QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2006, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 6 2006, 03:51 PM)
Perhaps metamars or others more able than myself can comment on the validity of this taken from an article Foxx posted earlier - it appears self explantory
--"Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.
Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=2940
First FALSE ASSUMPTION: The dust cloud was NOT pyroclastic, as evidenced by the fact that it's average temp was obviously LESS than the ignition point of paper, which is WAY LESS than any PYROCLASTIC cloud.
Second ASSUMPTION with no basis in FACT: 30% of the gravitational energy was needed to create this cloud.
Once you start with poor assumptions you come to all sorts of strange conclusions.
Arthur
Putting aside the pyroclastic question - the buildings were pulverised. This pulverisation, argue the official story backers, must have been a result of the gravitational forces. This in turns means greater resistance = slower collapse.
If you wish to calculate the percentage of the gravitational energy the pulverisation required - bash on, it alters not one jot the implication.
No matter what way it is looked at, even allowing for such far fetched gravity collapse scenarios, it just dont add up.
A brand new official tale is needed - in a hurry.
Nico Haupt is to be admired for his activism, but his judgement is another matter. I believe knocking Sibel Edmonds and Karl Schwarz is inappropriate. He should not make such defamatory charges unless he can back them up, hopefully in a venue that allows response by the people he accuses. His support for WingTV is also questionable, in light of some of their shennanigans.
I've read Schwarz' response to Haupt, and I definitely came away with the impression that Haupt owes him an apology. A big one. As for his problems with Sibel Edmonds, who, as far as I can tell, is a genuine American hero, who has literally put her life on the line in pursuit of doing the right thing, I fail to even understand what Haupt's motivations in attacking her could be.
As these matters have little to do with physics, that's all I intend to say on this topic on this forum. Or any forum, most likely.
--"Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.
Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.
Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses.."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=2940
First FALSE ASSUMPTION: The dust cloud was NOT pyroclastic, as evidenced by the fact that it's average temp was obviously LESS than the ignition point of paper, which is WAY LESS than any PYROCLASTIC cloud.
Second ASSUMPTION with no basis in FACT: 30% of the gravitational energy was needed to create this cloud.
Once you start with poor assumptions you come to all sorts of strange conclusions.
Arthur
Putting aside the pyroclastic question - the buildings were pulverised. This pulverisation, argue the official story backers, must have been a result of the gravitational forces. This in turns means greater resistance = slower collapse.
If you wish to calculate the percentage of the gravitational energy the pulverisation required - bash on, it alters not one jot the implication.
No matter what way it is looked at, even allowing for such far fetched gravity collapse scenarios, it just dont add up.
A brand new official tale is needed - in a hurry.
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
the steel pans.
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
Ewing2001's 2005 "truthseeker" Oscars:
Hoaxer of the year:
Tom Flocco
Most annoying fake activist newcomer:
Jonathan Gold
Best research team:
team8plus.org
Best female Visualist:
Rosalee Grable
Best male Visualist:
Marcus Icke
Biggest "political hope" 2005:
Morgan Reynolds
Biggest scam of the year:
Mike Ruppert's 25k campaign to promote his new video
Biggest political 9/11 truthling scammer:
Karl Schwarz
Best female analyst "newcomer":
Lynn Ertel (911InsideJobbers, other lists...)
Best male analyst "newcomer":
Ron Wynn (Planehuggers etc....)
Best research blog newcomer:
culhavoc.blogsome.com
Best tabloid 9/11 blog:
911blogger.com
Best 'outsider' 9/11 blog:
georgewashingtonblog.com
Best alternative news portal:
http://www.tvnewslies.org
Best alternative 9/11 blog:
http://total911.info/
Biggest Newcomer 9/11 research blog:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
Most interesting blog:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/
Best news analysis blog:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Biggest alternative warcriminal:
democracynow.org
Biggest 'anti-war' war criminal:
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Phoniest 9/11 truth activists:
911truth.org
9/11 activist group of the year:
London 9/11 Skeptics
Best analyst online group:
Planehuggers Yahoo
Deceptionist of the year:
Tom Heneghan/Stew Webb
Worst slogan of the year:
"Bring the troops home"
Best slogan of the year:
Fight the "truthlings"
Most annoying "daisy committee":
"LARED" (DemocraticUnderground.com)
Best business and history researcher (BUHI Award):
Freedomfiles
Best 9/11 'documentary' of the year:
Rick Siegel- 911EyeWitness(.com)
Best 9/11 'infotainment' video of the year:
Loose Change Crew- Loose Change II
Best 9/11 fictional movie:
http://www.wkjo.com/
Alltime 9/11 science award:
Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King
Brain of the year:
Gerard Holmgren
Clown of the year:
Christopher Young
http://www.wheretovote.com (on FOX TV)
U-Turner of the year:
Professor Paul E. Jones
Idiot of the year:
lizmichael.com
Best political 9/11 campaign:
Flight77.info
Best Pentagon researcher:
Killtown
Propaganda Scam of the year:
Flu/Bird Flu/Weaponised Bird Flu
Biggest Female Gatekeeper of the year:
Sibel Edmonds
Biggest Male Gatekeeper of the year:
Curt Weldon
Cartoonist 9/11 truthseeker of the year:
Aaron McGruder (Boondocks)
9/11 'truthling' filmmaker sellout of the year:
Oliver Stone
Most ignored 9/11 researcher safety award:
http://www.911foreknowledge.com
Biggest 9/11 science saboteurs:
Scientific American, Popular Mechanics
Biggest 9/11 research hateword:
"Eyewitnesses"
Flip-Flopper of the year:
Eric Hufschmid
Biggest non 9/11 science hope:
Richard C. Hoagland
http://www.enterprisemission.com
Page 1 truthseeker hero award:
Imam Intikab Habib
Biggest hope of mainstream news portals:
Free Market News
Most obvious false flag operation of the year:
7/7 (london)
Conventional political voice of the year:
Abdurrahman Wahid
(former President of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001)
Most progressive TV/Radio show on the net:
WING TV
"Planehugger" of the year:
WING TV
Research Heroes of the year:
All 9/11- "TV Bluescreen fakery" researchers
Best 9/11 "truthling" PR Campaign team:
Jimmy Walter, William Rodriguez
Worst 9/11 "truthling" PR campaigner:
David Kubiak and truthemergency.us
Alternative media clown of the year:
George Noory
Most ignored 9/11 research:
Raytheon-Teradyne-Passenger research
Most overhyped 9/11 research:
"Controlled Demolition"
Biggest US fake politician of the year:
John Conyers, John Murtha
Phantom Fake "Al-Quaeda" Idiot of the year:
Al Zarquawi
Worst mainstream media Fake:
Bob Woodward
Worst alternative media deceptionists:
Air America
Worst Truthling Discussion Board Controller:
Skinner of DemocraticUnderground.com
Limited Hangout of the year:
"Bring the troops home"
Best 9/11 research 'wiki':
Serendipity.li
Best radio/video collection:
http://911verses.com/underground
Biggest political scam of the year:
"Kidnappings" in Iraq
Biggest political deceptionist:
Richard Clarke
Female McCarthyist of the year:
Victoria Ashley
Male McCarthyist of the year:
"repost" etc... aka Mark Rabinowitz (portland.indymedia.org)
Danger Alert of the year:
Rudy Guiliani
Author of the year:
Webster Tarpley
Special Memorium Award:
Joe Vialls
9/11 was an "inside job" porn award:
Larry Flynt presents David Ray Griffin
Most dangerous private military contractor:
SAIC
Biggest political 9/11 truthseeker distraction:
"Pakistan-9/11" connection
Biggest fake opposition:
Democratic Party and "Limousine Liberals"
"Howard Beale" Award of the year:
Greg Nixon (911Truth Action, 911InsideJobbers etc...)
Cointel-pro wannabee idiot of the year:
Art Bell
Ghostzone award of the year:
Daily911.info, "9/11 Truth Alliance"
Most unimportant gatekeeper project:
Moveon.org
Sleeping Pill of the year:
Nafeez Ahmed
Biggest "truthling" u-turn sellout:
Paul Hellyer
Background Deceptionists of the year:
Club of Rome, Club of Rome tt30
Camera Truthseeker Workaholic teamsters of the year:
John Gannon, Hummux
Newcomer 9/11 'media' artists of the year:
Les Raphael
Watchdog of the year:
Angie d'Urso
Most ignored threat of the year:
World War IV/V
Most ignored individual threat of the year:
Paul Wolfowitz (World Bank)
Cultist of the year:
Les Jamieson (URANTIA, ny911truth.org)
Mainstream Media Whores of the year:
Judith Miller (NY Times), Ralph Peters (NY Post)
Most annoying media distractions:
Gannon affair, Equatorial Guinea/Thatcher + Co., Hillary Clinton,
"Downing Street memo"
Most annoying 9/11 "truthling" distraction:
Able Danger
Writer of the year:
Michel Chussodowski, Kurt Nimmo
Fake Democrats of the year:
National Endowment for Democracy
Fake Republicans of the year:
Every Chuck Hagel supporter
Biggest new individual political european threat:
Angela "Bilderberg" Merkel (Germany)
World Organisation Idiot of the year:
Kofi Annan
Red Herring of the year:
Able Danger
Sensationalist of the year:
Tom Flocco
Best mainstream 9/11 truthseeker product:
TATORT (Crime show)
German TV show depicts 9/11 as Inside Job plot
Biggest 9/11 truthling mainstream saboteurs:
Lee Hamilton, Tom Kean
Biggest 9/11 family 'truthling' deceptionist:
Kristin Breitweiser
Biggest 9/11 media deceptionist:
Scott Myers (NIST), Sep11th- 'cameraman"
Double Standard of the year:
"Controlled Demolition" vs. "9/11 TV Bluescreen Fakery"
Oddest Non-release of the year:
Matt Everett and Paul Thompson "terror drill" research, never added to Pt.2
Neocon Fascist of the year:
Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone
Alltime NY 9/11 activist:
"Rabbi Philo", rabbiphilo.blogspot.com
Hang-in there activist of the year:
Carol Brouillet
Media Limes of the year:
Mark Morford, Sarah Ferguson
Weekly Paper of the year:
Boulder Weekly
9/11 propaganda media project of the year:
National Geographic Channel Program Series "Inside 9/11"
9/11 family truthling of the year:
WTC FAMILIES FOR PROPER BURIAL AND 9/11
Globalist Scums of the year:
Eliot Cohen, James Baker, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, John Bolton
Best alternative paper:
American Free Press
Best 9/11 activist group:
-
Best 9/11 tabloid graphic designer:
Ron@midtownriot.com
Best 9/11 truthling sound:
Les Visible
http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/weblog/image...l-hijackers.jpg
Fake Terror-Blog of the year:
http://faketerror.blogspot.com/
Non-U.S. Terror scam countries of the year:
Indonesia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia,
Germany, Italy, France, China, Taiwan, Ukraine
Idiots of the year:
All "teletubbies"
Youngsters of the year:
Luke Rudkowski, 19
Presenter of Loose Change II in NYC
Will R. Huysman, 15
http://nyctohylophobia.blogspot.com/
Almost wakeupper of the year:
Greg Szymanski
Alltime Database Genius Award:
"Dulce Decorum"
NSA "darling" of the year:
Jim Hoffman (MSRI), Dr. Jack Hoffman/June Armstrong, Neil Armstrong/Veridian
FBI "darling" of the year:
Michael Bloomberg
Homeland Security "darling" of the year:
Bernard Kerik
CIA "darling" of the year:
In-Q-Tel, Michael Griffith (NASA, ex-In Q-tel)
Cointel-pro "darling" of the year:
David Kubiak (911truth.org)
White House moron of the year:
Lewis Libby
Research workaholic of the year:
John Doe II (team8plus.org)
9/11 truthseeker medium of the year:
SKYPE
Spammer of the year:
truthout.org, Jon Carlson, bagl worm, Eli Pariser
Biggest activist protest scam:
9/11 anniversary 'protest' at United Nations, NYC
Biggest activist protest hope:
9/11 anniversary 'protest' at Ground Zero, NYC
Biggest newcomer research hope:
orbwar.com
Biggest gatekeeper hope:
informationclearinghouse.info
Favourite 9/11 truthling politician:
Craig Hill
9/11 truthling mainstream article of the year:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...ion/7837737.htm
Setting the record straight on 9/11
Miami Herald
9/11 truthling hateword of the year:
LIHOP
Anti-Zionist Split Personality of the year:
*** 'Ole' Eastman
Blindling news- "hang in there" darling of the year:
CLG News, Lori Price
Activist 9/11 truthling ignorant of the year:
Cindy Sheehan
9/11 truthling sellout party of the year:
National Green Party
Worst Gatekeeper News Portal:
Counterpunch, dailyKos
9/11 sleeping pill truthling projects:
911fraud.blogspot, question911.com
9/11 gatekeeper portal of the year:
summeroftruth.org, wanttoknow.info
Alltime 9/11 gatekeeper lemon award:
Michael Moore
Danger Shadows of the year:
Joseph Morrris, Andrew W. "Yoda" Marshall (both ManTech, NYC)
Lockheed (MTA contracts)
Taiwan's forthcoming fake Al-Quaeda terror cell
Karl Schwarz
Hillary Clinton
John Mc Cain
FEMA
Google's NSA connection
9/11 footage hunter of the year:
Tim Canale (US), Ali G. (UK)
Biggest alltime distraction from 9/11 perps:
"White Vans", "Dancing Jews" and "arrested art students"
Backstabber of the year:
Fintan Dunne/Breakfornews.com
9/11 cover-up supporting artists of the year:
NRO, 911truth.org, Amy Goodman, Danny Schecter, Peter Lance,
Ray McGovern, ACLU, ANSWER, William Rivers Pitt, Gerhard Schroeder
Most sabotaged 9/11 truthling politician:
Cynthia McKinney
Red Herring revival of the year:
Ptech
Alltime Most ignored 9/11 Smoking Gun:
Anthrax from Fort Detrick
Most unimportant heckler of the year:
Christopher Brodeur (also for running as NY Mayor)
Gatekeeper author of the year:
Paul Zarembka
Scandinavian 'Frozen Joghurt' Truthseeker Award:
Elias Davidson (Iceland, not scandinavia),
Peter Kofod (norway), K-robjoe (team8plus, finland), terrorize.dk (Denmark)
Disinfo portal of the year:
anthraxandalqueada.com (corrected link)
fromthewilderness.com
iranfocus.com
homelandsecurityus.com
nytimes.com
jihadunspun.net
articbeacon.com (for every 3rd article)
Psycho Loner of the year:
Wolfram Grätz/Whoopee News
Netizen of the year:
Malaprop
Mailing List workaholic of the year:
Robert B. Thorne (New Jersey)
Drunken Poet Award:
Jolly "planehug" Roger
9/11 truthling book portal of the year:
911bookshelf.com
Best Truthseeker alert action campaign:
Worldwide Wargame- and Terror Drill Watch (at team8plus.org)
http://tinyurl.com/7h7fl
Most innovative newsgroup:
Planehuggers Yahoo, Katrinagate Yahoo, Urantiagate Yahoo
"Nobody" of the year:
Harriet Miers, Ben Pritchard, Ron Rex, HilarryClint0n@aol.com, "Sallie"
"Spook" of the year:
Karl Schwarz
Crime of the year:
Katrinagate
Heckler of the year:
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 -sorry guys
Hoaxer of the year:
Tom Flocco
Most annoying fake activist newcomer:
Jonathan Gold
Best research team:
team8plus.org
Best female Visualist:
Rosalee Grable
Best male Visualist:
Marcus Icke
Biggest "political hope" 2005:
Morgan Reynolds
Biggest scam of the year:
Mike Ruppert's 25k campaign to promote his new video
Biggest political 9/11 truthling scammer:
Karl Schwarz
Best female analyst "newcomer":
Lynn Ertel (911InsideJobbers, other lists...)
Best male analyst "newcomer":
Ron Wynn (Planehuggers etc....)
Best research blog newcomer:
culhavoc.blogsome.com
Best tabloid 9/11 blog:
911blogger.com
Best 'outsider' 9/11 blog:
georgewashingtonblog.com
Best alternative news portal:
http://www.tvnewslies.org
Best alternative 9/11 blog:
http://total911.info/
Biggest Newcomer 9/11 research blog:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
Most interesting blog:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/
Best news analysis blog:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Biggest alternative warcriminal:
democracynow.org
Biggest 'anti-war' war criminal:
A.N.S.W.E.R.
Phoniest 9/11 truth activists:
911truth.org
9/11 activist group of the year:
London 9/11 Skeptics
Best analyst online group:
Planehuggers Yahoo
Deceptionist of the year:
Tom Heneghan/Stew Webb
Worst slogan of the year:
"Bring the troops home"
Best slogan of the year:
Fight the "truthlings"
Most annoying "daisy committee":
"LARED" (DemocraticUnderground.com)
Best business and history researcher (BUHI Award):
Freedomfiles
Best 9/11 'documentary' of the year:
Rick Siegel- 911EyeWitness(.com)
Best 9/11 'infotainment' video of the year:
Loose Change Crew- Loose Change II
Best 9/11 fictional movie:
http://www.wkjo.com/
Alltime 9/11 science award:
Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King
Brain of the year:
Gerard Holmgren
Clown of the year:
Christopher Young
http://www.wheretovote.com (on FOX TV)
U-Turner of the year:
Professor Paul E. Jones
Idiot of the year:
lizmichael.com
Best political 9/11 campaign:
Flight77.info
Best Pentagon researcher:
Killtown
Propaganda Scam of the year:
Flu/Bird Flu/Weaponised Bird Flu
Biggest Female Gatekeeper of the year:
Sibel Edmonds
Biggest Male Gatekeeper of the year:
Curt Weldon
Cartoonist 9/11 truthseeker of the year:
Aaron McGruder (Boondocks)
9/11 'truthling' filmmaker sellout of the year:
Oliver Stone
Most ignored 9/11 researcher safety award:
http://www.911foreknowledge.com
Biggest 9/11 science saboteurs:
Scientific American, Popular Mechanics
Biggest 9/11 research hateword:
"Eyewitnesses"
Flip-Flopper of the year:
Eric Hufschmid
Biggest non 9/11 science hope:
Richard C. Hoagland
http://www.enterprisemission.com
Page 1 truthseeker hero award:
Imam Intikab Habib
Biggest hope of mainstream news portals:
Free Market News
Most obvious false flag operation of the year:
7/7 (london)
Conventional political voice of the year:
Abdurrahman Wahid
(former President of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001)
Most progressive TV/Radio show on the net:
WING TV
"Planehugger" of the year:
WING TV
Research Heroes of the year:
All 9/11- "TV Bluescreen fakery" researchers
Best 9/11 "truthling" PR Campaign team:
Jimmy Walter, William Rodriguez
Worst 9/11 "truthling" PR campaigner:
David Kubiak and truthemergency.us
Alternative media clown of the year:
George Noory
Most ignored 9/11 research:
Raytheon-Teradyne-Passenger research
Most overhyped 9/11 research:
"Controlled Demolition"
Biggest US fake politician of the year:
John Conyers, John Murtha
Phantom Fake "Al-Quaeda" Idiot of the year:
Al Zarquawi
Worst mainstream media Fake:
Bob Woodward
Worst alternative media deceptionists:
Air America
Worst Truthling Discussion Board Controller:
Skinner of DemocraticUnderground.com
Limited Hangout of the year:
"Bring the troops home"
Best 9/11 research 'wiki':
Serendipity.li
Best radio/video collection:
http://911verses.com/underground
Biggest political scam of the year:
"Kidnappings" in Iraq
Biggest political deceptionist:
Richard Clarke
Female McCarthyist of the year:
Victoria Ashley
Male McCarthyist of the year:
"repost" etc... aka Mark Rabinowitz (portland.indymedia.org)
Danger Alert of the year:
Rudy Guiliani
Author of the year:
Webster Tarpley
Special Memorium Award:
Joe Vialls
9/11 was an "inside job" porn award:
Larry Flynt presents David Ray Griffin
Most dangerous private military contractor:
SAIC
Biggest political 9/11 truthseeker distraction:
"Pakistan-9/11" connection
Biggest fake opposition:
Democratic Party and "Limousine Liberals"
"Howard Beale" Award of the year:
Greg Nixon (911Truth Action, 911InsideJobbers etc...)
Cointel-pro wannabee idiot of the year:
Art Bell
Ghostzone award of the year:
Daily911.info, "9/11 Truth Alliance"
Most unimportant gatekeeper project:
Moveon.org
Sleeping Pill of the year:
Nafeez Ahmed
Biggest "truthling" u-turn sellout:
Paul Hellyer
Background Deceptionists of the year:
Club of Rome, Club of Rome tt30
Camera Truthseeker Workaholic teamsters of the year:
John Gannon, Hummux
Newcomer 9/11 'media' artists of the year:
Les Raphael
Watchdog of the year:
Angie d'Urso
Most ignored threat of the year:
World War IV/V
Most ignored individual threat of the year:
Paul Wolfowitz (World Bank)
Cultist of the year:
Les Jamieson (URANTIA, ny911truth.org)
Mainstream Media Whores of the year:
Judith Miller (NY Times), Ralph Peters (NY Post)
Most annoying media distractions:
Gannon affair, Equatorial Guinea/Thatcher + Co., Hillary Clinton,
"Downing Street memo"
Most annoying 9/11 "truthling" distraction:
Able Danger
Writer of the year:
Michel Chussodowski, Kurt Nimmo
Fake Democrats of the year:
National Endowment for Democracy
Fake Republicans of the year:
Every Chuck Hagel supporter
Biggest new individual political european threat:
Angela "Bilderberg" Merkel (Germany)
World Organisation Idiot of the year:
Kofi Annan
Red Herring of the year:
Able Danger
Sensationalist of the year:
Tom Flocco
Best mainstream 9/11 truthseeker product:
TATORT (Crime show)
German TV show depicts 9/11 as Inside Job plot
Biggest 9/11 truthling mainstream saboteurs:
Lee Hamilton, Tom Kean
Biggest 9/11 family 'truthling' deceptionist:
Kristin Breitweiser
Biggest 9/11 media deceptionist:
Scott Myers (NIST), Sep11th- 'cameraman"
Double Standard of the year:
"Controlled Demolition" vs. "9/11 TV Bluescreen Fakery"
Oddest Non-release of the year:
Matt Everett and Paul Thompson "terror drill" research, never added to Pt.2
Neocon Fascist of the year:
Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone
Alltime NY 9/11 activist:
"Rabbi Philo", rabbiphilo.blogspot.com
Hang-in there activist of the year:
Carol Brouillet
Media Limes of the year:
Mark Morford, Sarah Ferguson
Weekly Paper of the year:
Boulder Weekly
9/11 propaganda media project of the year:
National Geographic Channel Program Series "Inside 9/11"
9/11 family truthling of the year:
WTC FAMILIES FOR PROPER BURIAL AND 9/11
Globalist Scums of the year:
Eliot Cohen, James Baker, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, John Bolton
Best alternative paper:
American Free Press
Best 9/11 activist group:
-
Best 9/11 tabloid graphic designer:
Ron@midtownriot.com
Best 9/11 truthling sound:
Les Visible
http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/weblog/image...l-hijackers.jpg
Fake Terror-Blog of the year:
http://faketerror.blogspot.com/
Non-U.S. Terror scam countries of the year:
Indonesia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia,
Germany, Italy, France, China, Taiwan, Ukraine
Idiots of the year:
All "teletubbies"
Youngsters of the year:
Luke Rudkowski, 19
Presenter of Loose Change II in NYC
Will R. Huysman, 15
http://nyctohylophobia.blogspot.com/
Almost wakeupper of the year:
Greg Szymanski
Alltime Database Genius Award:
"Dulce Decorum"
NSA "darling" of the year:
Jim Hoffman (MSRI), Dr. Jack Hoffman/June Armstrong, Neil Armstrong/Veridian
FBI "darling" of the year:
Michael Bloomberg
Homeland Security "darling" of the year:
Bernard Kerik
CIA "darling" of the year:
In-Q-Tel, Michael Griffith (NASA, ex-In Q-tel)
Cointel-pro "darling" of the year:
David Kubiak (911truth.org)
White House moron of the year:
Lewis Libby
Research workaholic of the year:
John Doe II (team8plus.org)
9/11 truthseeker medium of the year:
SKYPE
Spammer of the year:
truthout.org, Jon Carlson, bagl worm, Eli Pariser
Biggest activist protest scam:
9/11 anniversary 'protest' at United Nations, NYC
Biggest activist protest hope:
9/11 anniversary 'protest' at Ground Zero, NYC
Biggest newcomer research hope:
orbwar.com
Biggest gatekeeper hope:
informationclearinghouse.info
Favourite 9/11 truthling politician:
Craig Hill
9/11 truthling mainstream article of the year:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...ion/7837737.htm
Setting the record straight on 9/11
Miami Herald
9/11 truthling hateword of the year:
LIHOP
Anti-Zionist Split Personality of the year:
*** 'Ole' Eastman
Blindling news- "hang in there" darling of the year:
CLG News, Lori Price
Activist 9/11 truthling ignorant of the year:
Cindy Sheehan
9/11 truthling sellout party of the year:
National Green Party
Worst Gatekeeper News Portal:
Counterpunch, dailyKos
9/11 sleeping pill truthling projects:
911fraud.blogspot, question911.com
9/11 gatekeeper portal of the year:
summeroftruth.org, wanttoknow.info
Alltime 9/11 gatekeeper lemon award:
Michael Moore
Danger Shadows of the year:
Joseph Morrris, Andrew W. "Yoda" Marshall (both ManTech, NYC)
Lockheed (MTA contracts)
Taiwan's forthcoming fake Al-Quaeda terror cell
Karl Schwarz
Hillary Clinton
John Mc Cain
FEMA
Google's NSA connection
9/11 footage hunter of the year:
Tim Canale (US), Ali G. (UK)
Biggest alltime distraction from 9/11 perps:
"White Vans", "Dancing Jews" and "arrested art students"
Backstabber of the year:
Fintan Dunne/Breakfornews.com
9/11 cover-up supporting artists of the year:
NRO, 911truth.org, Amy Goodman, Danny Schecter, Peter Lance,
Ray McGovern, ACLU, ANSWER, William Rivers Pitt, Gerhard Schroeder
Most sabotaged 9/11 truthling politician:
Cynthia McKinney
Red Herring revival of the year:
Ptech
Alltime Most ignored 9/11 Smoking Gun:
Anthrax from Fort Detrick
Most unimportant heckler of the year:
Christopher Brodeur (also for running as NY Mayor)
Gatekeeper author of the year:
Paul Zarembka
Scandinavian 'Frozen Joghurt' Truthseeker Award:
Elias Davidson (Iceland, not scandinavia),
Peter Kofod (norway), K-robjoe (team8plus, finland), terrorize.dk (Denmark)
Disinfo portal of the year:
anthraxandalqueada.com (corrected link)
fromthewilderness.com
iranfocus.com
homelandsecurityus.com
nytimes.com
jihadunspun.net
articbeacon.com (for every 3rd article)
Psycho Loner of the year:
Wolfram Grätz/Whoopee News
Netizen of the year:
Malaprop
Mailing List workaholic of the year:
Robert B. Thorne (New Jersey)
Drunken Poet Award:
Jolly "planehug" Roger
9/11 truthling book portal of the year:
911bookshelf.com
Best Truthseeker alert action campaign:
Worldwide Wargame- and Terror Drill Watch (at team8plus.org)
http://tinyurl.com/7h7fl
Most innovative newsgroup:
Planehuggers Yahoo, Katrinagate Yahoo, Urantiagate Yahoo
"Nobody" of the year:
Harriet Miers, Ben Pritchard, Ron Rex, HilarryClint0n@aol.com, "Sallie"
"Spook" of the year:
Karl Schwarz
Crime of the year:
Katrinagate
Heckler of the year:
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 -sorry guys
galdur,
When people make a big issue of Free-Fall speed vs. virtual free-fall speed I have to ask myself the question "Why are they making such a big deal"? What is their motive"?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who loves the truth that the towers fell at almost free fall speed, which proves control demolition. Maybe it was 99.9% free-fall, or maybe 98.9% free-fall, but the whole issue is that IT WAS AS CLOSE TO FREE-FALL SPEED AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
It's almost like you gotta a serial killer who confessed to murdering 99 people, you got DNA and other evidence to support it and then say "The guy killed about 100 people"
Now in my book 99 is almost 100, and if you say "About 100" that would be a true statement because 99 isn't exactly 100, but it's about 100, meaning it's close.
