3900m^2)
QUOTE
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
A thermo-mechanical assessment of this structural design, an understanding of why the structure performed as it did and why total collapse did not occur would provide valuable information for future structural fire analysis in design.
A thermo-mechanical assessment of this structural design, an understanding of why the structure performed as it did and why total collapse did not occur would provide valuable information for future structural fire analysis in design.
I do note that all floors seem to have been involved in fire. Those below 21st floor were slower to be invloved. Those above 17 were more heavily damaged than below.
Another study.of the Windsor.
The individual floor area of the Windsor was less than 1/3 of the individual floor area in the towers.
45mX25m(1100m^2) vs. 63mX63m(3900m^2)
The Windsor did not have a significant amount of its core and perimeter severed by an aircraft impact. Comparisons without that are meaningless. The fact is the LOCAL collapse occurred at the POINT of the IMPACT. Since NO SUCH IMPACT occurred in the Windsor, one wouldn't expect it to necessarily collapse at the point of where the FIRE started.
You say the WTC core was more robust, sure, but it was also supporting a much greater load.
Fires CAN hide inside of buildings, what do you think WAS generating all that smoke? As the pictures/diagrams in the NIST report CLEARLY indicate there were raging fires burning (2.2, 2.5 & 2.7 & 2.12).
Before the collapse fire was coming out of windows up to the 104th floor.
Again, 111 people didn't jump to escape smoke, they jumped to escape being burned to death.
Now, you call me a liar, fine.
YOU explain photo 2.12 which CLEARLY shows the buckling that COULD ONLY be caused by the intense heat within the towers.
Arthur
You say the WTC core was more robust, sure, but it was also supporting a much greater load.
Fires CAN hide inside of buildings, what do you think WAS generating all that smoke? As the pictures/diagrams in the NIST report CLEARLY indicate there were raging fires burning (2.2, 2.5 & 2.7 & 2.12).
Before the collapse fire was coming out of windows up to the 104th floor.
Again, 111 people didn't jump to escape smoke, they jumped to escape being burned to death.
Now, you call me a liar, fine.
YOU explain photo 2.12 which CLEARLY shows the buckling that COULD ONLY be caused by the intense heat within the towers.
Arthur
FYI:
MSNBC Poll:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
130049 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Click here to vote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
MSNBC Poll:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
130049 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Click here to vote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 22 2005, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE
Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists
Show of hands?
How many Americans here are "crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists"?
I'm MUCH more fearful of those in here whose job is to sophisize(??), obfuscate, and outright lie on behalf of the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 (actually, I'm much more fearful of the reason these people are here, not the people themselves).
Show of hands on this sentimentality?
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 23 2005, 06:00 PM)
FYI:
MSNBC Poll:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
130049 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Click here to vote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Note at end of poll
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFICALLY VALID POLL.
Click on that link and you find:
One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
To explain the vast gap in the numbers in this and other similar cases, it is necessary to look at the difference in the two kinds of surveys.
Read rest at the site.
Arthur
MSNBC Poll:
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
130049 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don't know.
2%
Click here to vote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey
Note at end of poll
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFICALLY VALID POLL.
Click on that link and you find:
One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
To explain the vast gap in the numbers in this and other similar cases, it is necessary to look at the difference in the two kinds of surveys.
Read rest at the site.
Arthur
YID & Adoucette
Better get your votes in to the MSNBC Poll. Maybe you can change the tide.
I'm taking a break, but when I find some spare moments I will put together a response to your above posts.
Someone suggested before, that I have ulterior motives by putting together a 'WTC webpage'.
Just to Clarify... I have used the web hosting services of Homestead Technologies and have been using them as servers for a few years now on other interests of mine...
Worlds Most Radical Boat Designs
The 'Atlantis 1' proposed by Aerocon...
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indrad_001.html (enjoy... if you also are interested in advanced marine technology & designs - click banner on that page to visit homepage).
Original 'top secret' Russian design from the 1960's...
The 'Ocean Mirage' is a POC scale model of a similar design I built & tested in 1986...
I haven't actually put together any 'web-pages' as a WTC anti-spook 'expose' (so far) - It's just easier for me to post pictures and text in html format through Homestead, rather than other available places on the net which host pictures etc.
However, I'm thinking of putting an actual WTC page together (just to keep a number of my files in one place outside of my own computer).
YID, thanks for those links to the fire-engineering sites regarding the Edificio Windsor. A lot of relevant information contained there.
Have you decided to join the likes of 'Coastal' (the 'Quack') now !!/???
Remember that I always used to chide him about posting links to 'inside' information which actually decimate positions he has held?
Great Job on finding those links. I will use them extensively when I get around to responding to your above posts (and Adoucettes) regarding Windsor tower comparisons.