So if you say the towers fell at ABOUT FREE FALL SPEED, that would be a true statement,
They may not have fallen at exactly free-fall speed, but so close that it proves control demolition.
Is there some kind of trick going on here as to why some people are hung up on the free-fall speed terminology?
When people make a big issue of Free-Fall speed vs. virtual free-fall speed I have to ask myself the question "Why are they making such a big deal"? What is their motive"?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who loves the truth that the towers fell at almost free fall speed, which proves control demolition. Maybe it was 99.9% free-fall, or maybe 98.9% free-fall, but the whole issue is that IT WAS AS CLOSE TO FREE-FALL SPEED AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
It's almost like you gotta a serial killer who confessed to murdering 99 people, you got DNA and other evidence to support it and then say "The guy killed about 100 people"
Now in my book 99 is almost 100, and if you say "About 100" that would be a true statement because 99 isn't exactly 100, but it's about 100, meaning it's close.
So if you say the towers fell at ABOUT FREE FALL SPEED, that would be a true statement,
They may not have fallen at exactly free-fall speed, but so close that it proves control demolition.
Is there some kind of trick going on here as to why some people are hung up on the free-fall speed terminology?
Hey Steve, I did post this before..about 150 pages ago....
QUOTE
Pedant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Pedantic)
Jump to: navigation, search
A pedant is a person who is a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship. The term comes from the Latin paedagogare, "to teach", derived from Greek terms for "child" and "to lead". The term is typically used in a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutia and detail.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Pedantic)
Jump to: navigation, search
A pedant is a person who is a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship. The term comes from the Latin paedagogare, "to teach", derived from Greek terms for "child" and "to lead". The term is typically used in a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutia and detail.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.
Steve, these are just the usual "thought stoppers"
you see from people who are trying to defend hopeless
causes. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Of course the fundamental flaw in the official fable is
the fact that the towers collapsed without any resistance
from the structure - obviously a physical impossibility.
Understandably the shills here are loath to face this fact.
you see from people who are trying to defend hopeless
causes. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Of course the fundamental flaw in the official fable is
the fact that the towers collapsed without any resistance
from the structure - obviously a physical impossibility.
Understandably the shills here are loath to face this fact.
Take some time off from contentless shills
and read this:
http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf
and read this:
http://www.d.umn.edu/%7Ejfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf
QUOTE
Ewing2001's 2005 "truthseeker" Oscars:
Nico Haupt is to be admired for his activism, but his judgement is another matter. I believe knocking Sibel Edmonds and Karl Schwarz is inappropriate. He should not make such defamatory charges unless he can back them up, hopefully in a venue that allows response by the people he accuses. His support for WingTV is also questionable, in light of some of their shennanigans.
I've read Schwarz' response to Haupt, and I definitely came away with the impression that Haupt owes him an apology. A big one. As for his problems with Sibel Edmonds, who, as far as I can tell, is a genuine American hero, who has literally put her life on the line in pursuit of doing the right thing, I fail to even understand what Haupt's motivations in attacking her could be.
As these matters have little to do with physics, that's all I intend to say on this topic on this forum. Or any forum, most likely.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2006, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+)
The photographic evidence of greater than free fall speed is overwhelming.
might want to choose different wording.
I think this is why some like galdur and steve1957 just don't seem to get it.
You CLEARLY mean in your post that The photographic evidence of SLOWER than free fall speed is overwhelming.
But I think some people are misinterpreting GREATER to mean FASTER.
Arthur
Doh! You're absolutely correct, I meant greater than free fall ELAPSED TIME, but slower than free fall SPEED. Sorry, should have been clearer. Thank-you.
might want to choose different wording.
I think this is why some like galdur and steve1957 just don't seem to get it.
You CLEARLY mean in your post that The photographic evidence of SLOWER than free fall speed is overwhelming.
But I think some people are misinterpreting GREATER to mean FASTER.
Arthur
Doh! You're absolutely correct, I meant greater than free fall ELAPSED TIME, but slower than free fall SPEED. Sorry, should have been clearer. Thank-you.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:14 PM)
Those pans weren´t stacked down there all 110 of them
after the collapse. They were shredded. The concrete was
pulverized. These are the facts of the matter
galdur,With the constituents of the columns and debris of all floors bashing , twisting and grinding against each other things will come apart. Brittle material will shatter, lightweight material will shred. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch thick steel pans would qualify as the later..
metamars, I have seen you and others claim that a significant amount of the steel was 'powderized' or 'vaporized'. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
after the collapse. They were shredded. The concrete was
pulverized. These are the facts of the matter
galdur,With the constituents of the columns and debris of all floors bashing , twisting and grinding against each other things will come apart. Brittle material will shatter, lightweight material will shred. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch thick steel pans would qualify as the later..
metamars, I have seen you and others claim that a significant amount of the steel was 'powderized' or 'vaporized'. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 6 2006, 05:34 PM)
Hey Steve, I did post this before..about 150 pages ago....
Good information ,They must look for people with the above disorders when recruiting shills.
QUOTE
Pedant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Pedantic)
Jump to: navigation, search
A pedant is a person who is a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship. The term comes from the Latin paedagogare, "to teach", derived from Greek terms for "child" and "to lead". The term is typically used in a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutia and detail.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Pedantic)
Jump to: navigation, search
A pedant is a person who is a formalist or precisionist in teaching or scholarship. The term comes from the Latin paedagogare, "to teach", derived from Greek terms for "child" and "to lead". The term is typically used in a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutia and detail.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.
Good information ,They must look for people with the above disorders when recruiting shills.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 03:24 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2006, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+)
The photographic evidence of greater than free fall speed is overwhelming.
might want to choose different wording.
I think this is why some like galdur and steve1957 just don't seem to get it.
You CLEARLY mean in your post that The photographic evidence of SLOWER than free fall speed is overwhelming.
But I think some people are misinterpreting GREATER to mean FASTER.
Arthur
There is seismic evidence and that is indisputable.
Anyway if it makes you feel better we can say that
the towers collapsed in 12-15 seconds instead of ten.
It doesn´t really matter. In either case the resistance
from the structure is microscopic which of course makes
the pancake theory physically impossible.
It's not a question of making me feel better, but of what actually happened. The comparison with free fall time, if not made rigorously quantitative, can't decide the issue (assuming that global collapse is even possible in the WTC scenario - in light of Gordon's calculations, I consider this possibility as having 0 probability, but the idea is to convince skeptics, with arguments that can't be reasonably refuted)
Can you tell us how much energy you would need to slow the collapse of a WTC tower down from free fall speed by 4 - 8 seconds? (seconds, not micro-seconds) It's obviously "enormous". If you don't calculate this, and then compare to what upward forces the frames were capable of exerting in a collapse scenario, you have to resort to qualitative arguments and intuition.
In other words, you will likely resort to to guessing.
That doesn't fly in areas that involve well understood (in principle) physics and engineering. It's less of a problem in discussing black holes as worm hole gateways and other exotic matters, but nobody should be asked to accept any version of collapse of a mere building just based on such criteria.
might want to choose different wording.
I think this is why some like galdur and steve1957 just don't seem to get it.
You CLEARLY mean in your post that The photographic evidence of SLOWER than free fall speed is overwhelming.
But I think some people are misinterpreting GREATER to mean FASTER.
Arthur
There is seismic evidence and that is indisputable.
Anyway if it makes you feel better we can say that
the towers collapsed in 12-15 seconds instead of ten.
It doesn´t really matter. In either case the resistance
from the structure is microscopic which of course makes
the pancake theory physically impossible.
It's not a question of making me feel better, but of what actually happened. The comparison with free fall time, if not made rigorously quantitative, can't decide the issue (assuming that global collapse is even possible in the WTC scenario - in light of Gordon's calculations, I consider this possibility as having 0 probability, but the idea is to convince skeptics, with arguments that can't be reasonably refuted)
Can you tell us how much energy you would need to slow the collapse of a WTC tower down from free fall speed by 4 - 8 seconds? (seconds, not micro-seconds) It's obviously "enormous". If you don't calculate this, and then compare to what upward forces the frames were capable of exerting in a collapse scenario, you have to resort to qualitative arguments and intuition.
In other words, you will likely resort to to guessing.
That doesn't fly in areas that involve well understood (in principle) physics and engineering. It's less of a problem in discussing black holes as worm hole gateways and other exotic matters, but nobody should be asked to accept any version of collapse of a mere building just based on such criteria.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:14 PM)
Those pans weren´t stacked down there all 110 of them
after the collapse. They were shredded. The concrete was
pulverized. These are the facts of the matter
galdur,With the constituents of the columns and debris of all floors bashing , twisting and grinding against each other things will come apart. Brittle material will shatter, lightweight material will shred. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch thick steel pans would qualify as the later..
metamars, I have seen you and others claim that a significant amount of the steel was 'powderized' or 'vaporized'. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
A building's structure will offer resistance to collapse
in a gravity driven event. Here there was none as per
the collapse speed. This isn't physically possible,
unless explosives or another technology was used to
assist the collapse. There is no way around this.
We can not believe impossible things. There are natural
laws which cannot be ignored.
If you have watched the videos that you post on your site then you know that is exactly what it is saying.
If you have watched the videos that you post on your site then you know that is exactly what it is saying.
I'm not saying all that information is absolutely 100% accurate, because in truth no one can be 100% certain as to how they came up with their formula.
Which makes it all but useless except for drumming up emotional responses.
To state that there was a lack of resistance and then to ignore any attempt to calculate how fast it should have collapsed in either a demolition or gravity collapse is ridiculous. It speaks to a prejudice that is obvious in many non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11.
To state that there was a lack of resistance and then to ignore any attempt to calculate how fast it should have collapsed in either a demolition or gravity collapse is ridiculous. It speaks to a prejudice that is obvious in many non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11.
Without doing any name calling, based on your previous posts you seem to believe there were no explosives used, but in fact the towers pancaked.
And for now, I'll say fine, if that's what you choose to believe then that's your prerogative.
'Pancake ' is not a term I would use since I believe that the collapse was much more chaotic an event than that. Thanks for your allowing me my freedom of speech.
Because if the rate of desent is a marker of each mode of collapse (as has been suggested , no , stated, by many in the non-believer's in official record, then the two MUST be calculated and compared.
Because if the rate of desent is a marker of each mode of collapse (as has been suggested , no , stated, by many in the non-believer's in official record, then the two MUST be calculated and compared.
Regarding the ACTUAL RATE OF DECENT, the people who say 8.4 seconds may have used a different standard of measurement, IE; maybe they started the clock the moment after the top began to fall, allowing for the split second to first occur and then start the count down.
They also May have used other time, speed distance factors, which are accurate, but may be in a different format as what other people are using.
They use, and again this is very clear in one of the links you provided, that they are speaking about the desent from the collapse point, ie, how long it took the lowest point of the dropping upper section to hit the ground.
I don't even know if I would characterize it as a lie. It could easily be misinterpretation of the available data by persons with little or no technical background. Dishonesty would be if they knew that their interpretation was or may not be correct but since it seems to support the already arrived at conclusion, they make the statement.
I don't even know if I would characterize it as a lie. It could easily be misinterpretation of the available data by persons with little or no technical background. Dishonesty would be if they knew that their interpretation was or may not be correct but since it seems to support the already arrived at conclusion, they make the statement.
However, I'm willing to admit that it's quite possible their calculations may off a little, but the reason I don't have a problem with it is because I saw the towers collapse myself, live on 9/11, or at least the recorded news videos that we all saw, and what I noticed was NO RESISTANCE, AS IF THE TOWERS FELL THROUGH THIN AIR.
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
An illustration of this would be the perception of the size of the Moon. look at a full moon as it rises. It looks huge. Now extend your hand and use a thumb or finger of the extended hand to just blot out the Moon. Come back two hours later when the Moon is high in the sky. Now it looks much smaller. Extend your hand again and notice that the Moon is actually no bigger than it was before.
that is called human perception
If I said that I have seen any evidence of the use of explosives, I'd be lying.
after the collapse. They were shredded. The concrete was
pulverized. These are the facts of the matter
galdur,With the constituents of the columns and debris of all floors bashing , twisting and grinding against each other things will come apart. Brittle material will shatter, lightweight material will shred. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch thick steel pans would qualify as the later..
metamars, I have seen you and others claim that a significant amount of the steel was 'powderized' or 'vaporized'. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
A building's structure will offer resistance to collapse
in a gravity driven event. Here there was none as per
the collapse speed. This isn't physically possible,
unless explosives or another technology was used to
assist the collapse. There is no way around this.
We can not believe impossible things. There are natural
laws which cannot be ignored.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 6 2006, 05:28 PM)
galdur,
When people make a big issue of Free-Fall speed vs. virtual free-fall speed I have to ask myself the question "Why are they making such a big deal"? What is their motive"?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who loves the truth that the towers fell at almost free fall speed, which proves control demolition. Maybe it was 99.9% free-fall, or maybe 98.9% free-fall, but the whole issue is that IT WAS AS CLOSE TO FREE-FALL SPEED AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
It's almost like you gotta a serial killer who confessed to murdering 99 people, you got DNA and other evidence to support it and then say "The guy killed about 100 people"
Now in my book 99 is almost 100, and if you say "About 100" that would be a true statement because 99 isn't exactly 100, but it's about 100, meaning it's close.
So if you say the towers fell at ABOUT FREE FALL SPEED, that would be a true statement,
They may not have fallen at exactly free-fall speed, but so close that it proves control demolition.
Is there some kind of trick going on here as to why some people are hung up on the free-fall speed terminology?
It is the non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11 who bring this issue up.
'Almost' simply is not good enough.
If the rate of collapse is supposedly too fast then it has to be quantified in order to be accepted.
There is debate as to the actual time of collapse with estimates (on 911research, sorry I do not recall the page) ranging from 10 seconds to 16 seconds.
Even the lowest, 10 seconds , is 10% slower than actual free fall. (actual free fall from 1350 feet is 91.855% of 10 seconds)
Your characterization of 99% being 'close' to 100% is then off to begin with.
metamars has attempted to do the calcs to show a first estimate of the time of collapse and the result does not favor either demolition nor gravity collapse. One then would need to find a way to get a better calculation. This still though does not address the issue of a measured time of collapse and again the error in that measurement is significant.
Steve1957, Your own site makes a claim that the seismic data shows that the upper section hit the ground in 8.4 seconds yet does not say how explains that the upper section made it all the way to ground level intact yet was not intact when the dust cleared.
If the upper section shattered into small pieces upon contact with the ground then the upper section pieces would display different breaking up than the rest of the building. It would also preclude any 'spire' made up of core columns or perimeter columns.
If it was demolished by explosives after it hit the ground then this begs the question of how the explosives and their control devices and detonators managed to survive the drop all intact.
You can make all the subjective, qualitative claims you wish but when it comes down to it you will still need objective, quantitative data to back it up.
When people make a big issue of Free-Fall speed vs. virtual free-fall speed I have to ask myself the question "Why are they making such a big deal"? What is their motive"?
It's pretty obvious to anyone who loves the truth that the towers fell at almost free fall speed, which proves control demolition. Maybe it was 99.9% free-fall, or maybe 98.9% free-fall, but the whole issue is that IT WAS AS CLOSE TO FREE-FALL SPEED AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
It's almost like you gotta a serial killer who confessed to murdering 99 people, you got DNA and other evidence to support it and then say "The guy killed about 100 people"
Now in my book 99 is almost 100, and if you say "About 100" that would be a true statement because 99 isn't exactly 100, but it's about 100, meaning it's close.
So if you say the towers fell at ABOUT FREE FALL SPEED, that would be a true statement,
They may not have fallen at exactly free-fall speed, but so close that it proves control demolition.
Is there some kind of trick going on here as to why some people are hung up on the free-fall speed terminology?
It is the non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11 who bring this issue up.
'Almost' simply is not good enough.
If the rate of collapse is supposedly too fast then it has to be quantified in order to be accepted.
There is debate as to the actual time of collapse with estimates (on 911research, sorry I do not recall the page) ranging from 10 seconds to 16 seconds.
Even the lowest, 10 seconds , is 10% slower than actual free fall. (actual free fall from 1350 feet is 91.855% of 10 seconds)
Your characterization of 99% being 'close' to 100% is then off to begin with.
metamars has attempted to do the calcs to show a first estimate of the time of collapse and the result does not favor either demolition nor gravity collapse. One then would need to find a way to get a better calculation. This still though does not address the issue of a measured time of collapse and again the error in that measurement is significant.
Steve1957, Your own site makes a claim that the seismic data shows that the upper section hit the ground in 8.4 seconds yet does not say how explains that the upper section made it all the way to ground level intact yet was not intact when the dust cleared.
If the upper section shattered into small pieces upon contact with the ground then the upper section pieces would display different breaking up than the rest of the building. It would also preclude any 'spire' made up of core columns or perimeter columns.
If it was demolished by explosives after it hit the ground then this begs the question of how the explosives and their control devices and detonators managed to survive the drop all intact.
You can make all the subjective, qualitative claims you wish but when it comes down to it you will still need objective, quantitative data to back it up.
It's impossible to "fix" free fall, except in a vacuum.
Conditions vary from day to day. Atmosphere pressure
varies. Air resistance varies. Wind varies. There can be
updrafts and downdrafts.
We should focus on fundamentals.
In a gravity driven building collapse the structure of the
building will offer considerable resistance and delay the
collapse. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic physics.
The delay here was negligable. The collapse was at free
fall speed or very close to it. The official hypothesis is
therefore in violation of natural law.
Conditions vary from day to day. Atmosphere pressure
varies. Air resistance varies. Wind varies. There can be
updrafts and downdrafts.
We should focus on fundamentals.
In a gravity driven building collapse the structure of the
building will offer considerable resistance and delay the
collapse. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic physics.
The delay here was negligable. The collapse was at free
fall speed or very close to it. The official hypothesis is
therefore in violation of natural law.
metamars writes:
Calculate the air resistance of a small(empty) cardboard box, place a brick in that box and it will still have the same characteristics as that box wrt to air resistance.
Drop each from 1 meter up, again from 2 meters,again from 5, then 10 meters.
You will find that the empty box reachs terminal velocity very quickly while the brick filled box may not reach terminal velocity even at 10 meter fall.
The denser the object falling through a medium the less effect viscous drag will have , as a percentage of the velocity due to gravitational forces.
IMO the air resistance of the falling heavy debris would be very minimal compared to the velocity imparted to that debris due to gravity. Certainly its effect would fall within the margin of error of any calculations involving the effect of the floors hitting each other and thus loses any significance.
QUOTE
The effects of air resistance are well nigh impossible to calculate with any confidence, without a computer simulation that basically modelled the whole collapse, although I suppose it safe to assume that you could use the same factor as you'd use for, say, a brick, as a lower limit, in simplified (non-computer) calculations.
Calculate the air resistance of a small(empty) cardboard box, place a brick in that box and it will still have the same characteristics as that box wrt to air resistance.
Drop each from 1 meter up, again from 2 meters,again from 5, then 10 meters.
You will find that the empty box reachs terminal velocity very quickly while the brick filled box may not reach terminal velocity even at 10 meter fall.
The denser the object falling through a medium the less effect viscous drag will have , as a percentage of the velocity due to gravitational forces.
IMO the air resistance of the falling heavy debris would be very minimal compared to the velocity imparted to that debris due to gravity. Certainly its effect would fall within the margin of error of any calculations involving the effect of the floors hitting each other and thus loses any significance.
yesdidit,
How can anyone say for certain that the page and/or video that states one of the towers fell in 8.4 seconds?
I'm not saying all that information is absolutely 100% accurate, because in truth no one can be 100% certain as to how they came up with their formula. Obviously I agree with the crux of the information in that explosives were used and don't believe that a percentage makes any difference as to whether explosives were used or not. IT'S THE LACK OF RESISTANCE THAT TELLS ME EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.
Without doing any name calling, based on your previous posts you seem to believe there were no explosives used, but in fact the towers pancaked.
And for now, I'll say fine, if that's what you choose to believe then that's your prerogative.
But if the issue at hand is whether explosives were used or not is the main issue then semantics shouldn't make that much different. Obviously you and others who believe in the pancake would take issue, but it's hard to understand why people who are convinced explosives were used would engage in meaningless debates at the exact rate of decent.
Regarding the ACTUAL RATE OF DECENT, the people who say 8.4 seconds may have used a different standard of measurement, IE; maybe they started the clock the moment after the top began to fall, allowing for the split second to first occur and then start the count down.
They also May have used other time, speed distance factors, which are accurate, but may be in a different format as what other people are using.
The issue is honesty. If in fact those people were twisting the facts and lying about the actual speed, then you and anyone else would have a legitimate gripe, but without knowing their exact formula for measurement, it might be pre-mature to say they are incorrect.
However, I'm willing to admit that it's quite possible their calculations may off a little, but the reason I don't have a problem with it is because I saw the towers collapse myself, live on 9/11, or at least the recorded news videos that we all saw, and what I noticed was NO RESISTANCE, AS IF THE TOWERS FELL THROUGH THIN AIR.
Of course you have the freedom and the right to call me a lunatic, and that it's possible I'm just imagining this, as you have a right to express yourself, all I can do is present the best evidence I have in the best manner I have as honestly and sincerely as I can. And if I said I didn't think explosives were used I'd be lying.
How can anyone say for certain that the page and/or video that states one of the towers fell in 8.4 seconds?
I'm not saying all that information is absolutely 100% accurate, because in truth no one can be 100% certain as to how they came up with their formula. Obviously I agree with the crux of the information in that explosives were used and don't believe that a percentage makes any difference as to whether explosives were used or not. IT'S THE LACK OF RESISTANCE THAT TELLS ME EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.
Without doing any name calling, based on your previous posts you seem to believe there were no explosives used, but in fact the towers pancaked.
And for now, I'll say fine, if that's what you choose to believe then that's your prerogative.
But if the issue at hand is whether explosives were used or not is the main issue then semantics shouldn't make that much different. Obviously you and others who believe in the pancake would take issue, but it's hard to understand why people who are convinced explosives were used would engage in meaningless debates at the exact rate of decent.
Regarding the ACTUAL RATE OF DECENT, the people who say 8.4 seconds may have used a different standard of measurement, IE; maybe they started the clock the moment after the top began to fall, allowing for the split second to first occur and then start the count down.
They also May have used other time, speed distance factors, which are accurate, but may be in a different format as what other people are using.
The issue is honesty. If in fact those people were twisting the facts and lying about the actual speed, then you and anyone else would have a legitimate gripe, but without knowing their exact formula for measurement, it might be pre-mature to say they are incorrect.
However, I'm willing to admit that it's quite possible their calculations may off a little, but the reason I don't have a problem with it is because I saw the towers collapse myself, live on 9/11, or at least the recorded news videos that we all saw, and what I noticed was NO RESISTANCE, AS IF THE TOWERS FELL THROUGH THIN AIR.
Of course you have the freedom and the right to call me a lunatic, and that it's possible I'm just imagining this, as you have a right to express yourself, all I can do is present the best evidence I have in the best manner I have as honestly and sincerely as I can. And if I said I didn't think explosives were used I'd be lying.
Why are people falling for the Shills ( and shill wanabes) tricks on free fall speed? You will never get agreement on the Time of collapse and forces involved the shills know this. A steel beam 70 meters away from the building falling at best 10 stories indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that potential energy is not the only force involved. When Arthur , Yesitdid or Common Sence can explain this mystery then they can be taken seriously.
Edited to correct Common Scenes true status
Edited to correct Common Scenes true status
Exactly.
But the stupendous energy sinks
pulverization of concrete and other non-metallic material
shredding of steel
huge dust clouds running hundreds of meters in seconds
high temperature in the ruins and under them for weeks
are still the most glaring inconsistency of the official version.
But the stupendous energy sinks
pulverization of concrete and other non-metallic material
shredding of steel
huge dust clouds running hundreds of meters in seconds
high temperature in the ruins and under them for weeks
are still the most glaring inconsistency of the official version.
QUOTE
How can anyone say for certain that the page and/or video that states one of the towers fell in 8.4 seconds?
If you have watched the videos that you post on your site then you know that is exactly what it is saying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How can anyone say for certain that the page and/or video that states one of the towers fell in 8.4 seconds? |
If you have watched the videos that you post on your site then you know that is exactly what it is saying.
I'm not saying all that information is absolutely 100% accurate, because in truth no one can be 100% certain as to how they came up with their formula.
Which makes it all but useless except for drumming up emotional responses.
QUOTE
Obviously I agree with the crux of the information in that explosives were used and don't believe that a percentage makes any difference as to whether explosives were used or not. IT'S THE LACK OF RESISTANCE THAT TELLS ME EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.
To state that there was a lack of resistance and then to ignore any attempt to calculate how fast it should have collapsed in either a demolition or gravity collapse is ridiculous. It speaks to a prejudice that is obvious in many non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Obviously I agree with the crux of the information in that explosives were used and don't believe that a percentage makes any difference as to whether explosives were used or not. IT'S THE LACK OF RESISTANCE THAT TELLS ME EXPLOSIVES WERE USED. |
To state that there was a lack of resistance and then to ignore any attempt to calculate how fast it should have collapsed in either a demolition or gravity collapse is ridiculous. It speaks to a prejudice that is obvious in many non-believers in the official record of events of 9/11.
Without doing any name calling, based on your previous posts you seem to believe there were no explosives used, but in fact the towers pancaked.
And for now, I'll say fine, if that's what you choose to believe then that's your prerogative.
'Pancake ' is not a term I would use since I believe that the collapse was much more chaotic an event than that. Thanks for your allowing me my freedom of speech.
QUOTE
But if the issue at hand is whether explosives were used or not is the main issue then semantics shouldn't make that much different. Obviously you and others who believe in the pancake would take issue, but it's hard to understand why people who are convinced explosives were used would engage in meaningless debates at the exact rate of decent.
Because if the rate of desent is a marker of each mode of collapse (as has been suggested , no , stated, by many in the non-believer's in official record, then the two MUST be calculated and compared.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But if the issue at hand is whether explosives were used or not is the main issue then semantics shouldn't make that much different. Obviously you and others who believe in the pancake would take issue, but it's hard to understand why people who are convinced explosives were used would engage in meaningless debates at the exact rate of decent. |
Because if the rate of desent is a marker of each mode of collapse (as has been suggested , no , stated, by many in the non-believer's in official record, then the two MUST be calculated and compared.
Regarding the ACTUAL RATE OF DECENT, the people who say 8.4 seconds may have used a different standard of measurement, IE; maybe they started the clock the moment after the top began to fall, allowing for the split second to first occur and then start the count down.
They also May have used other time, speed distance factors, which are accurate, but may be in a different format as what other people are using.
They use, and again this is very clear in one of the links you provided, that they are speaking about the desent from the collapse point, ie, how long it took the lowest point of the dropping upper section to hit the ground.
QUOTE
The issue is honesty. If in fact those people were twisting the facts and lying about the actual speed, then you and anyone else would have a legitimate gripe, but without knowing their exact formula for measurement, it might be pre-mature to say they are incorrect.
I don't even know if I would characterize it as a lie. It could easily be misinterpretation of the available data by persons with little or no technical background. Dishonesty would be if they knew that their interpretation was or may not be correct but since it seems to support the already arrived at conclusion, they make the statement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The issue is honesty. If in fact those people were twisting the facts and lying about the actual speed, then you and anyone else would have a legitimate gripe, but without knowing their exact formula for measurement, it might be pre-mature to say they are incorrect. |
I don't even know if I would characterize it as a lie. It could easily be misinterpretation of the available data by persons with little or no technical background. Dishonesty would be if they knew that their interpretation was or may not be correct but since it seems to support the already arrived at conclusion, they make the statement.
However, I'm willing to admit that it's quite possible their calculations may off a little, but the reason I don't have a problem with it is because I saw the towers collapse myself, live on 9/11, or at least the recorded news videos that we all saw, and what I noticed was NO RESISTANCE, AS IF THE TOWERS FELL THROUGH THIN AIR.
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
An illustration of this would be the perception of the size of the Moon. look at a full moon as it rises. It looks huge. Now extend your hand and use a thumb or finger of the extended hand to just blot out the Moon. Come back two hours later when the Moon is high in the sky. Now it looks much smaller. Extend your hand again and notice that the Moon is actually no bigger than it was before.
that is called human perception
QUOTE
Of course you have the freedom and the right to call me a lunatic, and that it's possible I'm just imagining this, as you have a right to express yourself, all I can do is present the best evidence I have in the best manner I have as honestly and sincerely as I can. And if I said I didn't think explosives were used I'd be lying.
If I said that I have seen any evidence of the use of explosives, I'd be lying.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:47 PM)
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:47 PM)
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Go back and check. I did not bring air resistance into this.
So, agreed.
Go back and check. I did not bring air resistance into this.
So, agreed.
In a gravity driven building collapse the structure of the
building will offer considerable resistance and delay the
collapse. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic physics.
The delay here was negligable. The collapse was at free
fall speed or very close to it. The official hypothesis is
therefore in violation of natural law.
Again, to make this statement one has to quantify the collapse.
Appears to be at free fall or very close to free fall are subjective analysis based on one's perception.
Ehhh, that was already done WAAAAYYYY back when... 'Reality' (when you claimed the towers had a 'hollow core'.
So much for your 'knowledge' on the topic under discussion.
Keep watching and you may actually LEARN something.
Ciao, Mate...
Hi Foxx.
Are you maintaining that the 'core' WASN'T "hollow"? And that, in the event, it WASN'T woefully inadequate for the conditions that prevailed in 9/11 impact and aftermath? Please go back and see what a REAL honest-to-goodness CORE SHOULD BE.
And I still have to see any PHYSICS argument/knowledge in rebutal of my last observations. Ciao.
RC.
.
Ehhhh,,, Oh; I thought you just 'passed by coincidentally' (not REALLY paying attention) ... Pfffttt !
Read again the nonsense you have posted.
It seems you have absolutely NO understanding of the architechtural engineering regarding the central core. Why do you pretend to have such knowledge?
I Could Really 'write a book' on your 'engineering nonsense,' but as I am not being paid to do so, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on your flowery BS, 'Reality Check'.
Say 'hi' to Crocodile Dundee for us...
Hi Foxx.
See highlight above: This displays an unhealthy level of paranoia, mate. Is it too much to ask that you understand that SOME days I have MORE time than others to spend here; and ALSO that SOME 'points/posts' are MORE than usually interesting/important enough for me to MAKE and spend that time on it? Don't start fantasising about my Physorg forum habits...because they are at the mercy of many factors, so you'll go crazy if you try to 'read' imaginary things into them.
And I still maintain that a REAL CORE was NOT in evidence DURING THE COLLAPSE....as it DISINTEGRATED along with all the other structures...and served only to ADD to the chaos and weight of the collapse materials...a REAL CORE is supposed to DETRACT from collapse chaos....and NOT ENHANCE it. Face it, in the event, the 'core' was NOT a PROPER 'core'...it was only a 'core' in WISHFUL THINKING under ideal circumstances, and NOT in REALITY under extreme circumstances as in 9/11.
And you have STILL to provide PHYSICS arguments to rebut ANY of my observations of THE PHYSICAL EVENTS scenarios during/after tower collapses.
I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS....hasn't that come through yet? So I shrug off all NON-physics remarks/posts...as it usually demonstrates that the poster is IGNORANT of ANY relevant/tested/proven applied/theoretical physics for each and every aspect involved.
For your further information, I have served for three years as ENGINEERING SECRETARY to a departmental CIVIL WORKS COMMITTEE (had to know/understand/communicate to others many aspects of Radio/Mechanical/Electrical plans AND use the ROLMOP system to keep track of various Construction Programme physical/financial progress. I have also been INTIMATELY involved design/physically/legally in the OWNER-BUILDER construction (and litigation resolution between architect/quantity-surveyor/concretor) of the EXTENDED-family's double-brick/concrete slab triple-story family home unit block in Sydney; and the owner-builder construction of the waffle-slab, brick-veneer, ZincAlum-Steel frame house. So that combined with all sorts of miscellaneous scientific/technical/materials/processes research/work should equal your or any other's practical/theoretical knowledge of the RELEVANT PHYSICS factors being discussed. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
Just to be clear: I'm doubtful that floor trusses snapping off from columns would make much of a kink. However, the FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe that these truss connections are so strong that they contribute in a major way to the ever-obscure "column failues".
To be fair, I have not been able to quantify the forces involved, and therefore can't be too upset if they have not, either. However, they should at least explain qualitatively why we observe no kinks.
As they have rather fertile imaginations, this should be no problem. I prefer plausible explanations, of course, but preferring and getting are two different things...
Hi metamars.
Do you recall my posts to gordon explaining the PRINCIPLE of LESSER forces REDIRECTING GREATER forces? The same principle applies here. The vertical forces had only to be 're-directed' by the floor connections just BIASING the vertical colums either way OUT OF TRUE...so that the 'buckling/breaking' INITIATION could take place SOONER rather than LATER in whatever direction the BIAS was. That BIAS need only be MARGINAL in strength for it to have a great determining of the DIRECTION of buckling etc. This of course is IN ADDITION to all the other chaotic happennings/forces at play (including ANNEALING IN SITU and the softening this results in; etc etc). Hope this helps. Gotta run. Ciao.
RC.
.
You seem to be thinking of rubble falling down vertically on columns. But I was referring to rubble falling vertically on the floor trusses, which are horizontal. Either the rubble hit those trusses or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, then why and how did they disappear?
Hi metamars!
I commented based on YOUR comments highlighted above. And merely pointed out how the increased 'debris weight' on the floor trusses would be sufficient to pull on and so BIAS the COLUMN tendencies under ANY vertical load be it static or dynamic. Ciao
RC
I now understand your issue even less.....
What exactly do you think happened to the trusses? How did we end up with a "naked column"?
Come, metamars, I don't have time to play games with either obtuse or purposely disingenuous people. You can't have it both ways. Some of you complain that the connections COULDN'T 'pull' on the columns because they were too weak and would snap before affecting the columns stability/bias; and THEN YOU say the columns SHOULDN'T have been 'shorn' naked of their floor connections? Please, mate; save your games for the other 'side', as I'm NOT on ANYBODY"s 'side' but the obvious observations as I see them from my own experience/knowledge of the POSSIBLE processes in any given scenario described (which scenario in this case was described by YOUR comments as highlighted by me above). I don't give a damn about agendas or games or 'sides' in ANY debate. I call it as I see it and be damned to all else. So please save your 'cuteness' for those who will appreciate it and have the time to 'play', heh? Ciao.
RC.
.
I'm trying to make heads or tails of your posts, not trying to be disingenuous.
I believe that floor trusses should either snap off without a noticeable bend, or with a slight bend, in a scenario where the lateral portions of the floors can collapse at all. This statement is absolutely consistent with what I have written earlier in this thread.
The FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe in "column failure". And this column failure, at least in some versions of collapse, are said to happen via columns getting pulled inward by sagging trusses. And yet, we see a column, denuded (at the top, anyway) of floor trusses. Furthermore, we also see that the column is straight.
Your account of "chaos" doesn't explain this at all. Even if a "small force can divert a larger one", either a larger force (diverted or not) hit the trusses and tore them away, or not.
Theory A >>> If they did dig get torn away, I would like you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why these trusses didn't bend the spire column.
Theory B >>> If they didn't get torn away, I would like to you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why I don't see them.
Please tell us whether you subscribe to Theory A or Theory B, and then fill in the missing details.
I can't make it any clearer than this.
From where I'm sitting, it's pretty obvious that you can't elaborate on A or B in any convincing way, but be my guest.
Uhhhh , sorry metamars.
I realize you don't like to 'accept' that there are certain persons on ALL these boards who are 'shills'.
Let me correct that... We ADMIT that we CAN NOT (for a fact) determine who MIGHT be 'paid schills', so why waste time in trying to determine the 'Whos- Who'?
It is obvious to ALL of us that 'Reality Check' is well-aligned with the 'official theory' and supports IT wholeheartedly.
NO well-intentioned rational sentient being can hear and see ALL the evidence presented and STILL SUPPORT such idiocy.
'Reality Check' attempts to support the fairy tale with false meekness, yet has already displayed a misunderstanding of the structural aspects of the towers.
Regardless of his misunderstanding of this critical area of understanding, he attempts to present himself as having 'some understanding' of the engineering and architectural details of the towers, and denies ANY mistakes.
Sorry to say --- he's just a bs'er. (which is quite clear to those who have actual experince in this field)... which brings to mind other BS'ers on this thread (or others)
Fine.. Let's pretend (these people) are regular sentient beings, but the more I read of the thoughts of 'Reality'... the more I see 'Common Sense'
Neither make sense, yet wish to portray their position as FULLY REASONABLE.
Hi metamars (and you too Foxx).
What is it about the term CHAOS that you do not understand? When 'connectors' give way CHAOTICALLY from the INNER fixing points and OUTER fixing points, the ORDER in which such disconnections occur is IMPORTANT in the EFFECT produced. Fo example, if debris FIRST disconnects floor trusses from inner tube fixings, then the floor trusses will be swung down and toward the outer wall, so that THOSE connection fails MORE ALONG THE VERTICAL and not PULLING INWARDS so much...so THAT PART of the outer columns would be 'stripped' just like a tree harvester machine would 'strip' branches down a trunk.....NOT pulling them off 'sideways'. Imagine MANY such transient events in that CHAOS. If you still don't understand, please read up as I suggested before you come back with timewasting assertions against established principles/phenomena IN MANY AREAS of physics. Ciao.
RC.
.
Does it look Hollow?
I guess if you eliminate all those steel cores and such you might be able to make it look hollow
Hi steve1957.
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
And THAT is why PREVIOUS 'REAL' CORE DESIGNS were CONTIGUOUS POURINGS OF TRADITIONALLY REINFORCED CONCRETE providing MOLECULAR-BOND STRENGTH/INTEGRITY FOR THE WHOLE HEIGHT. Compare that to the NON-CONTIGUOUS nature of the 'steel wickerwork' AND FRESH AIR of the so-called (haha) 'cores' of the towers. Like comparing a HIGH-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE 'BUNKER' to a HIGH-RISE COLLECTION OF TRESTLE-TABLES. LAUGHABLE IN THEORY and, as it turned out, FALSE SECURITY IN PRACTICE. The designers/architects/city-planners etc have a lot to answer for, in my view.
Read the literature on BOTH types of 'core designs', and THEN come back with your rebutals, steve. Ciao.
RC.
.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
QUOTE
It's impossible to "fix" free fall, except in a vacuum.
Conditions vary from day to day. Atmosphere pressure
varies. Air resistance varies. Wind varies. There can be
updrafts and downdrafts.
We should focus on fundamentals.
Conditions vary from day to day. Atmosphere pressure
varies. Air resistance varies. Wind varies. There can be
updrafts and downdrafts.
We should focus on fundamentals.
Go back and check. I did not bring air resistance into this.
So, agreed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's impossible to "fix" free fall, except in a vacuum. Conditions vary from day to day. Atmosphere pressure varies. Air resistance varies. Wind varies. There can be updrafts and downdrafts. We should focus on fundamentals. |
Go back and check. I did not bring air resistance into this.
So, agreed.
In a gravity driven building collapse the structure of the
building will offer considerable resistance and delay the
collapse. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic physics.
The delay here was negligable. The collapse was at free
fall speed or very close to it. The official hypothesis is
therefore in violation of natural law.
Again, to make this statement one has to quantify the collapse.
Appears to be at free fall or very close to free fall are subjective analysis based on one's perception.
Well, it was physically impossible to fly that
plane into the Pentagon. It's in violation of
aerodynamic laws.
So, why is it so far fetched that the official
story would ignore natural laws at the WTC too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
plane into the Pentagon. It's in violation of
aerodynamic laws.
So, why is it so far fetched that the official
story would ignore natural laws at the WTC too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 6 2006, 06:13 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 05:47 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 6 2006, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by 'Reality Check'
And it behoves YOU and any other challengers of my posts to REBUT with equally VALID PHYSICS argument/knowledge...all else on your part is, as far as I'm concerned, merely delay, evasion and immaterial blather
And it behoves YOU and any other challengers of my posts to REBUT with equally VALID PHYSICS argument/knowledge...all else on your part is, as far as I'm concerned, merely delay, evasion and immaterial blather
Ehhh, that was already done WAAAAYYYY back when... 'Reality' (when you claimed the towers had a 'hollow core'.
So much for your 'knowledge' on the topic under discussion.
Keep watching and you may actually LEARN something.
Ciao, Mate...
Hi Foxx.
Are you maintaining that the 'core' WASN'T "hollow"? And that, in the event, it WASN'T woefully inadequate for the conditions that prevailed in 9/11 impact and aftermath? Please go back and see what a REAL honest-to-goodness CORE SHOULD BE.
And I still have to see any PHYSICS argument/knowledge in rebutal of my last observations. Ciao.
RC.
.
Ehhhh,,, Oh; I thought you just 'passed by coincidentally' (not REALLY paying attention) ... Pfffttt !
Read again the nonsense you have posted.
It seems you have absolutely NO understanding of the architechtural engineering regarding the central core. Why do you pretend to have such knowledge?
I Could Really 'write a book' on your 'engineering nonsense,' but as I am not being paid to do so, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on your flowery BS, 'Reality Check'.
Say 'hi' to Crocodile Dundee for us...
Hi Foxx.
See highlight above: This displays an unhealthy level of paranoia, mate. Is it too much to ask that you understand that SOME days I have MORE time than others to spend here; and ALSO that SOME 'points/posts' are MORE than usually interesting/important enough for me to MAKE and spend that time on it? Don't start fantasising about my Physorg forum habits...because they are at the mercy of many factors, so you'll go crazy if you try to 'read' imaginary things into them.
And I still maintain that a REAL CORE was NOT in evidence DURING THE COLLAPSE....as it DISINTEGRATED along with all the other structures...and served only to ADD to the chaos and weight of the collapse materials...a REAL CORE is supposed to DETRACT from collapse chaos....and NOT ENHANCE it. Face it, in the event, the 'core' was NOT a PROPER 'core'...it was only a 'core' in WISHFUL THINKING under ideal circumstances, and NOT in REALITY under extreme circumstances as in 9/11.
And you have STILL to provide PHYSICS arguments to rebut ANY of my observations of THE PHYSICAL EVENTS scenarios during/after tower collapses.
I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS....hasn't that come through yet? So I shrug off all NON-physics remarks/posts...as it usually demonstrates that the poster is IGNORANT of ANY relevant/tested/proven applied/theoretical physics for each and every aspect involved.
For your further information, I have served for three years as ENGINEERING SECRETARY to a departmental CIVIL WORKS COMMITTEE (had to know/understand/communicate to others many aspects of Radio/Mechanical/Electrical plans AND use the ROLMOP system to keep track of various Construction Programme physical/financial progress. I have also been INTIMATELY involved design/physically/legally in the OWNER-BUILDER construction (and litigation resolution between architect/quantity-surveyor/concretor) of the EXTENDED-family's double-brick/concrete slab triple-story family home unit block in Sydney; and the owner-builder construction of the waffle-slab, brick-veneer, ZincAlum-Steel frame house. So that combined with all sorts of miscellaneous scientific/technical/materials/processes research/work should equal your or any other's practical/theoretical knowledge of the RELEVANT PHYSICS factors being discussed. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
OK RC, you're obviously qualified to explain on the other
thread how that 757 whizzed into the Pentagon basically
hugging the ground. Obviously it has to approach the
building meters above the ground at most.
thread how that 757 whizzed into the Pentagon basically
hugging the ground. Obviously it has to approach the
building meters above the ground at most.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 6 2006, 07:03 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 06:18 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 04:55 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 03:20 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE
please explain to us why the mass of falling floors applied no torque to the vertical columns which would have made them have kinks, at the very least.
Just to be clear: I'm doubtful that floor trusses snapping off from columns would make much of a kink. However, the FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe that these truss connections are so strong that they contribute in a major way to the ever-obscure "column failues".
To be fair, I have not been able to quantify the forces involved, and therefore can't be too upset if they have not, either. However, they should at least explain qualitatively why we observe no kinks.
As they have rather fertile imaginations, this should be no problem. I prefer plausible explanations, of course, but preferring and getting are two different things...
Hi metamars.
Do you recall my posts to gordon explaining the PRINCIPLE of LESSER forces REDIRECTING GREATER forces? The same principle applies here. The vertical forces had only to be 're-directed' by the floor connections just BIASING the vertical colums either way OUT OF TRUE...so that the 'buckling/breaking' INITIATION could take place SOONER rather than LATER in whatever direction the BIAS was. That BIAS need only be MARGINAL in strength for it to have a great determining of the DIRECTION of buckling etc. This of course is IN ADDITION to all the other chaotic happennings/forces at play (including ANNEALING IN SITU and the softening this results in; etc etc). Hope this helps. Gotta run. Ciao.
RC.
.
You seem to be thinking of rubble falling down vertically on columns. But I was referring to rubble falling vertically on the floor trusses, which are horizontal. Either the rubble hit those trusses or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, then why and how did they disappear?
Hi metamars!
I commented based on YOUR comments highlighted above. And merely pointed out how the increased 'debris weight' on the floor trusses would be sufficient to pull on and so BIAS the COLUMN tendencies under ANY vertical load be it static or dynamic. Ciao
RC
I now understand your issue even less.....
What exactly do you think happened to the trusses? How did we end up with a "naked column"?
Come, metamars, I don't have time to play games with either obtuse or purposely disingenuous people. You can't have it both ways. Some of you complain that the connections COULDN'T 'pull' on the columns because they were too weak and would snap before affecting the columns stability/bias; and THEN YOU say the columns SHOULDN'T have been 'shorn' naked of their floor connections? Please, mate; save your games for the other 'side', as I'm NOT on ANYBODY"s 'side' but the obvious observations as I see them from my own experience/knowledge of the POSSIBLE processes in any given scenario described (which scenario in this case was described by YOUR comments as highlighted by me above). I don't give a damn about agendas or games or 'sides' in ANY debate. I call it as I see it and be damned to all else. So please save your 'cuteness' for those who will appreciate it and have the time to 'play', heh? Ciao.
RC.
.
I'm trying to make heads or tails of your posts, not trying to be disingenuous.
I believe that floor trusses should either snap off without a noticeable bend, or with a slight bend, in a scenario where the lateral portions of the floors can collapse at all. This statement is absolutely consistent with what I have written earlier in this thread.
The FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe in "column failure". And this column failure, at least in some versions of collapse, are said to happen via columns getting pulled inward by sagging trusses. And yet, we see a column, denuded (at the top, anyway) of floor trusses. Furthermore, we also see that the column is straight.
Your account of "chaos" doesn't explain this at all. Even if a "small force can divert a larger one", either a larger force (diverted or not) hit the trusses and tore them away, or not.
Theory A >>> If they did dig get torn away, I would like you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why these trusses didn't bend the spire column.
Theory B >>> If they didn't get torn away, I would like to you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why I don't see them.
Please tell us whether you subscribe to Theory A or Theory B, and then fill in the missing details.
I can't make it any clearer than this.
From where I'm sitting, it's pretty obvious that you can't elaborate on A or B in any convincing way, but be my guest.
Uhhhh , sorry metamars.
I realize you don't like to 'accept' that there are certain persons on ALL these boards who are 'shills'.
Let me correct that... We ADMIT that we CAN NOT (for a fact) determine who MIGHT be 'paid schills', so why waste time in trying to determine the 'Whos- Who'?
It is obvious to ALL of us that 'Reality Check' is well-aligned with the 'official theory' and supports IT wholeheartedly.
NO well-intentioned rational sentient being can hear and see ALL the evidence presented and STILL SUPPORT such idiocy.
'Reality Check' attempts to support the fairy tale with false meekness, yet has already displayed a misunderstanding of the structural aspects of the towers.
Regardless of his misunderstanding of this critical area of understanding, he attempts to present himself as having 'some understanding' of the engineering and architectural details of the towers, and denies ANY mistakes.
Sorry to say --- he's just a bs'er. (which is quite clear to those who have actual experince in this field)... which brings to mind other BS'ers on this thread (or others)
Fine.. Let's pretend (these people) are regular sentient beings, but the more I read of the thoughts of 'Reality'... the more I see 'Common Sense'
Neither make sense, yet wish to portray their position as FULLY REASONABLE.
Hi metamars (and you too Foxx).
What is it about the term CHAOS that you do not understand? When 'connectors' give way CHAOTICALLY from the INNER fixing points and OUTER fixing points, the ORDER in which such disconnections occur is IMPORTANT in the EFFECT produced. Fo example, if debris FIRST disconnects floor trusses from inner tube fixings, then the floor trusses will be swung down and toward the outer wall, so that THOSE connection fails MORE ALONG THE VERTICAL and not PULLING INWARDS so much...so THAT PART of the outer columns would be 'stripped' just like a tree harvester machine would 'strip' branches down a trunk.....NOT pulling them off 'sideways'. Imagine MANY such transient events in that CHAOS. If you still don't understand, please read up as I suggested before you come back with timewasting assertions against established principles/phenomena IN MANY AREAS of physics. Ciao.
RC.
.
Eventually NIST will be forced to produce some simplistic
fable regarding the collapse of WTC-7, after dragging its
feet for years. How are they likely to deal with it? No
plane hit that building and there were small and limited
fires. Ideas?
fable regarding the collapse of WTC-7, after dragging its
feet for years. How are they likely to deal with it? No
plane hit that building and there were small and limited
fires. Ideas?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 6 2006, 09:32 AM)
QUOTE
RealityCheck
Are you maintaining that the 'core' WASN'T "hollow"?
Are you maintaining that the 'core' WASN'T "hollow"?
Does it look Hollow?
I guess if you eliminate all those steel cores and such you might be able to make it look hollow
Hi steve1957.
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
And THAT is why PREVIOUS 'REAL' CORE DESIGNS were CONTIGUOUS POURINGS OF TRADITIONALLY REINFORCED CONCRETE providing MOLECULAR-BOND STRENGTH/INTEGRITY FOR THE WHOLE HEIGHT. Compare that to the NON-CONTIGUOUS nature of the 'steel wickerwork' AND FRESH AIR of the so-called (haha) 'cores' of the towers. Like comparing a HIGH-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE 'BUNKER' to a HIGH-RISE COLLECTION OF TRESTLE-TABLES. LAUGHABLE IN THEORY and, as it turned out, FALSE SECURITY IN PRACTICE. The designers/architects/city-planners etc have a lot to answer for, in my view.
Read the literature on BOTH types of 'core designs', and THEN come back with your rebutals, steve. Ciao.
RC.
.
It'll be another white-wash.
Nico Haupt is a drunk.
The towers were incredibly strong and way overengineered
which is why it's impossible to see their blueprints.
which is why it's impossible to see their blueprints.
Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177;.)
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
"""Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.""" (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; )
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:47 PM)
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:47 PM)
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
You can't be serious.
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
You can't be serious.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
metamars has attempted to do the calcs to show a first estimate of the time of collapse and the result does not favor either demolition nor gravity collapse. One then would need to find a way to get a better calculation.
You are probably referring to my computer calculation which assumed 0 column strength. It was extremely unrealistic, but since it favored the FEMA Fairy Tale, if it had turned out that conservation of momentum considerations alone could slow the collapse down by, say 7.5 seconds, it would have been very significant.
Since the calculation did no such thing, it proves nothing. In a sense, it favored FEMA too much.
My earlier calculation that attempted to predict what would happen if you "dropped" the top of the building through 5 floors used BZ's KE dissipation figure for initial sound floors to get a handle on what would happen afterwards.
However, BZ is so unrealistic, in that it's real domain tells us nothing beyond the first few millimeters of a collapse, that it obviously shouldn't be used for calculating even limited ( i.e., non-global) multi-floor collapses.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 06:45 PM)
metamars has attempted to do the calcs to show a first estimate of the time of collapse and the result does not favor either demolition nor gravity collapse. One then would need to find a way to get a better calculation.
You are probably referring to my computer calculation which assumed 0 column strength. It was extremely unrealistic, but since it favored the FEMA Fairy Tale, if it had turned out that conservation of momentum considerations alone could slow the collapse down by, say 7.5 seconds, it would have been very significant.
Since the calculation did no such thing, it proves nothing. In a sense, it favored FEMA too much.
My earlier calculation that attempted to predict what would happen if you "dropped" the top of the building through 5 floors used BZ's KE dissipation figure for initial sound floors to get a handle on what would happen afterwards.