Great illustrations which help to understand the fire spread at Windsor (that I hadn't run across before)... didn't I say the collapse was to about mid-point of the building? If you find the time over the holidays (do gov't apologists ever get holidays?) read up well on all the information in those links.
You'll need it for the structural and fire engineering Test coming up after the holidays...
Season's Cheers, everyone.
Better get your votes in to the MSNBC Poll. Maybe you can change the tide.
I'm taking a break, but when I find some spare moments I will put together a response to your above posts.
Someone suggested before, that I have ulterior motives by putting together a 'WTC webpage'.
Just to Clarify... I have used the web hosting services of Homestead Technologies and have been using them as servers for a few years now on other interests of mine...
Worlds Most Radical Boat Designs
The 'Atlantis 1' proposed by Aerocon...
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indrad_001.html (enjoy... if you also are interested in advanced marine technology & designs - click banner on that page to visit homepage).
Original 'top secret' Russian design from the 1960's...
The 'Ocean Mirage' is a POC scale model of a similar design I built & tested in 1986...
I haven't actually put together any 'web-pages' as a WTC anti-spook 'expose' (so far) - It's just easier for me to post pictures and text in html format through Homestead, rather than other available places on the net which host pictures etc.
However, I'm thinking of putting an actual WTC page together (just to keep a number of my files in one place outside of my own computer).
YID, thanks for those links to the fire-engineering sites regarding the Edificio Windsor. A lot of relevant information contained there.
Have you decided to join the likes of 'Coastal' (the 'Quack') now !!/???
Remember that I always used to chide him about posting links to 'inside' information which actually decimate positions he has held?
Great Job on finding those links. I will use them extensively when I get around to responding to your above posts (and Adoucettes) regarding Windsor tower comparisons.
Great illustrations which help to understand the fire spread at Windsor (that I hadn't run across before)... didn't I say the collapse was to about mid-point of the building? If you find the time over the holidays (do gov't apologists ever get holidays?) read up well on all the information in those links.
You'll need it for the structural and fire engineering Test coming up after the holidays...
Season's Cheers, everyone.
Just a note since I haven't seen anyone mention it.
The WTC floor diaphragms consisted of concrete slabs poured onto corrugated steel pans. So the floors consisted of concrete AND steel, clearly making the official pancake conspiracy theory absolutely nonsensical.
The WTC floor diaphragms consisted of concrete slabs poured onto corrugated steel pans. So the floors consisted of concrete AND steel, clearly making the official pancake conspiracy theory absolutely nonsensical.
A tale for our time.
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with the poison or you're with the venom".
Guest: Two hands up. Way up!
An under-employed exterminator, looking to greatly expand his business, pursues his quiet interest in bees; particularly the latest strains of intransigents, interlopering the boarder. During the towns holiday picnic, he slips away unnoticed in his bee suit and treks eastward into the sand and chaparral, to find the site of a rumored hive. Brandishing the biggest stick he could find, he repeatedly strikes the nest. With the winged avengers in full pursuit, he runs back to town past the bandstand under the cover of a hedge screen. The bees' attack the towns people mercilessly; stinging some to death. After the rampage, the exterminator ascends the staircase carrying his chemical arsenal. Before the traumatized township, uniformed in his protective suit, he assumes the stage. In a faltering oratory, colored black and white and replete with all or nothings, he points his spray wand to the east and declares, "you're either with the poison or you're with the venom".
Guest: Two hands up. Way up!
QUOTE
YID
Better get your votes in to the MSNBC Poll. Maybe you can change the tide.
Better get your votes in to the MSNBC Poll. Maybe you can change the tide.
Why would I want to do that? I agree he should be impeached for illegal spying on American citizens and for going to war under false pretenses.
Now what does this poll(using the term rather loosely as has been pointed out) have to do with 9/11?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YID Better get your votes in to the MSNBC Poll. Maybe you can change the tide. |
Why would I want to do that? I agree he should be impeached for illegal spying on American citizens and for going to war under false pretenses.
Now what does this poll(using the term rather loosely as has been pointed out) have to do with 9/11?
YID, thanks for those links to the fire-engineering sites regarding the Edificio Windsor. A lot of relevant information contained there.
Have you decided to join the likes of 'Coastal' (the 'Quack') now !!/???
Remember that I always used to chide him about posting links to 'inside' information which actually decimate positions he has held?
Great Job on finding those links. I will use them extensively when I get around to responding to your above posts (and Adoucettes) regarding Windsor tower comparisons.
Great illustrations which help to understand the fire spread at Windsor (that I hadn't run across before)... didn't I say the collapse was to about mid-point of the building?
You must have skipped this part of the article then Foxx.
QUOTE
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
The collapses occured in bits and pieces, a little at a time specifically because the central core is constructed of concrete columns which DID not fail.
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.