However, BZ is so unrealistic, in that it's real domain tells us nothing beyond the first few millimeters of a collapse, that it obviously shouldn't be used for calculating even limited ( i.e., non-global) multi-floor collapses.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 10:00 PM)
Well, it was physically impossible to fly that
plane into the Pentagon. It's in violation of
aerodynamic laws.
So, why is it so far fetched that the official
story would ignore natural laws at the WTC too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
A favourite topic of Foxx's
My post from another forum concerning this:
Marc de Piolenc, Foxx had stated was an expert in WIGE and would back him up in the idea that a plane could not fly fast and low due to ground effect.
However , as you can see, when I wrote him he did nothing of the sort and instead agreed with the aeronautical engineer Ken Blackburn's , "On a high speed fly by, no matter how low, ground effect will have essentially no effect. ".
The plane that hit the Pentagon was NOT landing, it was not slowing down, nor extending flaps , nor lowering the wheels. It was flying fast and trimmed for cruise.
Oh, and before Foxx comes on puffing and spitting, yes, Ken Blackburn's hobby is paper airplanes. It is actually what his claim to fame in this world is. His job is as an aeronautical engineer and he has a lot of credentials in that department and is what puts food on his table..
plane into the Pentagon. It's in violation of
aerodynamic laws.
So, why is it so far fetched that the official
story would ignore natural laws at the WTC too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect
A favourite topic of Foxx's
My post from another forum concerning this:
QUOTE
I wrote to and have recieved a reply from Marc de Piolenc
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote::
>
> I am trying to get a handle on the wing-in-ground effect. I read on a
> webpage by aeronautical engineer, Ken Blackburn
> http://www.eaa32.org/Articles/Aerodynamic.html
>
>
>
""Ground effect is the change to the flow field around an airplane due to
flying close to the ground - usually becoming noticeable below 1/2 the
airplane's wing span. Contrary to popular belief, ground effect does not
increase the maximum lift of the wing - so stall speed in ground effect is
the same as at attitude. In fact some high lift aircraft actually have a
slight reduction of their maximum lift in ground effect. So why can an
airplane get stuck momentarily in ground effect after takeoff, and why do
they float in ground effect as they land? The reason is because being close
to the ground reduces the induced drag of the wing. This allows you take off
very slowly, but climb just a few feet and, if you are slow enough, the drag
increases enough to keep you from climbing further. Voila, you are stuck.
This is why it's important to not takeoff too slowly if you are near gross
weight or at a high density altitude.
Because ground effect reduces just induced drag, it is more noticeable the slower you fly. On a high speed fly by, no matter how low, ground effect
will have essentially no effect. At stall speed with the wheels inches off
the ground it can potentially reduce your drag by 1/2.
Another effect of ground effect is on pitch stability and trim. Close to the
ground the downwash of the wing over the tail is reduced, resulting in
greater pitch stability and a nose down pitching moment. The pitch
stability change is usually a small effect, but it is possible for an
airplane to be stable in ground effect, but to have reduced stability as
soon as it flies to altitude. The nose down pitch change in ground effect
may not be noticed by many pilots as flight near the ground usually involves
rotating the airplane which masks the pitch change. The forward CG limit on
many aircraft is set by the ability for the airplane to rotate up to the
stall angle in ground effect which is more difficult than stalling out of
ground effect because of the nose down pitching moment"".
>I am told though that you might dispute that ground effect would have no effect on a high speed flypass (aircraft still configured for cruise, no flaps or slats + wheels up) and that in fact you would assert that GE would have a greater effect in such a situation.
>
>
>
> Given that the two views would be diametrically opposed could you confirm what I have been told about your view and explain(in simple terms if
possible) why you differ. Should you agree with Mr. Blackburn's description then please respond confirming that.
>
> Thanks in advance .
>
> J.D.
The reply
This is fairly accurate as regards CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT operating in
ground effect.
Effect on a high-speed flyby may not be very great, because at high
speeds the major drag component of a conventional airplane is parasite
rather than induced. For example, if induced drag is 30% of the total
at high speed, losing half of it is only a 15% reduction overall -
something a pilot busy with obstacle avoidance might not notice.
The wing-stabilizer interaction bit is shaky. He says pitch stability
increases, but there's no argument to support that, unless you assume
that wing-stabilizer interaction is always unfavorable, which is not
so.
Anyway, none of this has much to do with WIGs.
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote::
>
> I am trying to get a handle on the wing-in-ground effect. I read on a
> webpage by aeronautical engineer, Ken Blackburn
> http://www.eaa32.org/Articles/Aerodynamic.html
>
>
>
""Ground effect is the change to the flow field around an airplane due to
flying close to the ground - usually becoming noticeable below 1/2 the
airplane's wing span. Contrary to popular belief, ground effect does not
increase the maximum lift of the wing - so stall speed in ground effect is
the same as at attitude. In fact some high lift aircraft actually have a
slight reduction of their maximum lift in ground effect. So why can an
airplane get stuck momentarily in ground effect after takeoff, and why do
they float in ground effect as they land? The reason is because being close
to the ground reduces the induced drag of the wing. This allows you take off
very slowly, but climb just a few feet and, if you are slow enough, the drag
increases enough to keep you from climbing further. Voila, you are stuck.
This is why it's important to not takeoff too slowly if you are near gross
weight or at a high density altitude.
Because ground effect reduces just induced drag, it is more noticeable the slower you fly. On a high speed fly by, no matter how low, ground effect
will have essentially no effect. At stall speed with the wheels inches off
the ground it can potentially reduce your drag by 1/2.
Another effect of ground effect is on pitch stability and trim. Close to the
ground the downwash of the wing over the tail is reduced, resulting in
greater pitch stability and a nose down pitching moment. The pitch
stability change is usually a small effect, but it is possible for an
airplane to be stable in ground effect, but to have reduced stability as
soon as it flies to altitude. The nose down pitch change in ground effect
may not be noticed by many pilots as flight near the ground usually involves
rotating the airplane which masks the pitch change. The forward CG limit on
many aircraft is set by the ability for the airplane to rotate up to the
stall angle in ground effect which is more difficult than stalling out of
ground effect because of the nose down pitching moment"".
>I am told though that you might dispute that ground effect would have no effect on a high speed flypass (aircraft still configured for cruise, no flaps or slats + wheels up) and that in fact you would assert that GE would have a greater effect in such a situation.
>
>
>
> Given that the two views would be diametrically opposed could you confirm what I have been told about your view and explain(in simple terms if
possible) why you differ. Should you agree with Mr. Blackburn's description then please respond confirming that.
>
> Thanks in advance .
>
> J.D.
The reply
This is fairly accurate as regards CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT operating in
ground effect.
Effect on a high-speed flyby may not be very great, because at high
speeds the major drag component of a conventional airplane is parasite
rather than induced. For example, if induced drag is 30% of the total
at high speed, losing half of it is only a 15% reduction overall -
something a pilot busy with obstacle avoidance might not notice.
The wing-stabilizer interaction bit is shaky. He says pitch stability
increases, but there's no argument to support that, unless you assume
that wing-stabilizer interaction is always unfavorable, which is not
so.
Anyway, none of this has much to do with WIGs.
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc de Piolenc, Foxx had stated was an expert in WIGE and would back him up in the idea that a plane could not fly fast and low due to ground effect.
However , as you can see, when I wrote him he did nothing of the sort and instead agreed with the aeronautical engineer Ken Blackburn's , "On a high speed fly by, no matter how low, ground effect will have essentially no effect. ".
The plane that hit the Pentagon was NOT landing, it was not slowing down, nor extending flaps , nor lowering the wheels. It was flying fast and trimmed for cruise.
Oh, and before Foxx comes on puffing and spitting, yes, Ken Blackburn's hobby is paper airplanes. It is actually what his claim to fame in this world is. His job is as an aeronautical engineer and he has a lot of credentials in that department and is what puts food on his table..
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:47 PM)
I don't think the official "reports" even mention
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
You can't be serious.
Why? How thick were the steel pans? 1/4" ? 1/2" ?
They were there to hold the cement until it set. I see this in the roofs of many buildings we install cable to that have concrete roofs. The school I was just in yesterday had this. There were holes in the corrugated steel through which the truss elements passed, the bottom rail of the truss did not go to the wall. Although I could not see it , I assume that the top rail of the truss was imbedded in the concrete and went all the way to the top of the wall. It is the truss that was taking the weight of the roof, not the pan.
Just to be clear: I'm doubtful that floor trusses snapping off from columns would make much of a kink. However, the FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe that these truss connections are so strong that they contribute in a major way to the ever-obscure "column failues".
To be fair, I have not been able to quantify the forces involved, and therefore can't be too upset if they have not, either. However, they should at least explain qualitatively why we observe no kinks.
As they have rather fertile imaginations, this should be no problem. I prefer plausible explanations, of course, but preferring and getting are two different things...
Hi metamars.
Do you recall my posts to gordon explaining the PRINCIPLE of LESSER forces REDIRECTING GREATER forces? The same principle applies here. The vertical forces had only to be 're-directed' by the floor connections just BIASING the vertical colums either way OUT OF TRUE...so that the 'buckling/breaking' INITIATION could take place SOONER rather than LATER in whatever direction the BIAS was. That BIAS need only be MARGINAL in strength for it to have a great determining of the DIRECTION of buckling etc. This of course is IN ADDITION to all the other chaotic happennings/forces at play (including ANNEALING IN SITU and the softening this results in; etc etc). Hope this helps. Gotta run. Ciao.
RC.
.
You seem to be thinking of rubble falling down vertically on columns. But I was referring to rubble falling vertically on the floor trusses, which are horizontal. Either the rubble hit those trusses or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, then why and how did they disappear?
Hi metamars!
I commented based on YOUR comments highlighted above. And merely pointed out how the increased 'debris weight' on the floor trusses would be sufficient to pull on and so BIAS the COLUMN tendencies under ANY vertical load be it static or dynamic. Ciao
RC
I now understand your issue even less.....
What exactly do you think happened to the trusses? How did we end up with a "naked column"?
Come, metamars, I don't have time to play games with either obtuse or purposely disingenuous people. You can't have it both ways. Some of you complain that the connections COULDN'T 'pull' on the columns because they were too weak and would snap before affecting the columns stability/bias; and THEN YOU say the columns SHOULDN'T have been 'shorn' naked of their floor connections? Please, mate; save your games for the other 'side', as I'm NOT on ANYBODY"s 'side' but the obvious observations as I see them from my own experience/knowledge of the POSSIBLE processes in any given scenario described (which scenario in this case was described by YOUR comments as highlighted by me above). I don't give a damn about agendas or games or 'sides' in ANY debate. I call it as I see it and be damned to all else. So please save your 'cuteness' for those who will appreciate it and have the time to 'play', heh? Ciao.
RC.
.
I'm trying to make heads or tails of your posts, not trying to be disingenuous.
I believe that floor trusses should either snap off without a noticeable bend, or with a slight bend, in a scenario where the lateral portions of the floors can collapse at all. This statement is absolutely consistent with what I have written earlier in this thread.
The FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe in "column failure". And this column failure, at least in some versions of collapse, are said to happen via columns getting pulled inward by sagging trusses. And yet, we see a column, denuded (at the top, anyway) of floor trusses. Furthermore, we also see that the column is straight.
Your account of "chaos" doesn't explain this at all. Even if a "small force can divert a larger one", either a larger force (diverted or not) hit the trusses and tore them away, or not.
Theory A >>> If they did dig get torn away, I would like you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why these trusses didn't bend the spire column.
Theory B >>> If they didn't get torn away, I would like to you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why I don't see them.
Please tell us whether you subscribe to Theory A or Theory B, and then fill in the missing details.
I can't make it any clearer than this.
From where I'm sitting, it's pretty obvious that you can't elaborate on A or B in any convincing way, but be my guest.
Uhhhh , sorry metamars.
I realize you don't like to 'accept' that there are certain persons on ALL these boards who are 'shills'.
Let me correct that... We ADMIT that we CAN NOT (for a fact) determine who MIGHT be 'paid schills', so why waste time in trying to determine the 'Whos- Who'?
It is obvious to ALL of us that 'Reality Check' is well-aligned with the 'official theory' and supports IT wholeheartedly.
NO well-intentioned rational sentient being can hear and see ALL the evidence presented and STILL SUPPORT such idiocy.
'Reality Check' attempts to support the fairy tale with false meekness, yet has already displayed a misunderstanding of the structural aspects of the towers.
Regardless of his misunderstanding of this critical area of understanding, he attempts to present himself as having 'some understanding' of the engineering and architectural details of the towers, and denies ANY mistakes.
Sorry to say --- he's just a bs'er. (which is quite clear to those who have actual experince in this field)... which brings to mind other BS'ers on this thread (or others)
Fine.. Let's pretend (these people) are regular sentient beings, but the more I read of the thoughts of 'Reality'... the more I see 'Common Sense'
Neither make sense, yet wish to portray their position as FULLY REASONABLE.
Hi metamars (and you too Foxx).
What is it about the term CHAOS that you do not understand? When 'connectors' give way CHAOTICALLY from the INNER fixing points and OUTER fixing points, the ORDER in which such disconnections occur is IMPORTANT in the EFFECT produced. Fo example, if debris FIRST disconnects floor trusses from inner tube fixings, then the floor trusses will be swung down and toward the outer wall, so that THOSE connection fails MORE ALONG THE VERTICAL and not PULLING INWARDS so much...so THAT PART of the outer columns would be 'stripped' just like a tree harvester machine would 'strip' branches down a trunk.....NOT pulling them off 'sideways'. Imagine MANY such transient events in that CHAOS. If you still don't understand, please read up as I suggested before you come back with timewasting assertions against established principles/phenomena IN MANY AREAS of physics. Ciao.
RC.
.
You are avoiding the issue. Although it's been years since I studied chaos theory, strange attractors, etc., I don't think any reasonable description of what would happen during a collapse at a granular level of abstraction relevant to floor trusses getting ripped from columns would be enhanced at all by a rigorous application of chaos theory, even in principle.
Frankly, you seem to be conflating common-sense notions of "chaos" with mathematically precise "chaos theory". You cannot just invoke chaos theory anytime there is uncertainty due to complexity that you can't explain otherwise, without any thought as to whether such considerations could possibly be of significance.
In any event, even if you claim that the trusses got ripped off at weird angles due to chaos, you still have not explained to us why the spire column is not bent at any angle at all, at any of the floor levels at all.
Thanks Mel.
Just to be sure you don't try to weasel out of the question, even if a floor truss didn't "pull" (allegedly due to "chaos") , it's not just going to snap off because you yell "chaos theory". Making claims about the ability of trusses to pull much stronger columns out of plumb also implies that trusses should be able to exert significant torque on the columns.
A significant enough torque will bend the column.
I am the one who doesn't believe in this scenario.
If you are claiming that trusses and their connections are strong enough to bend columns via tension but still too weak to bend columns via torqueing forces, please state this clearly.
And if you do that, it'd be nice if you could offer a shred of evidence (e.g., a reference to a civil engineering text) to back up your statement.
And even if you do THIS, you still will have another problem: why didn't ALL of the floors just snap off like this (after the collapse got going), such that the lateral portions of the floors collapsed, but left the columns standing?
19 hours of intense burning
No collapse
approximately 1 hour of MINOR BURNING
TOTAL COLLAPSE
The reason there is nothing to compare with is because no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.
However it is very easy to compare the RATE OF DECENT and other characteristics of the way the WTC buildings collapsed when we look at buildings that came down from CONTROL DEMOLITION.
yesdidit, even you gotta admit the way the towers came down look a lot more similar to buildings that came down from control demolition as opposed to steel frame sky scrapers that had fires. Even if you don't believe it, wouldn't you say the collapse looked MORE SIMILAR TO CONTROL DEMOLITION THAN A FIRE, EVEN AN INTENSE FIRE LIKE MADRID SPAIN?
So when you say there is nothing to compare it with, isn't that denying the buildings that came down from demolition charges?
OK, since you claim it was a fire that brought the towers down, then shouldn't we look at the Madrid fire, up above and see if we can draw any comparisons with that? After all, that high rise had a much more intense fire than the WTC buildings.
Now with the Madrid fire in mind, we have to ask the question why did that building burn MUCH MORE INTENSE, for about 19 hours REMAIN INTACT, when the WTC buildings fire was much smaller and only burn for about an hour?
Since the smaller fire that burned about 5% as the Madrid fire, would you conclude that less fire causes more damage?
OK, let's look at another COMPARISON.
Now that little stove top is much, much smaller and weaker than the steel in the WTC buildings, yet stove tops never shatter
Can you see the comparison between the stove top and one of the steel beams in the WTC building?
How is it that the weaker piece of metal doesn't shatter, whereas the stronger steel completely disintegrates?
Don't you think it's odd that a stove top can be completely engulfed in flames, repeatedly for decades, upon decades and still remain strong, whereas only 1 hour of burning in much less proportionate amount of heat disintegrates so quickly?
You see, even though I don't have my PHD in physics, I have cooked a few things on a stove enough times to know that steel is pretty strong and that fires don't disintegrate them.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are many things to use for comparison purposes.
Was the Madrid building mostly air also???
So then, do you think the air in Madrid Spain is much stronger than the air in New York city? Seeings how you think steel frame structures are mostly air, there must be some reason why the Madrid building didn't collapse when the WTC buildings (all 3) collapsed from much less fire.
Do you think it has something to do with the salt water? Maybe the WTC buildings were so close to the ocean that the air was weaker.
Silly me, and I thought it was the steel that gave skyscrapers their strength.
Was the Madrid building mostly air also???
So then, do you think the air in Madrid Spain is much stronger than the air in New York city? Seeings how you think steel frame structures are mostly air, there must be some reason why the Madrid building didn't collapse when the WTC buildings (all 3) collapsed from much less fire.
Do you think it has something to do with the salt water? Maybe the WTC buildings were so close to the ocean that the air was weaker.
Silly me, and I thought it was the steel that gave skyscrapers their strength.
No, the MADRID had a REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE, so while the steel outside the core & floors collapsed, the reinforced concrete core held.
NO SUCH REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE was used in the WTC towers.
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
So while the CTers go on and on about how massively strong the WTC towers were, the reality is they were VERY LIGHT WEIGHT FOR THEIR SIZE.
Arthur
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. [b]The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside?
Arthur
Can you prove this ridicules statement?
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. [b]The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside?
Arthur
Can you prove this ridicules statement?
This was covered around page 170.
Foxx was the guy who vouched for the 100 year history of this journal.
That's not to say he vouched for this particular author.
Feel free to try to prove what he says is wrong though.
See:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
Arthur
the steel pans.
Missing where? In the description of the construction or in the description of the debris?
In the pancake fable.
The steel pans would not contribute much in the way of structural strength. The floors are attached to the columns at the trusses and the columns take the weight of the building. The pans do little after the concrete has set.
You can't be serious.
Why? How thick were the steel pans? 1/4" ? 1/2" ?
They were there to hold the cement until it set. I see this in the roofs of many buildings we install cable to that have concrete roofs. The school I was just in yesterday had this. There were holes in the corrugated steel through which the truss elements passed, the bottom rail of the truss did not go to the wall. Although I could not see it , I assume that the top rail of the truss was imbedded in the concrete and went all the way to the top of the wall. It is the truss that was taking the weight of the roof, not the pan.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 06:25 PM)
galdur,With the constituents of the columns and debris of all floors bashing , twisting and grinding against each other things will come apart. Brittle material will shatter, lightweight material will shred. 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch thick steel pans would qualify as the later..
So now we no longer have a pancake-collapse theory. Nope. The new theory states that we had a washing machine-style churning and twisting of beams, trusses, and office material, right at the point of impact, whereby the upper floor 'grinds' its way thru the floor below in about 1/10th of a second. No, don't think of it as a pancake collapse. Instead, think of it more as a giant grinding drum rotating chaotically ever-downward, with each new freshly chewed floor being sucked in to this 'RealityCheck-esque grinding-wheel of chaos'. The falling section, naturally is infinitely stronger than that which it falls onto, so any grinding that occurs, occurs ONLY on the floor being hit from above (if there were such a crazy thing as 'equal and opposite forces', then the frontier of the collision would just as likely grind the upper floor as the lower, but alas, in wacko world, there's no such thing as physics).
Thanks to YID, we now know that in addition to being commanded by divine forces to travel straight down thru the path of most resistance, the upper falling section was also tasked with whipping its leading edge into a churning frenzy of grinding material whose own constituents somehow managed to maintain their grinding integrity all the way to the ground, whereupon they themselves self-obliterated.
Yes, it all makes sense now. Reminds me of a poem I used to know:
"Churning and churning in the widening gyre
The bullshit-ees cannot hear the bullshit-ers;
The towers fall apart; the central core cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world of physics,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate bullshit.
So now we no longer have a pancake-collapse theory. Nope. The new theory states that we had a washing machine-style churning and twisting of beams, trusses, and office material, right at the point of impact, whereby the upper floor 'grinds' its way thru the floor below in about 1/10th of a second. No, don't think of it as a pancake collapse. Instead, think of it more as a giant grinding drum rotating chaotically ever-downward, with each new freshly chewed floor being sucked in to this 'RealityCheck-esque grinding-wheel of chaos'. The falling section, naturally is infinitely stronger than that which it falls onto, so any grinding that occurs, occurs ONLY on the floor being hit from above (if there were such a crazy thing as 'equal and opposite forces', then the frontier of the collision would just as likely grind the upper floor as the lower, but alas, in wacko world, there's no such thing as physics).
Thanks to YID, we now know that in addition to being commanded by divine forces to travel straight down thru the path of most resistance, the upper falling section was also tasked with whipping its leading edge into a churning frenzy of grinding material whose own constituents somehow managed to maintain their grinding integrity all the way to the ground, whereupon they themselves self-obliterated.
Yes, it all makes sense now. Reminds me of a poem I used to know:
"Churning and churning in the widening gyre
The bullshit-ees cannot hear the bullshit-ers;
The towers fall apart; the central core cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world of physics,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate bullshit.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 10:31 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 6 2006, 07:03 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 06:18 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 04:55 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 03:43 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:33 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 03:20 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2006, 03:03 AM)
QUOTE
please explain to us why the mass of falling floors applied no torque to the vertical columns which would have made them have kinks, at the very least.
Just to be clear: I'm doubtful that floor trusses snapping off from columns would make much of a kink. However, the FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe that these truss connections are so strong that they contribute in a major way to the ever-obscure "column failues".
To be fair, I have not been able to quantify the forces involved, and therefore can't be too upset if they have not, either. However, they should at least explain qualitatively why we observe no kinks.
As they have rather fertile imaginations, this should be no problem. I prefer plausible explanations, of course, but preferring and getting are two different things...
Hi metamars.
Do you recall my posts to gordon explaining the PRINCIPLE of LESSER forces REDIRECTING GREATER forces? The same principle applies here. The vertical forces had only to be 're-directed' by the floor connections just BIASING the vertical colums either way OUT OF TRUE...so that the 'buckling/breaking' INITIATION could take place SOONER rather than LATER in whatever direction the BIAS was. That BIAS need only be MARGINAL in strength for it to have a great determining of the DIRECTION of buckling etc. This of course is IN ADDITION to all the other chaotic happennings/forces at play (including ANNEALING IN SITU and the softening this results in; etc etc). Hope this helps. Gotta run. Ciao.
RC.
.
You seem to be thinking of rubble falling down vertically on columns. But I was referring to rubble falling vertically on the floor trusses, which are horizontal. Either the rubble hit those trusses or it didn't. If you believe it didn't, then why and how did they disappear?
Hi metamars!
I commented based on YOUR comments highlighted above. And merely pointed out how the increased 'debris weight' on the floor trusses would be sufficient to pull on and so BIAS the COLUMN tendencies under ANY vertical load be it static or dynamic. Ciao
RC
I now understand your issue even less.....
What exactly do you think happened to the trusses? How did we end up with a "naked column"?
Come, metamars, I don't have time to play games with either obtuse or purposely disingenuous people. You can't have it both ways. Some of you complain that the connections COULDN'T 'pull' on the columns because they were too weak and would snap before affecting the columns stability/bias; and THEN YOU say the columns SHOULDN'T have been 'shorn' naked of their floor connections? Please, mate; save your games for the other 'side', as I'm NOT on ANYBODY"s 'side' but the obvious observations as I see them from my own experience/knowledge of the POSSIBLE processes in any given scenario described (which scenario in this case was described by YOUR comments as highlighted by me above). I don't give a damn about agendas or games or 'sides' in ANY debate. I call it as I see it and be damned to all else. So please save your 'cuteness' for those who will appreciate it and have the time to 'play', heh? Ciao.
RC.
.
I'm trying to make heads or tails of your posts, not trying to be disingenuous.
I believe that floor trusses should either snap off without a noticeable bend, or with a slight bend, in a scenario where the lateral portions of the floors can collapse at all. This statement is absolutely consistent with what I have written earlier in this thread.
The FEMA Fairy Tale believers believe in "column failure". And this column failure, at least in some versions of collapse, are said to happen via columns getting pulled inward by sagging trusses. And yet, we see a column, denuded (at the top, anyway) of floor trusses. Furthermore, we also see that the column is straight.
Your account of "chaos" doesn't explain this at all. Even if a "small force can divert a larger one", either a larger force (diverted or not) hit the trusses and tore them away, or not.
Theory A >>> If they did dig get torn away, I would like you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why these trusses didn't bend the spire column.
Theory B >>> If they didn't get torn away, I would like to you, as a FEMA Fairy Tale believer, to explain to me why I don't see them.
Please tell us whether you subscribe to Theory A or Theory B, and then fill in the missing details.
I can't make it any clearer than this.
From where I'm sitting, it's pretty obvious that you can't elaborate on A or B in any convincing way, but be my guest.
Uhhhh , sorry metamars.
I realize you don't like to 'accept' that there are certain persons on ALL these boards who are 'shills'.
Let me correct that... We ADMIT that we CAN NOT (for a fact) determine who MIGHT be 'paid schills', so why waste time in trying to determine the 'Whos- Who'?
It is obvious to ALL of us that 'Reality Check' is well-aligned with the 'official theory' and supports IT wholeheartedly.
NO well-intentioned rational sentient being can hear and see ALL the evidence presented and STILL SUPPORT such idiocy.
'Reality Check' attempts to support the fairy tale with false meekness, yet has already displayed a misunderstanding of the structural aspects of the towers.
Regardless of his misunderstanding of this critical area of understanding, he attempts to present himself as having 'some understanding' of the engineering and architectural details of the towers, and denies ANY mistakes.
Sorry to say --- he's just a bs'er. (which is quite clear to those who have actual experince in this field)... which brings to mind other BS'ers on this thread (or others)
Fine.. Let's pretend (these people) are regular sentient beings, but the more I read of the thoughts of 'Reality'... the more I see 'Common Sense'
Neither make sense, yet wish to portray their position as FULLY REASONABLE.
Hi metamars (and you too Foxx).
What is it about the term CHAOS that you do not understand? When 'connectors' give way CHAOTICALLY from the INNER fixing points and OUTER fixing points, the ORDER in which such disconnections occur is IMPORTANT in the EFFECT produced. Fo example, if debris FIRST disconnects floor trusses from inner tube fixings, then the floor trusses will be swung down and toward the outer wall, so that THOSE connection fails MORE ALONG THE VERTICAL and not PULLING INWARDS so much...so THAT PART of the outer columns would be 'stripped' just like a tree harvester machine would 'strip' branches down a trunk.....NOT pulling them off 'sideways'. Imagine MANY such transient events in that CHAOS. If you still don't understand, please read up as I suggested before you come back with timewasting assertions against established principles/phenomena IN MANY AREAS of physics. Ciao.
RC.
.
You are avoiding the issue. Although it's been years since I studied chaos theory, strange attractors, etc., I don't think any reasonable description of what would happen during a collapse at a granular level of abstraction relevant to floor trusses getting ripped from columns would be enhanced at all by a rigorous application of chaos theory, even in principle.
Frankly, you seem to be conflating common-sense notions of "chaos" with mathematically precise "chaos theory". You cannot just invoke chaos theory anytime there is uncertainty due to complexity that you can't explain otherwise, without any thought as to whether such considerations could possibly be of significance.
In any event, even if you claim that the trusses got ripped off at weird angles due to chaos, you still have not explained to us why the spire column is not bent at any angle at all, at any of the floor levels at all.
Thanks Mel.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 10:16 PM)
...SOME days I have MORE time than others to spend here; and ALSO that SOME 'points/posts' are MORE than usually interesting/important enough for me to MAKE and spend that time on it?
Then don't make a point of prefixing and suffixing virtually every single, long-winded post you make with a remark about how you don't have enough time to make the long-winded post? If your time is so precious, then don't waste your time -- and ours -- telling us so. Nobody gives a shait.
'nough said. Queue the chimpanzee response.
Then don't make a point of prefixing and suffixing virtually every single, long-winded post you make with a remark about how you don't have enough time to make the long-winded post? If your time is so precious, then don't waste your time -- and ours -- telling us so. Nobody gives a shait.
'nough said. Queue the chimpanzee response.
QUOTE
(Reality Check) In any event, even if you claim that the trusses got ripped off at weird angles due to chaos, you still have not explained to us why the spire column is not bent at any angle at all, at any of the floor levels at all.
Just to be sure you don't try to weasel out of the question, even if a floor truss didn't "pull" (allegedly due to "chaos") , it's not just going to snap off because you yell "chaos theory". Making claims about the ability of trusses to pull much stronger columns out of plumb also implies that trusses should be able to exert significant torque on the columns.
A significant enough torque will bend the column.
I am the one who doesn't believe in this scenario.
If you are claiming that trusses and their connections are strong enough to bend columns via tension but still too weak to bend columns via torqueing forces, please state this clearly.
And if you do that, it'd be nice if you could offer a shred of evidence (e.g., a reference to a civil engineering text) to back up your statement.
And even if you do THIS, you still will have another problem: why didn't ALL of the floors just snap off like this (after the collapse got going), such that the lateral portions of the floors collapsed, but left the columns standing?
QUOTE
Yesdidit
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
19 hours of intense burning
No collapse
approximately 1 hour of MINOR BURNING
TOTAL COLLAPSE
The reason there is nothing to compare with is because no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.
However it is very easy to compare the RATE OF DECENT and other characteristics of the way the WTC buildings collapsed when we look at buildings that came down from CONTROL DEMOLITION.
yesdidit, even you gotta admit the way the towers came down look a lot more similar to buildings that came down from control demolition as opposed to steel frame sky scrapers that had fires. Even if you don't believe it, wouldn't you say the collapse looked MORE SIMILAR TO CONTROL DEMOLITION THAN A FIRE, EVEN AN INTENSE FIRE LIKE MADRID SPAIN?
So when you say there is nothing to compare it with, isn't that denying the buildings that came down from demolition charges?
OK, since you claim it was a fire that brought the towers down, then shouldn't we look at the Madrid fire, up above and see if we can draw any comparisons with that? After all, that high rise had a much more intense fire than the WTC buildings.
Now with the Madrid fire in mind, we have to ask the question why did that building burn MUCH MORE INTENSE, for about 19 hours REMAIN INTACT, when the WTC buildings fire was much smaller and only burn for about an hour?
Since the smaller fire that burned about 5% as the Madrid fire, would you conclude that less fire causes more damage?
OK, let's look at another COMPARISON.
Now that little stove top is much, much smaller and weaker than the steel in the WTC buildings, yet stove tops never shatter
Can you see the comparison between the stove top and one of the steel beams in the WTC building?
How is it that the weaker piece of metal doesn't shatter, whereas the stronger steel completely disintegrates?
Don't you think it's odd that a stove top can be completely engulfed in flames, repeatedly for decades, upon decades and still remain strong, whereas only 1 hour of burning in much less proportionate amount of heat disintegrates so quickly?
You see, even though I don't have my PHD in physics, I have cooked a few things on a stove enough times to know that steel is pretty strong and that fires don't disintegrate them.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are many things to use for comparison purposes.
QUOTE
RC
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
Was the Madrid building mostly air also???
So then, do you think the air in Madrid Spain is much stronger than the air in New York city? Seeings how you think steel frame structures are mostly air, there must be some reason why the Madrid building didn't collapse when the WTC buildings (all 3) collapsed from much less fire.
Do you think it has something to do with the salt water? Maybe the WTC buildings were so close to the ocean that the air was weaker.
Silly me, and I thought it was the steel that gave skyscrapers their strength.
Let us examine the claims from some commentators regarding the collapse scenario so that we can input some figures and check the magnitude of effects. There is a great deal of debate regarding the time of collapse, but without references to actual or estimated collapse times for controlled demolition and failure collapse, the debate lacks reference points.
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
We will assume a mass of m on each storey and 2m in the roof.
To simulate aircraft and impact damage we will remove the capacity of the 93rd storey in its entirety, We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 92nd storey to 0% of its design load, even though this would be impossible.
The effect of this will be to initiate collapse due to a sudden and instantaneous loss of all load carrying ability in two storeys. The upper section will drop under gravity until it impacts the lower section.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 91st storey to 20% of its design load, such that it is able to only carry the weight above it with no reserve capacity..
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 90th and 89th storeys to 40% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 88th and 87th storeys to 60% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of all other lower storeys to 80% of its design load.
We will also introduce similar reductions in the upper section but with the proviso that the falling upper section will not break up until the bottom section is destroyed, at which point the collapse will progress through the upper section.
We will also assume that all mass from the lower sections joins the upper section after destruction and in doing so it will increase the falling mass.
Now we know that in order to destroy the lower storeys the falling upper section must exert a force upon it. In order to do so the falling upper section must undergo a deceleration. What would be the size and duration of that deceleration?
The size, we must assume to be as a minimum the value of the reduced failure loads.
As regards the duration of the deceleration, I would argue that this would be continuous, but let us vary this figure to allow that for each 3.7m storey there would be a period of deceleration and a period of falling under gravity with no reaction from the lower section.
So let us firstly assume that the deceleration takes place over 2.0m leaving 1.7m for rebuilding the kinetic energy of the falling section.
We can show that the upper section drops through storeys 93 and 92 reaching 12.05 metres per second. After three more impacts at 91, 90 and 89 the descent is slowed and the collapse arrested at the 89th storey after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 1..0 metre
We can see that under these conditions the collapse would be arrested at the 84th storey after three and a half seconds, with a maximum velocity of 13.98 metres per second reached at storey 89 after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 0.75 metre
In this case collapse progresses to the 71st storey over about 9 seconds. Maximum velocity of 15.26 metres per second is reached on storey 88 after just over two seconds.
At last, after reducing the deceleration distance to 0.7metres we can show that the collapse will progress down to ground level and back up through the following section. The maximum velocity through the lower section is 15.37 metres per second at the 86th storey after 2.8 seconds, but the maximum velocity in this case is the very end as the top-section “whiplashes into the ground” This is a function of my assumptions that momentum is conserved in the disintegrating section so the mass losses are compensated for by large velocity rises. This breaks the top section apart in just 3.7 seconds but the total collapse time is 42.87 seconds.
So in order to achieve failure in the model such that the result was total collapse, the conditions must be so as to allow that on each storey there was a deceleration of 0.7 metres and a freefall under gravity of 3.0 metres. This combined with the assumptions made regarding damage and loss of strength, assumptions which have been outlined and which favour a total collapse outcome, would give a collapse time of 42.87 seconds. Note that these collapse times are for the total collapse of roof to ground level.
Reducing the deceleration still further would obviously reduce this time.
Now as a comparison I have used this same scenario but also reduced the failure load for every third storey to close to zero to give a controlled demolition collapse time. In this the velocity profile was different in that it continued to increase throughout the collapse rather than slow down from an initial impetus, as was the case in the previous examples. The total collapse time was 19.7 seconds. Again this could be reduced by increasing the number of storeys affected.
So this spreadsheet shows that we can expect collapse times of less than 20 seconds for controlled demolition but the same scenario using a failure collapse would give collapse times of more than twice this figure.
Please note that this does not show that collapse was possible under the conditions of the day. I still maintain that the structure’s capacity to absorb strain energy was far in excess of any energy of collapse deriving from the kinetic or potential energy of the building.
Gordon
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
We will assume a mass of m on each storey and 2m in the roof.
To simulate aircraft and impact damage we will remove the capacity of the 93rd storey in its entirety, We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 92nd storey to 0% of its design load, even though this would be impossible.
The effect of this will be to initiate collapse due to a sudden and instantaneous loss of all load carrying ability in two storeys. The upper section will drop under gravity until it impacts the lower section.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 91st storey to 20% of its design load, such that it is able to only carry the weight above it with no reserve capacity..
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 90th and 89th storeys to 40% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 88th and 87th storeys to 60% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of all other lower storeys to 80% of its design load.
We will also introduce similar reductions in the upper section but with the proviso that the falling upper section will not break up until the bottom section is destroyed, at which point the collapse will progress through the upper section.
We will also assume that all mass from the lower sections joins the upper section after destruction and in doing so it will increase the falling mass.
Now we know that in order to destroy the lower storeys the falling upper section must exert a force upon it. In order to do so the falling upper section must undergo a deceleration. What would be the size and duration of that deceleration?
The size, we must assume to be as a minimum the value of the reduced failure loads.
As regards the duration of the deceleration, I would argue that this would be continuous, but let us vary this figure to allow that for each 3.7m storey there would be a period of deceleration and a period of falling under gravity with no reaction from the lower section.
So let us firstly assume that the deceleration takes place over 2.0m leaving 1.7m for rebuilding the kinetic energy of the falling section.
We can show that the upper section drops through storeys 93 and 92 reaching 12.05 metres per second. After three more impacts at 91, 90 and 89 the descent is slowed and the collapse arrested at the 89th storey after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 1..0 metre
We can see that under these conditions the collapse would be arrested at the 84th storey after three and a half seconds, with a maximum velocity of 13.98 metres per second reached at storey 89 after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 0.75 metre
In this case collapse progresses to the 71st storey over about 9 seconds. Maximum velocity of 15.26 metres per second is reached on storey 88 after just over two seconds.
At last, after reducing the deceleration distance to 0.7metres we can show that the collapse will progress down to ground level and back up through the following section. The maximum velocity through the lower section is 15.37 metres per second at the 86th storey after 2.8 seconds, but the maximum velocity in this case is the very end as the top-section “whiplashes into the ground” This is a function of my assumptions that momentum is conserved in the disintegrating section so the mass losses are compensated for by large velocity rises. This breaks the top section apart in just 3.7 seconds but the total collapse time is 42.87 seconds.
So in order to achieve failure in the model such that the result was total collapse, the conditions must be so as to allow that on each storey there was a deceleration of 0.7 metres and a freefall under gravity of 3.0 metres. This combined with the assumptions made regarding damage and loss of strength, assumptions which have been outlined and which favour a total collapse outcome, would give a collapse time of 42.87 seconds. Note that these collapse times are for the total collapse of roof to ground level.
Reducing the deceleration still further would obviously reduce this time.
Now as a comparison I have used this same scenario but also reduced the failure load for every third storey to close to zero to give a controlled demolition collapse time. In this the velocity profile was different in that it continued to increase throughout the collapse rather than slow down from an initial impetus, as was the case in the previous examples. The total collapse time was 19.7 seconds. Again this could be reduced by increasing the number of storeys affected.
So this spreadsheet shows that we can expect collapse times of less than 20 seconds for controlled demolition but the same scenario using a failure collapse would give collapse times of more than twice this figure.
Please note that this does not show that collapse was possible under the conditions of the day. I still maintain that the structure’s capacity to absorb strain energy was far in excess of any energy of collapse deriving from the kinetic or potential energy of the building.
Gordon
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 01:13 AM)
QUOTE
RC
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
Even the steel box column girders were HOLLOW. And the rest is merely a 'mechano-set' erection of bits of steel with point connections. That 'NON-core' was MOSTLY FRESH AIR, mate. Do the sums.
Was the Madrid building mostly air also???
So then, do you think the air in Madrid Spain is much stronger than the air in New York city? Seeings how you think steel frame structures are mostly air, there must be some reason why the Madrid building didn't collapse when the WTC buildings (all 3) collapsed from much less fire.
Do you think it has something to do with the salt water? Maybe the WTC buildings were so close to the ocean that the air was weaker.
Silly me, and I thought it was the steel that gave skyscrapers their strength.
No, the MADRID had a REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE, so while the steel outside the core & floors collapsed, the reinforced concrete core held.
NO SUCH REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE was used in the WTC towers.
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside? Once the aircraft had sliced through the external columns, were the buildings doomed? Would a traditional column-and-beam structure—with more widely spaced steel columns making up the outside walls with steel flange beams supporting the floors throughout the structure to give the building the traditional steel "skeleton"—have withstood such multifloor fires better as the experiences with high-rise fires in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza and Los Angeles' First Interstate Bank seem to indicate? And if it would have, how would a column-and-beam structure have reacted to the initial impact of the aircraft? Tube structures can be built with much less steel than traditional column-and-beam structures, which is one of their main attractions. But is it too little "body" or mass, particularly with so little concrete, masonry, or cement, to stand up to the committed terrorist?
• Trusses and their connections, primary members. The open-web trusses that were the basis for the floors in the WTC towers spanned distances of up to 60 feet in connecting the external columns to those of the core. Were the trusses or their connections (standard high-tensile field bolts, attached to relatively narrow seat angles with plates welded on top) strong enough to withstand the catenary bending action and the shear on the bolts induced by relatively modest fires, let alone those raging on September 11? Moreover, did the function of the floor trusses in bracing the core and external columns to keep them the requisite distance apart, in equilibrium, make the trusses primary, rather than secondary, members in this design? If so, even without the fires and weakening effect of impact on September 11, how many sets of floor trusses could you have removed from this design without the towers going into terminal and very rapid progressive collapse, as they did that morning?
•Shaft-wall partition system central core. The vast majority of the victims of the WTC attacks on September 11 died because they had no means of escape. They were trapped above the impact floors with the buildings' umbilical cord—the elevators and three sets of stairs—severed below them. The WTC towers included a shaft-wall partition system central core—two layers of gypsum board attached to widely spaced core columns—20 feet off center. The only cement and concrete used in the central core was in the stairs themselves. Would a more traditional central core, with masonry, cement, and concrete as its main components, have survived the impact and fires better? All these elements are known for their blast-, impact-, and fire-resistance properties. Should central cores in high-rise buildings possess the rigidity and durability the name implies?
• Built-in redundancy to reduce/eliminate the threat of progressive collapse. The WTC towers' collapse was the most extreme and deadly example of progressive collapse ever seen. The failure of one or more floors overloaded the floor or floors below, causing a chain reaction that took only 10 to 12 seconds to complete. Was sufficient redundancy built into the towers' design? The external walls had sufficient redundancy—the ability to redistribute loads to other structural members to prevent failure—as the initial impact proved. But what about inside? What about the open-web floor trusses and core columns? Could the floor trusses and their connections have been more redundant with connections fastening them to the columns at the lower as well as upper chords? Could the core columns have been cross-braced with steel members for additional stability? What difference might this have made, especially for those occupants and rescue personnel trapped in the South Tower? Although it collapsed in less than an hour, one stairwell remained intact and at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby. Here, at least, more time could have made all the difference.
So while the CTers go on and on about how massively strong the WTC towers were, the reality is they were VERY LIGHT WEIGHT FOR THEIR SIZE.
Arthur
adoucette,
If you were to compare the way the WTC buildings responded on 9/11 to the way the Madrid building that burned for 19 hours reacted and a typical control demolitioned building...
Which one would you say appears to be the most similar?
I know you believe in the pancake, so I'm not asking you for a long disertation on all your calculations, I'm just asking you to be honest and let us know if you think the way the towers and building 7 collpased RESEMBLES control demolitioned buildings, as far as the manner in which they collpased.
You don't have to answer, as you do have the right to remain silent if you wish.
If you were to compare the way the WTC buildings responded on 9/11 to the way the Madrid building that burned for 19 hours reacted and a typical control demolitioned building...
Which one would you say appears to be the most similar?
I know you believe in the pancake, so I'm not asking you for a long disertation on all your calculations, I'm just asking you to be honest and let us know if you think the way the towers and building 7 collpased RESEMBLES control demolitioned buildings, as far as the manner in which they collpased.
You don't have to answer, as you do have the right to remain silent if you wish.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 7 2006, 02:07 AM)
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. [b]The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside?
Arthur
Can you prove this ridicules statement?
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 02:41 AM)
adoucette,
If you were to compare the way the WTC buildings responded on 9/11 to the way the Madrid building that burned for 19 hours reacted and a typical control demolitioned building...
Which one would you say appears to be the most similar?
I know you believe in the pancake, so I'm not asking you for a long disertation on all your calculations, I'm just asking you to be honest and let us know if you think the way the towers and building 7 collpased RESEMBLES control demolitioned buildings, as far as the manner in which they collpased.
You don't have to answer, as you do have the right to remain silent if you wish.
We are comparing apples and grapefruit.
The WTC towers were an innovative tube within a tube design where almost all structural strength is provided by steel. Furthermore this steel is not protected by the usual concrete or asbestos but with a THIN layer of sprayed on fire retardant. It is then hit by a 200,000+ lb aircraft, filled with fuel, flying at ~450mph, three quarters of the way up, such that roughly 20% of the external framework is severed and approx 25% of the internal core is severed. The blast impact removes much of one or more floors, all the way to the core as well as most of the insulation protecting the steel in the impact area. It severs the stand pipes so the sprinklers don't work, and blows out windows on both sides of the building. The massive load of kerosene soaks several floors and by traveling down the elevator shafts wipes out the lower lobby windows and fire doors creating an air tube, that along with the glass damage provides ventilation to fires that then rage UNCHECKED until the towers collapse.
Now the Madrid building was undergoing renovation at the time, so we don't know the contents. We DO KNOW that no plane ran into it. We do know that it wasn't soaked in fuel. We do know that nothing knocked the insulation off of the steel. We DO KNOW that firefighters fought the fire for some time. We DO KNOW that it had a reinforced concrete core, and finally we know that ALL OF THE STEEL STRUCTURE that wasn't supported by reinforced concrete eventually collapsed.
Neither collapse looked ANYTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
The WTC tower collapse began at the point of impact and progressed down from there.
Most every CD I've seen collapses from the bottom up. I've seen none that collapse from the top down like the WTC towers.
Arthur
If you were to compare the way the WTC buildings responded on 9/11 to the way the Madrid building that burned for 19 hours reacted and a typical control demolitioned building...
Which one would you say appears to be the most similar?
I know you believe in the pancake, so I'm not asking you for a long disertation on all your calculations, I'm just asking you to be honest and let us know if you think the way the towers and building 7 collpased RESEMBLES control demolitioned buildings, as far as the manner in which they collpased.
You don't have to answer, as you do have the right to remain silent if you wish.
We are comparing apples and grapefruit.
The WTC towers were an innovative tube within a tube design where almost all structural strength is provided by steel. Furthermore this steel is not protected by the usual concrete or asbestos but with a THIN layer of sprayed on fire retardant. It is then hit by a 200,000+ lb aircraft, filled with fuel, flying at ~450mph, three quarters of the way up, such that roughly 20% of the external framework is severed and approx 25% of the internal core is severed. The blast impact removes much of one or more floors, all the way to the core as well as most of the insulation protecting the steel in the impact area. It severs the stand pipes so the sprinklers don't work, and blows out windows on both sides of the building. The massive load of kerosene soaks several floors and by traveling down the elevator shafts wipes out the lower lobby windows and fire doors creating an air tube, that along with the glass damage provides ventilation to fires that then rage UNCHECKED until the towers collapse.
Now the Madrid building was undergoing renovation at the time, so we don't know the contents. We DO KNOW that no plane ran into it. We do know that it wasn't soaked in fuel. We do know that nothing knocked the insulation off of the steel. We DO KNOW that firefighters fought the fire for some time. We DO KNOW that it had a reinforced concrete core, and finally we know that ALL OF THE STEEL STRUCTURE that wasn't supported by reinforced concrete eventually collapsed.
Neither collapse looked ANYTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
The WTC tower collapse began at the point of impact and progressed down from there.
Most every CD I've seen collapses from the bottom up. I've seen none that collapse from the top down like the WTC towers.
Arthur
Hi Mel, metamars, steve1957.
MEL.....The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not? IRRESPECTIVE of the actual collisions cross-section profiles during that chaotic collapse, the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’. So don’t be obtuse about what was crushing what and in particular MOMENTS/POSITIONS ON THE WAY DOWN...because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR except those portions making the collateral damage around the site. And about my ‘time’ on this forum: If you compare MY time-spent/posts-put to that spent/put by Foxx, metamars and others, I think you’ll find that I DON’T have that much time to spend here. And you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’. So unless you have any intelligent/new physics input to make, please avoid making an *** of yourself by pointless/unsubstantiable comments like you have done. If you keep it up, you are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant in these discussions. And by the way, I will prefix/suffix MY posts however I see fit, and see no need to explain myself to YOU or anyone else in that respect. Ciao.
METAMARS....Please note that CHAOTIC PROCESSES occur in many areas of physics at ALL SCALES ...and that I have alluded-to/highlighted ONLY those aspects of CHAOS that may APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE 9/11 SCENARIOS DESCRIBED BY YOU GUYS. I have NOT conflated anything about the areas of chaos theory...as I have stuck to the chaos inherent in the thermodynamic and collapse scenarios presented for comment by others here. Please do not mistake YOUR CONFUSION/CONFLATION of these things with anything I have posted. What is the problem with you NOT understanding the difference between BIASING MARGINALLY and ACTUALLY BENDING those beams? The former merely provides (with MINIMAL force) a ‘preferred’ pathway for whatever LARGE forces were acting at the time. And during the collapse there would have been (as gordon pointed out) some direct contact between falling/accelerated SIMILARLY-MASSED debris which would cause either REBOUND OR BREAKAGE. This is in addition to all the weight of the heterogenous debris ‘body’ which would be bounced around from pillar to post during the collapse. And then there’s the extremely compressed air escaping OUT THE SIDES AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL...acting like a hurricane wind against the ‘sail area’ presented by the facade before ‘breaking away’ (how many times do you hear on the news that hurricanes/tornados “threw heavy structures around like ‘matchsticks”? So please, don’t bother me with any more of your disingenuous or mistaken assumptions in the absence of ACTUAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE which such chaotic occurrences DEMAND for their proper comprehension. And I’m NOT here to give you a course in PHYSICS, OK...do your OWN research/study in the relevant sciences/technologies and THEN present properly-reasoned arguments instead of ‘piecemeal’ and therefore misleading ‘understandings’ of what you are debating about. Until you do this it is fruitless to carry on with this charade of a ‘debate’.
STEVE1957.....Please examine the SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES between the two types/scales of buildings you are comparing as to ‘core’. THEN see if they are even REMOTELY comparable in construction, behaviour, size, impact-scenarios etc etc etc. You will also find that these things were covered some time ago and that you have obviously not read the relevant posts on these matters and so are somewhat behind the times on this score. And stove tops and combustion-fittings and fixtures are neither on the SCALES/WEIGHTS of the towers and components therein. And these have ALSO BEEN COVERED previously...please don’t waste anyone’s time by ‘uninformed repetition’ of points already covered by BOTH ‘sides’ of the fence....and I don’t care which ‘side’ it was, as long as it was physically sound. OK? So don’t bother me with ‘propaganda’ comments, just present the physical arguments in future. Thanks.
Ciao all.
RC.
PS: ANYONE....is anyone else having the problem of pages taking inordinate amounts of time to fully load?...or is my 'iffy' internet connection about to 'go south' again, I wonder....
MEL.....The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not? IRRESPECTIVE of the actual collisions cross-section profiles during that chaotic collapse, the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’. So don’t be obtuse about what was crushing what and in particular MOMENTS/POSITIONS ON THE WAY DOWN...because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR except those portions making the collateral damage around the site. And about my ‘time’ on this forum: If you compare MY time-spent/posts-put to that spent/put by Foxx, metamars and others, I think you’ll find that I DON’T have that much time to spend here. And you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’. So unless you have any intelligent/new physics input to make, please avoid making an *** of yourself by pointless/unsubstantiable comments like you have done. If you keep it up, you are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant in these discussions. And by the way, I will prefix/suffix MY posts however I see fit, and see no need to explain myself to YOU or anyone else in that respect. Ciao.
METAMARS....Please note that CHAOTIC PROCESSES occur in many areas of physics at ALL SCALES ...and that I have alluded-to/highlighted ONLY those aspects of CHAOS that may APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE 9/11 SCENARIOS DESCRIBED BY YOU GUYS. I have NOT conflated anything about the areas of chaos theory...as I have stuck to the chaos inherent in the thermodynamic and collapse scenarios presented for comment by others here. Please do not mistake YOUR CONFUSION/CONFLATION of these things with anything I have posted. What is the problem with you NOT understanding the difference between BIASING MARGINALLY and ACTUALLY BENDING those beams? The former merely provides (with MINIMAL force) a ‘preferred’ pathway for whatever LARGE forces were acting at the time. And during the collapse there would have been (as gordon pointed out) some direct contact between falling/accelerated SIMILARLY-MASSED debris which would cause either REBOUND OR BREAKAGE. This is in addition to all the weight of the heterogenous debris ‘body’ which would be bounced around from pillar to post during the collapse. And then there’s the extremely compressed air escaping OUT THE SIDES AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL...acting like a hurricane wind against the ‘sail area’ presented by the facade before ‘breaking away’ (how many times do you hear on the news that hurricanes/tornados “threw heavy structures around like ‘matchsticks”? So please, don’t bother me with any more of your disingenuous or mistaken assumptions in the absence of ACTUAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE which such chaotic occurrences DEMAND for their proper comprehension. And I’m NOT here to give you a course in PHYSICS, OK...do your OWN research/study in the relevant sciences/technologies and THEN present properly-reasoned arguments instead of ‘piecemeal’ and therefore misleading ‘understandings’ of what you are debating about. Until you do this it is fruitless to carry on with this charade of a ‘debate’.
STEVE1957.....Please examine the SIMILARITIES and DIFFERENCES between the two types/scales of buildings you are comparing as to ‘core’. THEN see if they are even REMOTELY comparable in construction, behaviour, size, impact-scenarios etc etc etc. You will also find that these things were covered some time ago and that you have obviously not read the relevant posts on these matters and so are somewhat behind the times on this score. And stove tops and combustion-fittings and fixtures are neither on the SCALES/WEIGHTS of the towers and components therein. And these have ALSO BEEN COVERED previously...please don’t waste anyone’s time by ‘uninformed repetition’ of points already covered by BOTH ‘sides’ of the fence....and I don’t care which ‘side’ it was, as long as it was physically sound. OK? So don’t bother me with ‘propaganda’ comments, just present the physical arguments in future. Thanks.
Ciao all.
RC.
PS: ANYONE....is anyone else having the problem of pages taking inordinate amounts of time to fully load?...or is my 'iffy' internet connection about to 'go south' again, I wonder....
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 7 2006, 02:45 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 7 2006, 02:07 AM)
In fact, from the previous FIREMAN'S journal I will repeat this CRITICAL entry:
•Column and beam vs. tube. The WTC towers were what is known as tube structures—closely spaced lattice-like columns of steel made up the external walls carrying most of the wind and gravity loads. [b]The WTC towers were undoubtedly strong on the outside, but were they weak and particularly vulnerable inside?
Arthur
Can you prove this ridicules statement?
This was covered around page 170.
Foxx was the guy who vouched for the 100 year history of this journal.
That's not to say he vouched for this particular author.
Feel free to try to prove what he says is wrong though.
See:
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_dis...nist%20wtc&p=25
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 7 2006, 02:06 AM)
Let us examine the claims from some commentators regarding the collapse scenario so that we can input some figures and check the magnitude of effects. There is a great deal of debate regarding the time of collapse, but without references to actual or estimated collapse times for controlled demolition and failure collapse, the debate lacks reference points.
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
We will assume a mass of m on each storey and 2m in the roof.
To simulate aircraft and impact damage we will remove the capacity of the 93rd storey in its entirety, We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 92nd storey to 0% of its design load, even though this would be impossible.
The effect of this will be to initiate collapse due to a sudden and instantaneous loss of all load carrying ability in two storeys. The upper section will drop under gravity until it impacts the lower section.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 91st storey to 20% of its design load, such that it is able to only carry the weight above it with no reserve capacity..
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 90th and 89th storeys to 40% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 88th and 87th storeys to 60% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of all other lower storeys to 80% of its design load.
We will also introduce similar reductions in the upper section but with the proviso that the falling upper section will not break up until the bottom section is destroyed, at which point the collapse will progress through the upper section.
We will also assume that all mass from the lower sections joins the upper section after destruction and in doing so it will increase the falling mass.
Now we know that in order to destroy the lower storeys the falling upper section must exert a force upon it. In order to do so the falling upper section must undergo a deceleration. What would be the size and duration of that deceleration?
The size, we must assume to be as a minimum the value of the reduced failure loads.
As regards the duration of the deceleration, I would argue that this would be continuous, but let us vary this figure to allow that for each 3.7m storey there would be a period of deceleration and a period of falling under gravity with no reaction from the lower section.
So let us firstly assume that the deceleration takes place over 2.0m leaving 1.7m for rebuilding the kinetic energy of the falling section.
We can show that the upper section drops through storeys 93 and 92 reaching 12.05 metres per second. After three more impacts at 91, 90 and 89 the descent is slowed and the collapse arrested at the 89th storey after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 1..0 metre
We can see that under these conditions the collapse would be arrested at the 84th storey after three and a half seconds, with a maximum velocity of 13.98 metres per second reached at storey 89 after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 0.75 metre
In this case collapse progresses to the 71st storey over about 9 seconds. Maximum velocity of 15.26 metres per second is reached on storey 88 after just over two seconds.
At last, after reducing the deceleration distance to 0.7metres we can show that the collapse will progress down to ground level and back up through the following section. The maximum velocity through the lower section is 15.37 metres per second at the 86th storey after 2.8 seconds, but the maximum velocity in this case is the very end as the top-section “whiplashes into the ground” This is a function of my assumptions that momentum is conserved in the disintegrating section so the mass losses are compensated for by large velocity rises. This breaks the top section apart in just 3.7 seconds but the total collapse time is 42.87 seconds.
So in order to achieve failure in the model such that the result was total collapse, the conditions must be so as to allow that on each storey there was a deceleration of 0.7 metres and a freefall under gravity of 3.0 metres. This combined with the assumptions made regarding damage and loss of strength, assumptions which have been outlined and which favour a total collapse outcome, would give a collapse time of 42.87 seconds. Note that these collapse times are for the total collapse of roof to ground level.
Reducing the deceleration still further would obviously reduce this time.
Now as a comparison I have used this same scenario but also reduced the failure load for every third storey to close to zero to give a controlled demolition collapse time. In this the velocity profile was different in that it continued to increase throughout the collapse rather than slow down from an initial impetus, as was the case in the previous examples. The total collapse time was 19.7 seconds. Again this could be reduced by increasing the number of storeys affected.
So this spreadsheet shows that we can expect collapse times of less than 20 seconds for controlled demolition but the same scenario using a failure collapse would give collapse times of more than twice this figure.
Please note that this does not show that collapse was possible under the conditions of the day. I still maintain that the structure’s capacity to absorb strain energy was far in excess of any energy of collapse deriving from the kinetic or potential energy of the building.
Gordon
Thanks Gordon, we finally have a real analysis of the collapse times.
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
We will assume a mass of m on each storey and 2m in the roof.
To simulate aircraft and impact damage we will remove the capacity of the 93rd storey in its entirety, We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 92nd storey to 0% of its design load, even though this would be impossible.
The effect of this will be to initiate collapse due to a sudden and instantaneous loss of all load carrying ability in two storeys. The upper section will drop under gravity until it impacts the lower section.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 91st storey to 20% of its design load, such that it is able to only carry the weight above it with no reserve capacity..
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 90th and 89th storeys to 40% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of the 88th and 87th storeys to 60% of its design load.
We will reduce the load carrying capability of all other lower storeys to 80% of its design load.
We will also introduce similar reductions in the upper section but with the proviso that the falling upper section will not break up until the bottom section is destroyed, at which point the collapse will progress through the upper section.
We will also assume that all mass from the lower sections joins the upper section after destruction and in doing so it will increase the falling mass.
Now we know that in order to destroy the lower storeys the falling upper section must exert a force upon it. In order to do so the falling upper section must undergo a deceleration. What would be the size and duration of that deceleration?
The size, we must assume to be as a minimum the value of the reduced failure loads.
As regards the duration of the deceleration, I would argue that this would be continuous, but let us vary this figure to allow that for each 3.7m storey there would be a period of deceleration and a period of falling under gravity with no reaction from the lower section.
So let us firstly assume that the deceleration takes place over 2.0m leaving 1.7m for rebuilding the kinetic energy of the falling section.
We can show that the upper section drops through storeys 93 and 92 reaching 12.05 metres per second. After three more impacts at 91, 90 and 89 the descent is slowed and the collapse arrested at the 89th storey after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 1..0 metre
We can see that under these conditions the collapse would be arrested at the 84th storey after three and a half seconds, with a maximum velocity of 13.98 metres per second reached at storey 89 after just under two seconds.
Let us reduce the distance over which the deceleration takes place to 0.75 metre
In this case collapse progresses to the 71st storey over about 9 seconds. Maximum velocity of 15.26 metres per second is reached on storey 88 after just over two seconds.
At last, after reducing the deceleration distance to 0.7metres we can show that the collapse will progress down to ground level and back up through the following section. The maximum velocity through the lower section is 15.37 metres per second at the 86th storey after 2.8 seconds, but the maximum velocity in this case is the very end as the top-section “whiplashes into the ground” This is a function of my assumptions that momentum is conserved in the disintegrating section so the mass losses are compensated for by large velocity rises. This breaks the top section apart in just 3.7 seconds but the total collapse time is 42.87 seconds.
So in order to achieve failure in the model such that the result was total collapse, the conditions must be so as to allow that on each storey there was a deceleration of 0.7 metres and a freefall under gravity of 3.0 metres. This combined with the assumptions made regarding damage and loss of strength, assumptions which have been outlined and which favour a total collapse outcome, would give a collapse time of 42.87 seconds. Note that these collapse times are for the total collapse of roof to ground level.
Reducing the deceleration still further would obviously reduce this time.
Now as a comparison I have used this same scenario but also reduced the failure load for every third storey to close to zero to give a controlled demolition collapse time. In this the velocity profile was different in that it continued to increase throughout the collapse rather than slow down from an initial impetus, as was the case in the previous examples. The total collapse time was 19.7 seconds. Again this could be reduced by increasing the number of storeys affected.
So this spreadsheet shows that we can expect collapse times of less than 20 seconds for controlled demolition but the same scenario using a failure collapse would give collapse times of more than twice this figure.
Please note that this does not show that collapse was possible under the conditions of the day. I still maintain that the structure’s capacity to absorb strain energy was far in excess of any energy of collapse deriving from the kinetic or potential energy of the building.
Gordon
Thanks Gordon, we finally have a real analysis of the collapse times.
The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not?
The total falling mass would have increased, but density is a different matter. The effect of any impact would be greater in the upper section than in the standing section since it is made from lighter sections and is more likely to have suffered the bulk of the thermal weakening. This disintegration or partial disintegration would lower the capacity of the falling mass to deliver a concerted velocity change driven force. While it would be correct to say that the summation of each constituent part of kinetic energy would be the same in disintegrated or whole falling masses of equal size and velocity, the former would be less able to deliver a concerted force.
Furthermore and as you have alluded to, these pieces would find their paths of least resistance and would naturally tend to fall both outside the impact, and between the columns and cores to impact the floors and ceilings. This would mean less impact on the load bearing structures and it is after all these which need to fail, rather than simply ceilings and floors.
I must also take issue with your use of a pile driver analogy when you say “because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR”
A pile driver relies on a series of impacts. I am talking with specific reference to the load bearing columns when I say in order for the same scenario in the tower to be simulated you would have to show how such a series of forces could have arisen. It implies that the collapse was a series of failures and freefalls or similar, and not the continuous crushing collapse fuelled by the initial impetus only. How could a falling mass achieve the separation required for a series of impacts, upon the load bearing columns?
Gordon
The total falling mass would have increased, but density is a different matter. The effect of any impact would be greater in the upper section than in the standing section since it is made from lighter sections and is more likely to have suffered the bulk of the thermal weakening. This disintegration or partial disintegration would lower the capacity of the falling mass to deliver a concerted velocity change driven force. While it would be correct to say that the summation of each constituent part of kinetic energy would be the same in disintegrated or whole falling masses of equal size and velocity, the former would be less able to deliver a concerted force.
Furthermore and as you have alluded to, these pieces would find their paths of least resistance and would naturally tend to fall both outside the impact, and between the columns and cores to impact the floors and ceilings. This would mean less impact on the load bearing structures and it is after all these which need to fail, rather than simply ceilings and floors.
I must also take issue with your use of a pile driver analogy when you say “because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR”
A pile driver relies on a series of impacts. I am talking with specific reference to the load bearing columns when I say in order for the same scenario in the tower to be simulated you would have to show how such a series of forces could have arisen. It implies that the collapse was a series of failures and freefalls or similar, and not the continuous crushing collapse fuelled by the initial impetus only. How could a falling mass achieve the separation required for a series of impacts, upon the load bearing columns?
Gordon
adoucette,
As I said, I understand you have your reasons why you prefer the pancake, I was just asking for your HONEST opinion about whether the way the WTC buildings, including building 7 RESEMBLED the appearance of the way buildings look that have been brought down by control demolition?
OK, let's make this easier and forget about the towers, let's focus on building 7.
Doesn't the way building 7 collapsed, slightly RESEMBLE other control demolished buildings???
Even if you won't give up the pancake, fine, no problem I'm not asking you to change your theory, I'm just asking you to be honest and tell us if you can see a SIMILARITY in the way building 7 collapsed and other control demolition buildings?
I'd be more than happy to post a link of building 7 collapsing and other buildings that were brought down by control demolition.
In fact I think common sense has posted an animation of building 7 collapsing, but I'm just trying to see if you can give an honest answer about this.
As I said, I understand you have your reasons why you prefer the pancake, I was just asking for your HONEST opinion about whether the way the WTC buildings, including building 7 RESEMBLED the appearance of the way buildings look that have been brought down by control demolition?
OK, let's make this easier and forget about the towers, let's focus on building 7.
Doesn't the way building 7 collapsed, slightly RESEMBLE other control demolished buildings???
Even if you won't give up the pancake, fine, no problem I'm not asking you to change your theory, I'm just asking you to be honest and tell us if you can see a SIMILARITY in the way building 7 collapsed and other control demolition buildings?
I'd be more than happy to post a link of building 7 collapsing and other buildings that were brought down by control demolition.
In fact I think common sense has posted an animation of building 7 collapsing, but I'm just trying to see if you can give an honest answer about this.
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
The pans were not steel reinforcement.
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
Even if they were however, they would be designed to strengthen the concrete which is NOT taking the gravity load of the building, it is taking the garvity load of the contents of one floor.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
The pans were not steel reinforcement.
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
Even if they were however, they would be designed to strengthen the concrete which is NOT taking the gravity load of the building, it is taking the garvity load of the contents of one floor.
Arthur, yesdidit, reality check, common sense,
Will anyone of you be willing to answer the question I posed to Arthur?
I know you're absolutely 100% confident in the pancake theory, and that you are right and I am wrong, and I'm not even debating with you, in fact let's assume you are absolutely correct and that I've been wrong all these years about what I believe.
Would you at least be willing to admit that building 7 SLIGHTLY RESEMBLES the appearance of a building that was brought down by control demolition?
You can even say looks are deceiving and that doesn't prove anything, fine! no problem! and I'm not debating that issue.
All I'm asking is if either of you will agree that when building 7 collapsed it SLIGHTLY RESEMBLED a building that was brought down by control demolition.
You can either answer...
A) No it doesn't look anything like a control demolished building.
Yes it slightly resembles the appearance of a building brought down by demolition
C) Don't answer the question at all and hope people forget about this post.
Will anyone of you be willing to answer the question I posed to Arthur?
I know you're absolutely 100% confident in the pancake theory, and that you are right and I am wrong, and I'm not even debating with you, in fact let's assume you are absolutely correct and that I've been wrong all these years about what I believe.
Would you at least be willing to admit that building 7 SLIGHTLY RESEMBLES the appearance of a building that was brought down by control demolition?
You can even say looks are deceiving and that doesn't prove anything, fine! no problem! and I'm not debating that issue.
All I'm asking is if either of you will agree that when building 7 collapsed it SLIGHTLY RESEMBLED a building that was brought down by control demolition.
You can either answer...
A) No it doesn't look anything like a control demolished building.
Yes it slightly resembles the appearance of a building brought down by demolitionC) Don't answer the question at all and hope people forget about this post.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 7 2006, 03:52 AM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 6 2006, 09:53 PM)
QUOTE (galdur+Jan 6 2006, 04:51 PM)
The 41st and 42nd and the 75th and the 76th floors
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
The pans were not steel reinforcement.
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
Even if they were however, they would be designed to strengthen the concrete which is NOT taking the gravity load of the building, it is taking the garvity load of the contents of one floor.
Floors
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Godfrey, GB (Editor); Second Edition; Collins, London, England, 1985
The reason there is nothing to compare with is because no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.
However it is very easy to compare the RATE OF DECENT and other characteristics of the way the WTC buildings collapsed when we look at buildings that came down from CONTROL DEMOLITION.
yesdidit, even you gotta admit the way the towers came down look a lot more similar to buildings that came down from control demolition as opposed to steel frame sky scrapers that had fires. Even if you don't believe it, wouldn't you say the collapse looked MORE SIMILAR TO CONTROL DEMOLITION THAN A FIRE, EVEN AN INTENSE FIRE LIKE MADRID SPAIN?
So when you say there is nothing to compare it with, isn't that denying the buildings that came down from demolition charges?
OK, since you claim it was a fire that brought the towers down, then shouldn't we look at the Madrid fire, up above and see if we can draw any comparisons with that? After all, that high rise had a much more intense fire than the WTC buildings.
Now with the Madrid fire in mind, we have to ask the question why did that building burn MUCH MORE INTENSE, for about 19 hours REMAIN INTACT, when the WTC buildings fire was much smaller and only burn for about an hour?
Since the smaller fire that burned about 5% as the Madrid fire, would you conclude that less fire causes more damage?
OK, let's look at another COMPARISON.
Now that little stove top is much, much smaller and weaker than the steel in the WTC buildings, yet stove tops never shatter
Can you see the comparison between the stove top and one of the steel beams in the WTC building?
How is it that the weaker piece of metal doesn't shatter, whereas the stronger steel completely disintegrates?
Don't you think it's odd that a stove top can be completely engulfed in flames, repeatedly for decades, upon decades and still remain strong, whereas only 1 hour of burning in much less proportionate amount of heat disintegrates so quickly?
You see, even though I don't have my PHD in physics, I have cooked a few things on a stove enough times to know that steel is pretty strong and that fires don't disintegrate them.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are many things to use for comparison purposes.
No other building has ever been hit with an aircraft and fuel compliment that compares with what hit the WTC towers. No building has ever had to burn with no firefighting effort and compromised fire insulation before.
The Windsor building had a concrete core that prevented total collapse(it wasn't an all steel building). (you did not read that one page link I posted earlier on did you steve?)
The Windsor building started collapseing 1hr29 minutes into the fire. Again, though the concrete core columns did not suffer any impact damage prior to the fire and did not suffer the 'creep' that steel suffers in a fire. Concrete loses its strength slower in a fire than steel and does so primarily through spalling.
No, I cannot say that what I saw happen to the towers looked at all like a controlled demolition unless I am watching a video taken from a long way off and I defocus my eyes so that the scale of what I am watching is blurred out. If this was a controlled demolition then the guys that set it up should be fired.
I can't say that it was like the fire in Madrid since the Windsor is so much smaller a building that the towers could have the exact same fire happening in the interior and it would be happening 50 feet from the windows.
If it is easy to compare the rate of fall with a demolition then let's see some numbers.Stoves do not have any gravity load other than a maximum of a large pot of soup.
The steel of an oven or a cook top is specifically designed to take high heat. This comparison would be the same as comparing the behaviour of window glass and pyrex when heated.
reply
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
of each tower housed heavy equipment and those
slabs were steel only and especially massive. Still
they didn´t slow the collapse the least.
Besides the first eight floors had extra reinforcement
and of course the structure gets the more massive the
nearer to the ground - for obvious reasons.
The pancake hypothesis is a simplistic fable, a fantasy.
They were made stronger to support a greater load on the floor area. This does not translate to an ability of that floor to hold the impact of more than a dozen floors.
As for the lower floors , there was also more debris and it was moving faster when it got there.
The point is that those all-steel slabs didn´t slow the collapse
in the least and they were shredded.
The structure gets the stronger the nearer to the ground.
Still it offers no meaningful resistance and doesn´t slow the
collapse a bit. This is physically impossible - unless explosives
are used.
Again, why would they slow the collapse? They were designed to take more weight and more weight was on them. Can you show that the margin of the available strength over and above what was being utilitzed was so much greater than the similar margin in a regular floor?
You don't think steel floor pans contribute much in the way
of structural strength which means that you don't really
believe in reinforcing concrete which again means that your
speculations here are total fantasy.
The pans were not steel reinforcement.
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
Even if they were however, they would be designed to strengthen the concrete which is NOT taking the gravity load of the building, it is taking the garvity load of the contents of one floor.
Floors
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel, Godfrey, GB (Editor); Second Edition; Collins, London, England, 1985
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 12:55 AM)
QUOTE
Yesdidit
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
Once again, you cannot state that with any certainty at all without something to compare it to.
The reason there is nothing to compare with is because no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire.
However it is very easy to compare the RATE OF DECENT and other characteristics of the way the WTC buildings collapsed when we look at buildings that came down from CONTROL DEMOLITION.
yesdidit, even you gotta admit the way the towers came down look a lot more similar to buildings that came down from control demolition as opposed to steel frame sky scrapers that had fires. Even if you don't believe it, wouldn't you say the collapse looked MORE SIMILAR TO CONTROL DEMOLITION THAN A FIRE, EVEN AN INTENSE FIRE LIKE MADRID SPAIN?
So when you say there is nothing to compare it with, isn't that denying the buildings that came down from demolition charges?
OK, since you claim it was a fire that brought the towers down, then shouldn't we look at the Madrid fire, up above and see if we can draw any comparisons with that? After all, that high rise had a much more intense fire than the WTC buildings.
Now with the Madrid fire in mind, we have to ask the question why did that building burn MUCH MORE INTENSE, for about 19 hours REMAIN INTACT, when the WTC buildings fire was much smaller and only burn for about an hour?
Since the smaller fire that burned about 5% as the Madrid fire, would you conclude that less fire causes more damage?
OK, let's look at another COMPARISON.
Now that little stove top is much, much smaller and weaker than the steel in the WTC buildings, yet stove tops never shatter
Can you see the comparison between the stove top and one of the steel beams in the WTC building?
How is it that the weaker piece of metal doesn't shatter, whereas the stronger steel completely disintegrates?
Don't you think it's odd that a stove top can be completely engulfed in flames, repeatedly for decades, upon decades and still remain strong, whereas only 1 hour of burning in much less proportionate amount of heat disintegrates so quickly?
You see, even though I don't have my PHD in physics, I have cooked a few things on a stove enough times to know that steel is pretty strong and that fires don't disintegrate them.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are many things to use for comparison purposes.
No other building has ever been hit with an aircraft and fuel compliment that compares with what hit the WTC towers. No building has ever had to burn with no firefighting effort and compromised fire insulation before.
The Windsor building had a concrete core that prevented total collapse(it wasn't an all steel building). (you did not read that one page link I posted earlier on did you steve?)
The Windsor building started collapseing 1hr29 minutes into the fire. Again, though the concrete core columns did not suffer any impact damage prior to the fire and did not suffer the 'creep' that steel suffers in a fire. Concrete loses its strength slower in a fire than steel and does so primarily through spalling.
No, I cannot say that what I saw happen to the towers looked at all like a controlled demolition unless I am watching a video taken from a long way off and I defocus my eyes so that the scale of what I am watching is blurred out. If this was a controlled demolition then the guys that set it up should be fired.
I can't say that it was like the fire in Madrid since the Windsor is so much smaller a building that the towers could have the exact same fire happening in the interior and it would be happening 50 feet from the windows.
If it is easy to compare the rate of fall with a demolition then let's see some numbers.Stoves do not have any gravity load other than a maximum of a large pot of soup.
The steel of an oven or a cook top is specifically designed to take high heat. This comparison would be the same as comparing the behaviour of window glass and pyrex when heated.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 7 2006, 03:32 AM)
The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not?
The total falling mass would have increased, but density is a different matter. The effect of any impact would be greater in the upper section than in the standing section since it is made from lighter sections and is more likely to have suffered the bulk of the thermal weakening. This disintegration or partial disintegration would lower the capacity of the falling mass to deliver a concerted velocity change driven force. While it would be correct to say that the summation of each constituent part of kinetic energy would be the same in disintegrated or whole falling masses of equal size and velocity, the former would be less able to deliver a concerted force.
Furthermore and as you have alluded to, these pieces would find their paths of least resistance and would naturally tend to fall both outside the impact, and between the columns and cores to impact the floors and ceilings. This would mean less impact on the load bearing structures and it is after all these which need to fail, rather than simply ceilings and floors.
I must also take issue with your use of a pile driver analogy when you say “because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR”
A pile driver relies on a series of impacts. I am talking with specific reference to the load bearing columns when I say in order for the same scenario in the tower to be simulated you would have to show how such a series of forces could have arisen. It implies that the collapse was a series of failures and freefalls or similar, and not the continuous crushing collapse fuelled by the initial impetus only. How could a falling mass achieve the separation required for a series of impacts, upon the load bearing columns?
Gordon
Again with the obtuseness, this time from you, gordon. At each level's 'transient hesitation' due to impacts, the the falling rubble pile would be COMPACTED further from top-of-pile to impact surfaces REPEATEDLY AT EACH LEVEL....hence the 'pile driver' effect at each level....and this pile effect related to what was going on in the "INTERIOR" (you missed that?) and not necessarily on the outer perimeter columns at all points at all levels, OK? And please read my comments to metamars above regarding chaotic damage to columns/facade structures FROM MANY PROCESSES/CAUSES..including blow-down by escaping air at each 'pile-driver-impact-compressed AIR and sudden combustion gas expansions due to sudden compression-heat IGNITION of combustible particulates etc....and other EQUALLY MASSIVE COLUMN-SECTION DEBRIS from the DISINTEGRATING/IMPACTING HAT TRUSS AND BUILDING TOP/SIDE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. As with metamars and Mel, no-one will give any credence to anything further you have to say if you consistently and conveniently IGNORE the PRACTICAL physics of what I have described...so please research/comprehend FULLY AND NOT PIECEMEAL all the processes/physics involved in such unusual/chaotic scenarios...perhaps then your 'assessments/treatments' will reflect the real world and not just your EXTREMELY BOUNDARY-CONDITIONAL 'analysis constructs'. Ciao.
RC.
.
The total falling mass would have increased, but density is a different matter. The effect of any impact would be greater in the upper section than in the standing section since it is made from lighter sections and is more likely to have suffered the bulk of the thermal weakening. This disintegration or partial disintegration would lower the capacity of the falling mass to deliver a concerted velocity change driven force. While it would be correct to say that the summation of each constituent part of kinetic energy would be the same in disintegrated or whole falling masses of equal size and velocity, the former would be less able to deliver a concerted force.
Furthermore and as you have alluded to, these pieces would find their paths of least resistance and would naturally tend to fall both outside the impact, and between the columns and cores to impact the floors and ceilings. This would mean less impact on the load bearing structures and it is after all these which need to fail, rather than simply ceilings and floors.
I must also take issue with your use of a pile driver analogy when you say “because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR”
A pile driver relies on a series of impacts. I am talking with specific reference to the load bearing columns when I say in order for the same scenario in the tower to be simulated you would have to show how such a series of forces could have arisen. It implies that the collapse was a series of failures and freefalls or similar, and not the continuous crushing collapse fuelled by the initial impetus only. How could a falling mass achieve the separation required for a series of impacts, upon the load bearing columns?
Gordon
Again with the obtuseness, this time from you, gordon. At each level's 'transient hesitation' due to impacts, the the falling rubble pile would be COMPACTED further from top-of-pile to impact surfaces REPEATEDLY AT EACH LEVEL....hence the 'pile driver' effect at each level....and this pile effect related to what was going on in the "INTERIOR" (you missed that?) and not necessarily on the outer perimeter columns at all points at all levels, OK? And please read my comments to metamars above regarding chaotic damage to columns/facade structures FROM MANY PROCESSES/CAUSES..including blow-down by escaping air at each 'pile-driver-impact-compressed AIR and sudden combustion gas expansions due to sudden compression-heat IGNITION of combustible particulates etc....and other EQUALLY MASSIVE COLUMN-SECTION DEBRIS from the DISINTEGRATING/IMPACTING HAT TRUSS AND BUILDING TOP/SIDE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. As with metamars and Mel, no-one will give any credence to anything further you have to say if you consistently and conveniently IGNORE the PRACTICAL physics of what I have described...so please research/comprehend FULLY AND NOT PIECEMEAL all the processes/physics involved in such unusual/chaotic scenarios...perhaps then your 'assessments/treatments' will reflect the real world and not just your EXTREMELY BOUNDARY-CONDITIONAL 'analysis constructs'. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 04:08 AM)
Arthur, yesdidit, reality check, common sense,
Will anyone of you be willing to answer the question I posed to Arthur?
I know you're absolutely 100% confident in the pancake theory, and that you are right and I am wrong, and I'm not even debating with you, in fact let's assume you are absolutely correct and that I've been wrong all these years about what I believe.
Would you at least be willing to admit that building 7 SLIGHTLY RESEMBLES the appearance of a building that was brought down by control demolition?
You can even say looks are deceiving and that doesn't prove anything, fine! no problem! and I'm not debating that issue.
All I'm asking is if either of you will agree that when building 7 collapsed it SLIGHTLY RESEMBLED a building that was brought down by control demolition.
You can either answer...
A) No it doesn't look anything like a control demolished building.
B) Yes it slightly resembles the appearance of a building brought down by demolition
C) Don't answer the question at all and hope people forget about this post.
B)
It slighty resembles a controlled demolition.
BTW, turn off emoticons and B) won't come out as a smilie face, that or put a space between the 'B' and the ')'
As I have said many times before though, "looks like" and "is" are not equivalents.
We know there was structural damage to WTC7, we know that creaking and groaning sounds were coming from WTC7. We know that the fire was not being fought in WTC7. All of these are indicative of a building under multiple stresses and a danger of collapse. We know it collapsed and well it looked like a wounded duck, sounded like a wounded duck and behaved like a badly wounded duck. Must have been a badly wounded duck that died.
(Had I not turned off the emoticoms I would have inserted a smilie face here)
Will anyone of you be willing to answer the question I posed to Arthur?
I know you're absolutely 100% confident in the pancake theory, and that you are right and I am wrong, and I'm not even debating with you, in fact let's assume you are absolutely correct and that I've been wrong all these years about what I believe.
Would you at least be willing to admit that building 7 SLIGHTLY RESEMBLES the appearance of a building that was brought down by control demolition?
You can even say looks are deceiving and that doesn't prove anything, fine! no problem! and I'm not debating that issue.
All I'm asking is if either of you will agree that when building 7 collapsed it SLIGHTLY RESEMBLED a building that was brought down by control demolition.
You can either answer...
A) No it doesn't look anything like a control demolished building.
B) Yes it slightly resembles the appearance of a building brought down by demolition
C) Don't answer the question at all and hope people forget about this post.
B)
It slighty resembles a controlled demolition.
BTW, turn off emoticons and B) won't come out as a smilie face, that or put a space between the 'B' and the ')'
As I have said many times before though, "looks like" and "is" are not equivalents.
We know there was structural damage to WTC7, we know that creaking and groaning sounds were coming from WTC7. We know that the fire was not being fought in WTC7. All of these are indicative of a building under multiple stresses and a danger of collapse. We know it collapsed and well it looked like a wounded duck, sounded like a wounded duck and behaved like a badly wounded duck. Must have been a badly wounded duck that died.
(Had I not turned off the emoticoms I would have inserted a smilie face here)
yesitdid,
Well good for you. At least you half way attempted to answer the question I posed. Remember, I wasn't asking you to change your theory.
All I was asking was if you thought when building 7 collapsed that it RESEMBLED buildings that are demolished.
At least you tried to address the question, although your answer was still a little fuzzy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it does resemble a control demolition if your view is blurred and far away?
And if that is correct, does that mean you don't think it even remotely resembles the appearance of a control demolition if the view is clear and your not that far away.
All I'm asking for is clarity in your position. Remember, I already know your stance on what you believe really happened, all I was asking for was regarding the APPEARANCE.
Thanks for at least trying to answer the question.
P.S. Thanks for the clue about the emotions button, I plumb forgot
Well good for you. At least you half way attempted to answer the question I posed. Remember, I wasn't asking you to change your theory.
All I was asking was if you thought when building 7 collapsed that it RESEMBLED buildings that are demolished.
At least you tried to address the question, although your answer was still a little fuzzy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it does resemble a control demolition if your view is blurred and far away?
And if that is correct, does that mean you don't think it even remotely resembles the appearance of a control demolition if the view is clear and your not that far away.
All I'm asking for is clarity in your position. Remember, I already know your stance on what you believe really happened, all I was asking for was regarding the APPEARANCE.
Thanks for at least trying to answer the question.
P.S. Thanks for the clue about the emotions button, I plumb forgot
QUOTE
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
reply
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement. |
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:03 AM)
MEL.....The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not? IRRESPECTIVE of the actual collisions cross-section profiles during that chaotic collapse, the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’. So don’t be obtuse about what was crushing what and in particular MOMENTS/POSITIONS ON THE WAY DOWN...because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR except those portions making the collateral damage around the site. And about my ‘time’ on this forum: If you compare MY time-spent/posts-put to that spent/put by Foxx, metamars and others, I think you’ll find that I DON’T have that much time to spend here. And you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’. So unless you have any intelligent/new physics input to make, please avoid making an *** of yourself by pointless/unsubstantiable comments like you have done. If you keep it up, you are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant in these discussions. And by the way, I will prefix/suffix MY posts however I see fit, and see no need to explain myself to YOU or anyone else in that respect. Ciao.
This type of analysis is just one more case of some self-professed 'expert' making claims that have no merit other than they profess it to be so. And please don't waste our time making claims as to who you are and what you do for a living...completely unsubstantiatable. State your real name and place of work, and then I might consider putting you on my 'credible' list.
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not?
Not. No mechanism I can think of will turn these items into a "chaotically churning/vibrating/[obviously] falling" debris pile. There is nothing in a so-called pancake mechanism that will induce this supposed chaotic, concrete-flouring, floor pan devouring, whirl-wind of debris. If anything, the ever-increasing density of the debris pile would keep it from swirling chaotically out of control.
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
...you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’
I note that your 'input' does nothing but drag this crap out even longer than it already has. To suggest that we can't possibly know what happened until we're fully conversant in chaos theory is laughable.
This type of analysis is just one more case of some self-professed 'expert' making claims that have no merit other than they profess it to be so. And please don't waste our time making claims as to who you are and what you do for a living...completely unsubstantiatable. State your real name and place of work, and then I might consider putting you on my 'credible' list.
QUOTE
That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not?
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? |
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not?
Not. No mechanism I can think of will turn these items into a "chaotically churning/vibrating/[obviously] falling" debris pile. There is nothing in a so-called pancake mechanism that will induce this supposed chaotic, concrete-flouring, floor pan devouring, whirl-wind of debris. If anything, the ever-increasing density of the debris pile would keep it from swirling chaotically out of control.
QUOTE
...the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’ |
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
...you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’
I note that your 'input' does nothing but drag this crap out even longer than it already has. To suggest that we can't possibly know what happened until we're fully conversant in chaos theory is laughable.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 04:32 AM)
yesitdid,
Well good for you. At least you half way attempted to answer the question I posed. Remember, I wasn't asking you to change your theory.
All I was asking was if you thought when building 7 collapsed that it RESEMBLED buildings that are demolished.
At least you tried to address the question, although your answer was still a little fuzzy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it does resemble a control demolition if your view is blurred and far away?
And if that is correct, does that mean you don't think it even remotely resembles the appearance of a control demolition if the view is clear and your not that far away.
All I'm asking for is clarity in your position. Remember, I already know your stance on what you believe really happened, all I was asking for was regarding the APPEARANCE.
Thanks for at least trying to answer the question.
P.S. Thanks for the clue about the emotions button, I plumb forgot
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
Well good for you. At least you half way attempted to answer the question I posed. Remember, I wasn't asking you to change your theory.
All I was asking was if you thought when building 7 collapsed that it RESEMBLED buildings that are demolished.
At least you tried to address the question, although your answer was still a little fuzzy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it does resemble a control demolition if your view is blurred and far away?
And if that is correct, does that mean you don't think it even remotely resembles the appearance of a control demolition if the view is clear and your not that far away.
All I'm asking for is clarity in your position. Remember, I already know your stance on what you believe really happened, all I was asking for was regarding the APPEARANCE.
Thanks for at least trying to answer the question.
P.S. Thanks for the clue about the emotions button, I plumb forgot
QUOTE
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that it does resemble a control demolition if your view is blurred and far away?
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
QUOTE (Mel+Jan 7 2006, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:03 AM)
MEL.....The pile of debris after the collapse came from somewhere, did it not? That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not? IRRESPECTIVE of the actual collisions cross-section profiles during that chaotic collapse, the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’. So don’t be obtuse about what was crushing what and in particular MOMENTS/POSITIONS ON THE WAY DOWN...because it ALL CAME DOWN IN A PILE-DRIVER MANNER ACROSS-THE FULL SPAN OF THE INTERIOR except those portions making the collateral damage around the site. And about my ‘time’ on this forum: If you compare MY time-spent/posts-put to that spent/put by Foxx, metamars and others, I think you’ll find that I DON’T have that much time to spend here. And you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’. So unless you have any intelligent/new physics input to make, please avoid making an *** of yourself by pointless/unsubstantiable comments like you have done. If you keep it up, you are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant in these discussions. And by the way, I will prefix/suffix MY posts however I see fit, and see no need to explain myself to YOU or anyone else in that respect. Ciao.
This type of analysis is just one more case of some self-professed 'expert' making claims that have no merit other than they profess it to be so. And please don't waste our time making claims as to who you are and what you do for a living...completely unsubstantiatable. State your real name and place of work, and then I might consider putting you on my 'credible' list.
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not?
Not. No mechanism I can think of will turn these items into a "chaotically churning/vibrating/[obviously] falling" debris pile. There is nothing in a so-called pancake mechanism that will induce this supposed chaotic, concrete-flouring, floor pan devouring, whirl-wind of debris. If anything, the ever-increasing density of the debris pile would keep it from swirling chaotically out of control.
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
...you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’
I note that your 'input' does nothing but drag this crap out even longer than it already has. To suggest that we can't possibly know what happened until we're fully conversant in chaos theory is laughable.
Apparently, you ARE irrelevant; as not only can you not think of anything; but you also have no actual practical relevant PHYSICS knowledge/arguments to put. And I don't give out my personal details to every nutter on the net who asks. Are YOU one of those that make up the statistics of people who answer the 'phishing/scamming' requests for personal details in spam emails? Grow up and go get some REAL knowledge of the PHYSICS at hand before you sound off without a scintilla of substance.
RC.
.
reply
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
If you don’t understand what basic construction terminology like Composite floors and permanent formwork mean, presenting any further information is an obvious waste of time.
Composite floors
All right! Major progress. You agree it does look like control demolition. And yes, I understand that you still don't believe it was demolished with explosives, but you do agree it resembled it.
Now don't feel bad that it resembles control demolition, as Peter Jennings of ABC news and Dan Rather of CBS also said they were shocked as the towers looked just like control demolition.
In fact many other noteworthy people also said it looked just like control demolition, so you don't have to feel embarrassed about how it appeared.
reply
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
If you don’t understand what basic construction terminology like Composite floors and permanent formwork mean, presenting any further information is an obvious waste of time.
Oh, please, what part of the term 'formwork' are you having trouble with?
The corrugated formwork was there to hold the cement until it hardened to concrete and is of the type of formwork that is designed to remain in place. This speeds construction and can reduce costs involved in erecting wood forms and then having to take them apart after the concrete sets and rebuild them on another floor.
There are other types of permanent formwork, the most common in residential buildings is that made of extruded foam insulation. You build up the forms, add reinforcement rods and fill with wet cement mix. After it sets you backfill around the forms and you now have an insulated concrete foundation.
Decorum prevents me from many other comments.
All right! Major progress. You agree it does look like control demolition. And yes, I understand that you still don't believe it was demolished with explosives, but you do agree it resembled it.
Now don't feel bad that it resembles control demolition, as Peter Jennings of ABC news and Dan Rather of CBS also said they were shocked as the towers looked just like control demolition.
In fact many other noteworthy people also said it looked just like control demolition, so you don't have to feel embarrassed about how it appeared.
No, you still misread what I said.
A duck in flight resembles a 747 in flight but they ain't the same thing.
A dolphin resembles a shark but they ain't the same thing.
I have two arms and legs, five digits of each hand and foot, a head on top with two eyes and I am male. So are you but we ain't the same thing.
This type of analysis is just one more case of some self-professed 'expert' making claims that have no merit other than they profess it to be so. And please don't waste our time making claims as to who you are and what you do for a living...completely unsubstantiatable. State your real name and place of work, and then I might consider putting you on my 'credible' list.
QUOTE
That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not?
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That debris would have accumulated in mass/density on the way down, would it not? |
Not. Density only. Mass decreased as material was ejected away from the buildings.
The tops and HAT TRUSS materials of the buildings would have been a ‘plug’ of chaotically CHURNING/VIBRATING/FALLING debris would it not?
Not. No mechanism I can think of will turn these items into a "chaotically churning/vibrating/[obviously] falling" debris pile. There is nothing in a so-called pancake mechanism that will induce this supposed chaotic, concrete-flouring, floor pan devouring, whirl-wind of debris. If anything, the ever-increasing density of the debris pile would keep it from swirling chaotically out of control.
QUOTE
...the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...the accumulating ‘plug’ of debris was MASSIVE AS A WHOLE ‘PILE’ if not as a whole ‘structure’ |
To what extent this plug became a "whole pile" is questionable (if by 'whole pile' you mean a coherent, dense mass), given the extremely brief amount of time spent shredding each story. How far can the upper debris pile travel in 1/10th second (ignoring/accounting for acceleration), and thus how much more 'dense' can this debris pile become during the amazingly brief moment spent at each subsequent collision? I have not done any calculations, nor do I EVER intend to engage in any but the most basic of calculation masterbation...it is meaningless to me when the very premise around which the calculations are being performed (pancake theory) is flawed.
If you wish to continue selling the notion that the leading edge (surface?) of the impact zone was a chaotic, churning, whirl-wind, capable of flouring 4 inches of concrete and shredding steel floor pans in ~1/10th of a second, repeatedly and at an accelerating rate, you're gonna have to do better than just state it. I call horseshit.
...you’ll also note that my input offers practical physics and not merely theoretical physics and useless ‘agenda-driven’ drivel like yours and others’
I note that your 'input' does nothing but drag this crap out even longer than it already has. To suggest that we can't possibly know what happened until we're fully conversant in chaos theory is laughable.
Apparently, you ARE irrelevant; as not only can you not think of anything; but you also have no actual practical relevant PHYSICS knowledge/arguments to put. And I don't give out my personal details to every nutter on the net who asks. Are YOU one of those that make up the statistics of people who answer the 'phishing/scamming' requests for personal details in spam emails? Grow up and go get some REAL knowledge of the PHYSICS at hand before you sound off without a scintilla of substance.
RC.
.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 7 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
reply
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement. |
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
If you don’t understand what basic construction terminology like Composite floors and permanent formwork mean, presenting any further information is an obvious waste of time.
Composite floors
QUOTE
yesdidit
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
All right! Major progress. You agree it does look like control demolition. And yes, I understand that you still don't believe it was demolished with explosives, but you do agree it resembled it.
Now don't feel bad that it resembles control demolition, as Peter Jennings of ABC news and Dan Rather of CBS also said they were shocked as the towers looked just like control demolition.
In fact many other noteworthy people also said it looked just like control demolition, so you don't have to feel embarrassed about how it appeared.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 7 2006, 05:01 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 7 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE
Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement.
reply
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Convince me that they were. Find a materials site or a construction website that explains the steel pans as a form of structural reinforcement. |
reply
Composite floors comprise 900mm deep bar joists (spaced at 2.04 m centres and braced transversely by secondary joists) and a 10 cm thick lightweight concrete slab laid on steel trough decking as permanent formwork. Composite action between the concrete and the steelwork is ensured by extending the diagonal web members of the joists through the steel decking and embedding them in the slab. Dead weight of floor 50 kg/in2, imposed load 488 kg/in2.
Formwork is the term used to describe what keeps the wet cement in place.
The composite action described concerns the trusses and the concrete, not the formwork and the concrete.
In fact this describes to a 't' what I just said about the school I was working in the other day.
If you don’t understand what basic construction terminology like Composite floors and permanent formwork mean, presenting any further information is an obvious waste of time.
Oh, please, what part of the term 'formwork' are you having trouble with?
The corrugated formwork was there to hold the cement until it hardened to concrete and is of the type of formwork that is designed to remain in place. This speeds construction and can reduce costs involved in erecting wood forms and then having to take them apart after the concrete sets and rebuild them on another floor.
There are other types of permanent formwork, the most common in residential buildings is that made of extruded foam insulation. You build up the forms, add reinforcement rods and fill with wet cement mix. After it sets you backfill around the forms and you now have an insulated concrete foundation.
Decorum prevents me from many other comments.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 05:10 AM)
QUOTE
yesdidit
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
I was being a tiny bit sarcastic steve1957. I was saying that if I try really, really hard not to notice many things that characterize the collapse of the WTC towers then they might have some resembalance to a controlled demilition. Basically they share one main trait with a CD, they fell down.
All right! Major progress. You agree it does look like control demolition. And yes, I understand that you still don't believe it was demolished with explosives, but you do agree it resembled it.
Now don't feel bad that it resembles control demolition, as Peter Jennings of ABC news and Dan Rather of CBS also said they were shocked as the towers looked just like control demolition.
In fact many other noteworthy people also said it looked just like control demolition, so you don't have to feel embarrassed about how it appeared.
No, you still misread what I said.
A duck in flight resembles a 747 in flight but they ain't the same thing.
A dolphin resembles a shark but they ain't the same thing.
I have two arms and legs, five digits of each hand and foot, a head on top with two eyes and I am male. So are you but we ain't the same thing.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 04:42 AM)
Apparently, you ARE irrelevant; as not only can you not think of anything; but you also have no actual practical relevant PHYSICS knowledge/arguments to put. And I don't give out my personal details to every nutter on the net who asks. Are YOU one of those that make up the statistics of people who answer the 'phishing/scamming' requests for personal details in spam emails? Grow up and go get some REAL knowledge of the PHYSICS at hand before you sound off without a scintilla of substance.
As soon as you post some "actual, practical, RELEVANT physics knowledge/arguments", I might consider posting my own to correct yours. So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
Your paranoia has no place here. It's simple really: don't post your credentials without substantiation.
As soon as you post some "actual, practical, RELEVANT physics knowledge/arguments", I might consider posting my own to correct yours. So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
QUOTE
Are YOU one of those that make up the statistics of people who answer the 'phishing/scamming' requests for personal details in spam emails
Your paranoia has no place here. It's simple really: don't post your credentials without substantiation.
QUOTE (steve1957+Jan 7 2006, 03:37 AM)
adoucette,
As I said, I understand you have your reasons why you prefer the pancake, I was just asking for your HONEST opinion about whether the way the WTC buildings, including building 7 RESEMBLED the appearance of the way buildings look that have been brought down by control demolition?
OK, let's make this easier and forget about the towers, let's focus on building 7.
Doesn't the way building 7 collapsed, slightly RESEMBLE other control demolished buildings???
Even if you won't give up the pancake, fine, no problem I'm not asking you to change your theory, I'm just asking you to be honest and tell us if you can see a SIMILARITY in the way building 7 collapsed and other control demolition buildings?
I'd be more than happy to post a link of building 7 collapsing and other buildings that were brought down by control demolition.
In fact I think common sense has posted an animation of building 7 collapsing, but I'm just trying to see if you can give an honest answer about this.
Steve1957,
I answered your question.
WTC 1 & 2 look NOTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
If THEY are not a controlled demolition, then there is NO LOGICAL REASON for WTC 7 to be a controlled demolition.
I won't discuss WTC 7 in detail until the NIST report comes out.
Why bother, it ain't like I know something they don't.
What I will say, is that while it, unlike WTC 1 & 2, falls in the same general manner as a controlled demoliton, what IS MISSING is the tell tale CRACKS of the multiple HIGH EXPLOSIVE CHARGES going off, as heard in ALL THE OTHER videos of CDs.
Arthur
As I said, I understand you have your reasons why you prefer the pancake, I was just asking for your HONEST opinion about whether the way the WTC buildings, including building 7 RESEMBLED the appearance of the way buildings look that have been brought down by control demolition?
OK, let's make this easier and forget about the towers, let's focus on building 7.
Doesn't the way building 7 collapsed, slightly RESEMBLE other control demolished buildings???
Even if you won't give up the pancake, fine, no problem I'm not asking you to change your theory, I'm just asking you to be honest and tell us if you can see a SIMILARITY in the way building 7 collapsed and other control demolition buildings?
I'd be more than happy to post a link of building 7 collapsing and other buildings that were brought down by control demolition.
In fact I think common sense has posted an animation of building 7 collapsing, but I'm just trying to see if you can give an honest answer about this.
Steve1957,
I answered your question.
WTC 1 & 2 look NOTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
If THEY are not a controlled demolition, then there is NO LOGICAL REASON for WTC 7 to be a controlled demolition.
I won't discuss WTC 7 in detail until the NIST report comes out.
Why bother, it ain't like I know something they don't.
What I will say, is that while it, unlike WTC 1 & 2, falls in the same general manner as a controlled demoliton, what IS MISSING is the tell tale CRACKS of the multiple HIGH EXPLOSIVE CHARGES going off, as heard in ALL THE OTHER videos of CDs.
Arthur
(Reality Check)
Emphasis mine.
You have not produced one convincing argument why, considering the chaotic aspects of the collapse would be at all relevant to answering my questions.
A bias can indeed be considered distinct from a discernible bend. So what? Do you think by invoking chaos theory, the effects on the degree of column deformation should be different in any floor truss snapping scenario, even if chaos introduces more uncertainty as to pathways for such scenarios to occur?
You seem to desperately be trying to ignore basic physics, by introducing chaos theory, which does indeed complicate things. But you are hiding in those complications, not producing a single plausible (or intelligible) argument as to how such complications would significantly change the applicable physics arguments. The effects of chaotic variations on the column/spire connection must still be such as to allow the struts to be ripped away. This ripping away process must exert forces on the column. You want us somehow to believe that it's plausible that such forces could leave the columns straight (or slightly bent), whilst other columns, hit by rubble but in a different manner, behaved as per NIST because they had a NIST-friendly toss of the chaotic dice????
Quite frankly, I think you're thinking is very muddled, whatever it is that you ARE thinking. Weather is known to be a chaotic system, hurricanes (presumably) moreso, and therefore because hurricanes can throw around a building like matchsticks you think you've made any significant point with respect to the WTC collapses? If hurricanes were in the habit of throwing buildings around and then setting them back upright, perfectly vertically, I might begin to think you had a glimmer of plausibility or even relevance.
If a hurricane has a maximum energy of E, and it requires 10E to toss around a building, is it at all possible that the hurricane do so?
Perhaps you are conceiving of "rubble hurricanes" which "aim" for the connections between columns and trusses, and perhaps drill the bolts out with their oh-so-chaotic rotary motion??? This has all the plausibility of adoucette's rubble-bellows theory, although somewhat less amusing. (No, I don't think you had this in mind.)
No need to respond to this post, as I expect that you will simply spout more, well, chaotic mumbo jumbo. I'm writing this more for the benefit of others. If, for some reason, you wish to respond, please use mathematics and a clear explanation on a simplified system to show why ambient chaotic forces change what would happen to the integrity of a solid steel object IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE INTEGRITY OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE in a large region, and doesn't in most others, even larger regions. (the straightness of the spire columns represents preserved integrity)
QUOTE
METAMARS....Please note that CHAOTIC PROCESSES occur in many areas of physics at ALL SCALES ...and that I have alluded-to/highlighted ONLY those aspects of CHAOS that may APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE 9/11 SCENARIOS DESCRIBED BY YOU GUYS. I have NOT conflated anything about the areas of chaos theory...as I have stuck to the chaos inherent in the thermodynamic and collapse scenarios presented for comment by others here. Please do not mistake YOUR CONFUSION/CONFLATION of these things with anything I have posted. What is the problem with you NOT understanding the difference between BIASING MARGINALLY and ACTUALLY BENDING those beams? The former merely provides (with MINIMAL force) a ‘preferred’ pathway for whatever LARGE forces were acting at the time. And during the collapse there would have been (as gordon pointed out) some direct contact between falling/accelerated SIMILARLY-MASSED debris which would cause either REBOUND OR BREAKAGE. This is in addition to all the weight of the heterogenous debris ‘body’ which would be bounced around from pillar to post during the collapse. And then there’s the extremely compressed air escaping OUT THE SIDES AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL...acting like a hurricane wind against the ‘sail area’ presented by the facade before ‘breaking away’ (how many times do you hear on the news that hurricanes/tornados “threw heavy structures around like ‘matchsticks”? So please, don’t bother me with any more of your disingenuous or mistaken assumptions in the absence of ACTUAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE which such chaotic occurrences DEMAND for their proper comprehension. And I’m NOT here to give you a course in PHYSICS, OK...do your OWN research/study in the relevant sciences/technologies and THEN present properly-reasoned arguments instead of ‘piecemeal’ and therefore misleading ‘understandings’ of what you are debating about. Until you do this it is fruitless to carry on with this charade of a ‘debate’.
Emphasis mine.
You have not produced one convincing argument why, considering the chaotic aspects of the collapse would be at all relevant to answering my questions.
A bias can indeed be considered distinct from a discernible bend. So what? Do you think by invoking chaos theory, the effects on the degree of column deformation should be different in any floor truss snapping scenario, even if chaos introduces more uncertainty as to pathways for such scenarios to occur?
You seem to desperately be trying to ignore basic physics, by introducing chaos theory, which does indeed complicate things. But you are hiding in those complications, not producing a single plausible (or intelligible) argument as to how such complications would significantly change the applicable physics arguments. The effects of chaotic variations on the column/spire connection must still be such as to allow the struts to be ripped away. This ripping away process must exert forces on the column. You want us somehow to believe that it's plausible that such forces could leave the columns straight (or slightly bent), whilst other columns, hit by rubble but in a different manner, behaved as per NIST because they had a NIST-friendly toss of the chaotic dice????
Quite frankly, I think you're thinking is very muddled, whatever it is that you ARE thinking. Weather is known to be a chaotic system, hurricanes (presumably) moreso, and therefore because hurricanes can throw around a building like matchsticks you think you've made any significant point with respect to the WTC collapses? If hurricanes were in the habit of throwing buildings around and then setting them back upright, perfectly vertically, I might begin to think you had a glimmer of plausibility or even relevance.
If a hurricane has a maximum energy of E, and it requires 10E to toss around a building, is it at all possible that the hurricane do so?
Perhaps you are conceiving of "rubble hurricanes" which "aim" for the connections between columns and trusses, and perhaps drill the bolts out with their oh-so-chaotic rotary motion??? This has all the plausibility of adoucette's rubble-bellows theory, although somewhat less amusing.
(No, I don't think you had this in mind.)No need to respond to this post, as I expect that you will simply spout more, well, chaotic mumbo jumbo. I'm writing this more for the benefit of others. If, for some reason, you wish to respond, please use mathematics and a clear explanation on a simplified system to show why ambient chaotic forces change what would happen to the integrity of a solid steel object IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES THE INTEGRITY OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE in a large region, and doesn't in most others, even larger regions. (the straightness of the spire columns represents preserved integrity)
QUOTE (gordon+)
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
You may not be able to post the tables,
But this spreadsheet is apparently an iteration.
You should be able to post one iteration of the formulas you used, so we could evaluate their veracity.
Reason being your results don't seem to mesh to well with reality.
Arthur
You may not be able to post the tables,
But this spreadsheet is apparently an iteration.
You should be able to post one iteration of the formulas you used, so we could evaluate their veracity.
Reason being your results don't seem to mesh to well with reality.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 7 2006, 02:06 AM)
Let us examine the claims from some commentators regarding the collapse scenario so that we can input some figures and check the magnitude of effects. There is a great deal of debate regarding the time of collapse, but without references to actual or estimated collapse times for controlled demolition and failure collapse, the debate lacks reference points.
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
Methinks Gordon is a superstar!
Gordon, please post your algorithms/formulas.
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
Methinks Gordon is a superstar!
Gordon, please post your algorithms/formulas.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 7 2006, 05:38 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+)
I have built a spreadsheet to estimate these times and allowed that criteria can be adjusted to give some figures. I’ve tried to show the tables but without any joy so I’ll pick out the relevant points.
You may not be able to post the tables,
But this spreadsheet is apparently an iteration.
You should be able to post one iteration of the formulas you used, so we could evaluate their veracity.
Reason being your results don't seem to mesh to well with reality.
Arthur
Arthur ,
That is defiantly true of the official conspiracy theory; however, for the controlled demolition theory he is only removing every third floor. From the firefighters testimonies to the numerous videos it appears every floor had cutting charges. Let’s see how close to reality removing all floors resistance is.
You may not be able to post the tables,
But this spreadsheet is apparently an iteration.
You should be able to post one iteration of the formulas you used, so we could evaluate their veracity.
Reason being your results don't seem to mesh to well with reality.
Arthur
Arthur ,
That is defiantly true of the official conspiracy theory; however, for the controlled demolition theory he is only removing every third floor. From the firefighters testimonies to the numerous videos it appears every floor had cutting charges. Let’s see how close to reality removing all floors resistance is.
QUOTE (Mel+Jan 7 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 04:42 AM)
Apparently, you ARE irrelevant; as not only can you not think of anything; but you also have no actual practical relevant PHYSICS knowledge/arguments to put. And I don't give out my personal details to every nutter on the net who asks. Are YOU one of those that make up the statistics of people who answer the 'phishing/scamming' requests for personal details in spam emails? Grow up and go get some REAL knowledge of the PHYSICS at hand before you sound off without a scintilla of substance.
As soon as you post some "actual, practical, RELEVANT physics knowledge/arguments", I might consider posting my own to correct yours. So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
James Joyce was a famous author who used a stream-of-consciousness type of writing style. Perhaps someday "Reality Check" will be a famous poster!
Fair enough! I asked a simple question and you gave a simple answer. In your view the buildings don't have any resemblance of the appearance of buildings that have collapsed via control demolition.
If this is what you honestly see in your view regarding the buildings, then what can I say, this is how you see it.
There are several other people, however, such as Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, firemen at the scene, policemen and others, who said it looked to them exactly like control demolition, but if you see it differently then this proves that different people can look at the same event, yet see things differently.
In fact even though yesdidit totally agrees with you 100% on the pancake theory, it appears to him that they RESEMBLED CONTROL DEMOLITION. Let me re-iterate, yesdidit wants to make it absolutely clear that he's convinced it was a pancake, and not control demolition, however he agrees that it has an APPEARANCE in some ways of being slightly similar.
So this just goes to show you that people can see things differently, even when they agree on pancakes, or no pancakes. Obviously I'm using the term pancake for short to summarize all the details involved in your theories.
I couldn't agree more.
Reality Check, Your posts are disintegrating into more & more garbled nonsense.
Your attempt to explain the underground fires as a charcoal pit ranks right up there with adoucettes Amazing Bellows theory - only at the other end of the scale.
They are both utter nonsense, and I find myself just shaking my head in disbelief how you people can come up with such poorly thought out quackeries, and then post them as IF someone is actually going to buy such nonsense.
Regarding the underground fires, there are a couple of points which I failed to note in my previous thermite postualtion...
1 --- the gravity-driven collapse supporters want to ignore the fact that the majority of the flammables (below the impact zone) were turned to powder as the building was falling... very little left to actually burn in the rubble fire.
2 --- the fires (prior to 'collapse') were near the tops of the building. The rubble fires suddenly change position to be most severe at the lowest levels of the rubble... please don't waste keystrokes typing up your postulation about car fires in the underground parking lots, YID. You can believe that if you like, however it is implausible to me because being at the lowest levels this would be the area of the highest compression - hence least amount of air penetrating to such fuels.
In order for a 'theory' to be plausible, it MUST take into account all known factors.
In order to have these Amazing Underground Fires, you must show massive amounts of air being supplied to create the bellows-effect needed to heat the steel to forging conditions... worm-holes & mole-holes just don't work (for me).
Even IF there was sufficient air getting in to feed the fires you still need some Amazing Bellows theory to account for the quantity of forced-air flow.
Now in the ridiculous 'charcoal pit' suggestion by Reality Check, he completely failed to take into account the most important point of the 'thermite theory' (which ALL you wackos throwing out nonsensical air-passages and bellows effects also fail to account for in YOUR theories)... The FACT that a 'lake' of water was applied to the rubble pile. I can't find the reference right now, but I understand this 'lake' of water would have theoretically have been sufficient quantity to fill the empty pit - obviously, it was finding ways to drain out through subway tunnels etc, nevertheless you must account for WHY the fires were not suppressed by this lake of water. This certainly would have put out the charcoal pit nonsense of Reality Check.
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Hydrocarbon fires (from alleged burning car-parks) and office rubble fires (from alleged compressed office contents) give off dark sooty smoke
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
Another unlikely scenario that chaos theory might be illegitimately invoked to explain is if there were 2 remaining spires, one bent into the shape of an "R", and the other into the shape of a "C".
As soon as you post some "actual, practical, RELEVANT physics knowledge/arguments", I might consider posting my own to correct yours. So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
James Joyce was a famous author who used a stream-of-consciousness type of writing style. Perhaps someday "Reality Check" will be a famous poster!
yesdidit,
I understand you prefer the pancake, and as you know the question had nothing to do with what you think caused the towers to collapse, nor what I think caused them to collapse.
The question, pure and simple was did they RESEMBLE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONTROL DEMOLITION.
Another words, you can still remain in your stance of what you believe, the issue was solely based upon appearance.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but, you are absolutely 100% convinced the towers came down via pancake, however according to your VIEW they did appear to resemble control demolition, even though you believe they weren't.
I mean it's not a complicate issue, it's just pure and simple.
I understand you prefer the pancake, and as you know the question had nothing to do with what you think caused the towers to collapse, nor what I think caused them to collapse.
The question, pure and simple was did they RESEMBLE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONTROL DEMOLITION.
Another words, you can still remain in your stance of what you believe, the issue was solely based upon appearance.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but, you are absolutely 100% convinced the towers came down via pancake, however according to your VIEW they did appear to resemble control demolition, even though you believe they weren't.
I mean it's not a complicate issue, it's just pure and simple.
QUOTE
Arthur,
WTC 1 & 2 look NOTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
WTC 1 & 2 look NOTHING like a Controlled Demolition.
Fair enough! I asked a simple question and you gave a simple answer. In your view the buildings don't have any resemblance of the appearance of buildings that have collapsed via control demolition.
If this is what you honestly see in your view regarding the buildings, then what can I say, this is how you see it.
There are several other people, however, such as Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, firemen at the scene, policemen and others, who said it looked to them exactly like control demolition, but if you see it differently then this proves that different people can look at the same event, yet see things differently.
In fact even though yesdidit totally agrees with you 100% on the pancake theory, it appears to him that they RESEMBLED CONTROL DEMOLITION. Let me re-iterate, yesdidit wants to make it absolutely clear that he's convinced it was a pancake, and not control demolition, however he agrees that it has an APPEARANCE in some ways of being slightly similar.
So this just goes to show you that people can see things differently, even when they agree on pancakes, or no pancakes. Obviously I'm using the term pancake for short to summarize all the details involved in your theories.
So, will it be another pancake fable, this time
without a plane and pretty much without fire?
without a plane and pretty much without fire?
QUOTE
Originally posted by Mel to RC
So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
So far, all we have from you is a lot of chaotic, churning, BIG words, jumbled together semi-coherently, in a pale attempt to sound knowledgeable.
I couldn't agree more.
Reality Check, Your posts are disintegrating into more & more garbled nonsense.
Your attempt to explain the underground fires as a charcoal pit ranks right up there with adoucettes Amazing Bellows theory - only at the other end of the scale.
They are both utter nonsense, and I find myself just shaking my head in disbelief how you people can come up with such poorly thought out quackeries, and then post them as IF someone is actually going to buy such nonsense.
Regarding the underground fires, there are a couple of points which I failed to note in my previous thermite postualtion...
1 --- the gravity-driven collapse supporters want to ignore the fact that the majority of the flammables (below the impact zone) were turned to powder as the building was falling... very little left to actually burn in the rubble fire.
2 --- the fires (prior to 'collapse') were near the tops of the building. The rubble fires suddenly change position to be most severe at the lowest levels of the rubble... please don't waste keystrokes typing up your postulation about car fires in the underground parking lots, YID. You can believe that if you like, however it is implausible to me because being at the lowest levels this would be the area of the highest compression - hence least amount of air penetrating to such fuels.
In order for a 'theory' to be plausible, it MUST take into account all known factors.
In order to have these Amazing Underground Fires, you must show massive amounts of air being supplied to create the bellows-effect needed to heat the steel to forging conditions... worm-holes & mole-holes just don't work (for me).
Even IF there was sufficient air getting in to feed the fires you still need some Amazing Bellows theory to account for the quantity of forced-air flow.
Now in the ridiculous 'charcoal pit' suggestion by Reality Check, he completely failed to take into account the most important point of the 'thermite theory' (which ALL you wackos throwing out nonsensical air-passages and bellows effects also fail to account for in YOUR theories)... The FACT that a 'lake' of water was applied to the rubble pile. I can't find the reference right now, but I understand this 'lake' of water would have theoretically have been sufficient quantity to fill the empty pit - obviously, it was finding ways to drain out through subway tunnels etc, nevertheless you must account for WHY the fires were not suppressed by this lake of water. This certainly would have put out the charcoal pit nonsense of Reality Check.
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Hydrocarbon fires (from alleged burning car-parks) and office rubble fires (from alleged compressed office contents) give off dark sooty smoke
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
A lot of confusion these days that flows from the media. Some people like myself have viewed the WTC buildings hundreds and hundreds of times, and I've also seen hundreds of videos of KNOWN control demolition and Isee the EXACT SAME THING, but evidentally other people don't see any resemblance at all.
And here's something on the news that ads more confusion
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 77, the most powerful Israeli leader in 50 years, has died, Middle East Newsline reported.
However subsequent wire reports said Sharon showed "significant improvement" after five hours of emergency brain surgery Friday.
The confusion was exacerbated by the timing of the reports which came at the onset of the Jewish Sabbath, at sundown on Friday, when traditionally arrangements for the dead and burials are delayed until Saturday night.
Sharon was declared dead by physicians at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital before 1 p.m. Israeli time [6 a.m. EST], the report stated. Authorities had already been notified of the death, and a government announcement was expected to be issued over the next hour, it continued.
But other reports are saying he's doing better. Could the media be lying to us? If so, we'll probably find out this Sunday.
And here's something on the news that ads more confusion
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 77, the most powerful Israeli leader in 50 years, has died, Middle East Newsline reported.
However subsequent wire reports said Sharon showed "significant improvement" after five hours of emergency brain surgery Friday.
The confusion was exacerbated by the timing of the reports which came at the onset of the Jewish Sabbath, at sundown on Friday, when traditionally arrangements for the dead and burials are delayed until Saturday night.
Sharon was declared dead by physicians at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital before 1 p.m. Israeli time [6 a.m. EST], the report stated. Authorities had already been notified of the death, and a government announcement was expected to be issued over the next hour, it continued.
But other reports are saying he's doing better. Could the media be lying to us? If so, we'll probably find out this Sunday.
I think it will boil down to something like - "it fell down, but we dont know how".
....and this pile effect related to what was going on in the "INTERIOR" and not necessarily on the outer perimeter columns at all points at all levels, OK?
Which is precisely the point that I am making. Since these outer perimeter columns, together with the core columns are the load bearing members, it is these which must fail in order for collapse to continue. You can inflict as much damage as you like on the floors and ceilings, but unless the columns are overcome the collapse cannot progress. For collapse to continue through the vertical axis, all of these columns must fail virtually simultaneously, while showing the same characteristics, not once but again and again and again. The original source of the analogy no doubt. So how does this repeated simultaneous failure, symmetrical in two planes, arise from a chaotic interaction?
When faced with a tribological or forensic examination you can do one of two things. You can simply state that it is chaotic.
Or you can analyse the situation using current engineering and scientific knowledge in order to identify known processes and by identifying those parts of the process, make the whole appear more understandable than was the case previously.
Look at a normal accident report from an aircraft loss for example. Although they may not identify exactly which part hit which rock, they may identify that loss of control was experienced through failure of a slide lock, through poor design capabilities, which allowed a cargo door to open in flight and then tear off and impact the tail section for instance.
The nature of the impact may appear chaotic but the collapse did exhibit a remarkably ordered behaviour and it is far from being outside our ability to analyse.
G
Which is precisely the point that I am making. Since these outer perimeter columns, together with the core columns are the load bearing members, it is these which must fail in order for collapse to continue. You can inflict as much damage as you like on the floors and ceilings, but unless the columns are overcome the collapse cannot progress. For collapse to continue through the vertical axis, all of these columns must fail virtually simultaneously, while showing the same characteristics, not once but again and again and again. The original source of the analogy no doubt. So how does this repeated simultaneous failure, symmetrical in two planes, arise from a chaotic interaction?
When faced with a tribological or forensic examination you can do one of two things. You can simply state that it is chaotic.
Or you can analyse the situation using current engineering and scientific knowledge in order to identify known processes and by identifying those parts of the process, make the whole appear more understandable than was the case previously.
Look at a normal accident report from an aircraft loss for example. Although they may not identify exactly which part hit which rock, they may identify that loss of control was experienced through failure of a slide lock, through poor design capabilities, which allowed a cargo door to open in flight and then tear off and impact the tail section for instance.
The nature of the impact may appear chaotic but the collapse did exhibit a remarkably ordered behaviour and it is far from being outside our ability to analyse.
G
Regarding the spreadsheet, it plots the velocity of the falling section by breaking this down to sectional times. ( No it doesn't tell you what's gonna win the 2.30 at Ascot) The velocity is made up from a fall under gravity, followed by a deceleration due to the momentum change followed by a deceleration due to the strength of the standing column.
The momentum change arises from the falling top section, when impacting each floor and assuming its mass is transferred to the falling mass, and is given by M1*V1 = M2*V2 conservation of momentum.
The falling mass must exert a force on the standing column rising from a minimum value of zero when they instantaneously touch up to the failure load as the storey instantaneously fails. The failure load is the safety factor multiplied by the mass above that storey and is given with reference to m - the mass of one floor. Since we know the mass of the falling body and the force it must exert, we can use F=m*a to figure out the deceleration. The length of deformation gives the distance over which this force and deceleration must be applied. This massively underplays the strength of the towers, but to examine collapse, we have to allow it or induce it.
From these constituent times we can work out the total collapse duration and effect.
G
Anybody want a copy, I can e-mail it with instructions.
The momentum change arises from the falling top section, when impacting each floor and assuming its mass is transferred to the falling mass, and is given by M1*V1 = M2*V2 conservation of momentum.
The falling mass must exert a force on the standing column rising from a minimum value of zero when they instantaneously touch up to the failure load as the storey instantaneously fails. The failure load is the safety factor multiplied by the mass above that storey and is given with reference to m - the mass of one floor. Since we know the mass of the falling body and the force it must exert, we can use F=m*a to figure out the deceleration. The length of deformation gives the distance over which this force and deceleration must be applied. This massively underplays the strength of the towers, but to examine collapse, we have to allow it or induce it.
From these constituent times we can work out the total collapse duration and effect.
G
Anybody want a copy, I can e-mail it with instructions.
Reasonwhy asked for a collapse time if charges were placed on all floors.
I reduced the capacity of all floors below 93 to near zero while maintaining the upper section as it was, and achieved a collapse time of 13.2 seconds.
This still includes the decelerations due to momentum change, so I have assumed in the second case that the lower section masses do not join the upper section. This reduced the collapse time to 9.8seconds.
So depending upon the proportion of the standing mass which joins and becomes part of the action of the falling mass, the collapse times would vary from between 9.8 seconds, "virtually freefall", to 13.2 seconds, somewhere approaching the topmost estimate of actual observed collapse times.
I would argue that this gives a remarkably good model for a spreadsheet.
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
I reduced the capacity of all floors below 93 to near zero while maintaining the upper section as it was, and achieved a collapse time of 13.2 seconds.
This still includes the decelerations due to momentum change, so I have assumed in the second case that the lower section masses do not join the upper section. This reduced the collapse time to 9.8seconds.
So depending upon the proportion of the standing mass which joins and becomes part of the action of the falling mass, the collapse times would vary from between 9.8 seconds, "virtually freefall", to 13.2 seconds, somewhere approaching the topmost estimate of actual observed collapse times.
I would argue that this gives a remarkably good model for a spreadsheet.
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
From Reality Check -
"And I still maintain that a REAL CORE was NOT in evidence DURING THE COLLAPSE....as it DISINTEGRATED along with all the other structures...and served only to ADD to the chaos and weight of the collapse materials...a REAL CORE is supposed to DETRACT from collapse chaos....and NOT ENHANCE it. Face it, in the event, the 'core' was NOT a PROPER 'core'...it was only a 'core' in WISHFUL THINKING under ideal circumstances, and NOT in REALITY under extreme circumstances as in 9/11.
And you have STILL to provide PHYSICS arguments to rebut ANY of my observations of THE PHYSICAL EVENTS scenarios during/after tower collapses.
I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS...."
-------
Reality Check, do you see the problem arising here between your -
"And I still maintain" ---- and
"I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS...."
Dont worry about it if you can't - most can.
Never in the history of drivel .....
"And I still maintain that a REAL CORE was NOT in evidence DURING THE COLLAPSE....as it DISINTEGRATED along with all the other structures...and served only to ADD to the chaos and weight of the collapse materials...a REAL CORE is supposed to DETRACT from collapse chaos....and NOT ENHANCE it. Face it, in the event, the 'core' was NOT a PROPER 'core'...it was only a 'core' in WISHFUL THINKING under ideal circumstances, and NOT in REALITY under extreme circumstances as in 9/11.
And you have STILL to provide PHYSICS arguments to rebut ANY of my observations of THE PHYSICAL EVENTS scenarios during/after tower collapses.
I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS...."
-------
Reality Check, do you see the problem arising here between your -
"And I still maintain" ---- and
"I don't give a damn about OPINIONS, just PHYSICS...."
Dont worry about it if you can't - most can.
Never in the history of drivel .....
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 7 2006, 08:34 AM)
In order for a 'theory' to be plausible, it MUST take into account all known factors.
I wouldn't put it like this. First of all, a lot of the items you list I would think more of as "phenomena", rather than "factors". In other words, effects, rather than causes. In more complicated systems, a cause can also be a (possibly contributory) cause of something else.
However, it's not even necessary to nail ALL causes. In a complete theory, you typically want to incorporate enough causal factors such that you can explain the salient characteristics of your system to such and such a degree of accuracy. Many causal factors will either not have a significant effect, or even a measurable effect.
Even in the anti-FEMA camp, we do not (in this thread) take all observed effects into account when we take one approach or another. E.g., Hoffman looks at the expanding dust cloud, and his treatment is not even dynamical. Furthermore, it completely ignores the energy necessary to break steel. Another line of inquiry looks at what it takes to bend/brake steel, and completely ignores the dust cloud formation (e.g. gordon).
As Hoffman and Gordon are ignoring energy sinks in a way favorable to FEMA, et. al., their approach and results still buttress their point of view.
What the FEMA Fairy Tale believers tend to do is introduce causes in a non-quantitative way and imply (or argue weakly, to the point of being utterly unconvincingly) that if there was solid quantitative accounting of their claims, it would buttress their point of view. Some of these are extremely poorly thought out, and instantly rebutted by our side.....
What Reality Check is doing is a little different. He is not so much squawking about ignored causes (or ignored effects) as about the way that causes may dynamically evolve. (This is a complicated system, and thus the presumed cause (forces) required for a truss to get ripped out is also an effect of the system at a prior time.) Chaotic systems by their definition have a high degree of unpredictability. That represents ignorance, but to imply that such ignorance make it plausible that one get exactly the extraordinarily improbable and (at least, seemingly) unphysical behavior one wants, with not one solid argument as to why that should be the case, amounts to sophistry. ( I had originally written "mathematical sophistry", but really it is not even that. )
Such an argument could be invoked to explain "any" global collapse scenario, at all, including one in which there were 5 spires left standing, of exactly 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 feet. And, in which theses spires were twisted by 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 degrees, respectively. And, in which the temperature differed from the average at ground zero by 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degrees, respectively. (Celsius or Fahrenheit, take your pick! ). Etc.
Methinks not.....
I wouldn't put it like this. First of all, a lot of the items you list I would think more of as "phenomena", rather than "factors". In other words, effects, rather than causes. In more complicated systems, a cause can also be a (possibly contributory) cause of something else.
However, it's not even necessary to nail ALL causes. In a complete theory, you typically want to incorporate enough causal factors such that you can explain the salient characteristics of your system to such and such a degree of accuracy. Many causal factors will either not have a significant effect, or even a measurable effect.
Even in the anti-FEMA camp, we do not (in this thread) take all observed effects into account when we take one approach or another. E.g., Hoffman looks at the expanding dust cloud, and his treatment is not even dynamical. Furthermore, it completely ignores the energy necessary to break steel. Another line of inquiry looks at what it takes to bend/brake steel, and completely ignores the dust cloud formation (e.g. gordon).
As Hoffman and Gordon are ignoring energy sinks in a way favorable to FEMA, et. al., their approach and results still buttress their point of view.
What the FEMA Fairy Tale believers tend to do is introduce causes in a non-quantitative way and imply (or argue weakly, to the point of being utterly unconvincingly) that if there was solid quantitative accounting of their claims, it would buttress their point of view. Some of these are extremely poorly thought out, and instantly rebutted by our side.....
What Reality Check is doing is a little different. He is not so much squawking about ignored causes (or ignored effects) as about the way that causes may dynamically evolve. (This is a complicated system, and thus the presumed cause (forces) required for a truss to get ripped out is also an effect of the system at a prior time.) Chaotic systems by their definition have a high degree of unpredictability. That represents ignorance, but to imply that such ignorance make it plausible that one get exactly the extraordinarily improbable and (at least, seemingly) unphysical behavior one wants, with not one solid argument as to why that should be the case, amounts to sophistry. ( I had originally written "mathematical sophistry", but really it is not even that. )
Such an argument could be invoked to explain "any" global collapse scenario, at all, including one in which there were 5 spires left standing, of exactly 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 feet. And, in which theses spires were twisted by 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 degrees, respectively. And, in which the temperature differed from the average at ground zero by 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degrees, respectively. (Celsius or Fahrenheit, take your pick! ). Etc.
Methinks not.....
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 7 2006, 01:25 PM)
Reasonwhy asked for a collapse time if charges were placed on all floors.
I reduced the capacity of all floors below 93 to near zero while maintaining the upper section as it was, and achieved a collapse time of 13.2 seconds.
This still includes the decelerations due to momentum change, so I have assumed in the second case that the lower section masses do not join the upper section. This reduced the collapse time to 9.8seconds.
So depending upon the proportion of the standing mass which joins and becomes part of the action of the falling mass, the collapse times would vary from between 9.8 seconds, "virtually freefall", to 13.2 seconds, somewhere approaching the topmost estimate of actual observed collapse times.
I would argue that this gives a remarkably good model for a spreadsheet.
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
(Emphasis mine.) Indeed. Perhaps if we chipped in and bought NIST a copy of Excel, and then begged them to use it.....
I reduced the capacity of all floors below 93 to near zero while maintaining the upper section as it was, and achieved a collapse time of 13.2 seconds.
This still includes the decelerations due to momentum change, so I have assumed in the second case that the lower section masses do not join the upper section. This reduced the collapse time to 9.8seconds.
So depending upon the proportion of the standing mass which joins and becomes part of the action of the falling mass, the collapse times would vary from between 9.8 seconds, "virtually freefall", to 13.2 seconds, somewhere approaching the topmost estimate of actual observed collapse times.
I would argue that this gives a remarkably good model for a spreadsheet.
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
(Emphasis mine.) Indeed. Perhaps if we chipped in and bought NIST a copy of Excel, and then begged them to use it.....
QUOTE
Such an argument could be invoked to explain "any" global collapse scenario, at all, including one in which there were 5 spires left standing, of exactly 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 feet. And, in which theses spires were twisted by 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 degrees, respectively. And, in which the temperature differed from the average at ground zero by 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degrees, respectively. (Celsius or Fahrenheit, take your pick! ). Etc.
Another unlikely scenario that chaos theory might be illegitimately invoked to explain is if there were 2 remaining spires, one bent into the shape of an "R", and the other into the shape of a "C".
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 7 2006, 01:25 PM)
I would argue that this gives a remarkably good model for a spreadsheet.
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
And you didn't model the planes impact nor the fires nor the sum of events leading to the local collapse, which is of course what took 16 million dollars.
Arthur
And I didn't get sixteen million dollars.
G
And you didn't model the planes impact nor the fires nor the sum of events leading to the local collapse, which is of course what took 16 million dollars.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 7 2006, 08:34 AM)
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
Now Foxx, weren't you supporting Hoffman's analysis earlier????
You know the one where the AVERAGE temperature of the PYROCLASTIC CLOUD was over 1,000 deg C.
Caused by the HEATING of the CONCRETE to this TEMP.
So, according to HOFFMAN, it doesn't MATTER where you started in the pile, you were HOT by the time it was all over.
So which is it. Did the collapse CAUSE HEATING or NOT???
As to thermite....
Let me just say
Thermite is:
A ) HEAVY
B ) BURNS FAIRLY QUICKLY
C ) LEAVES TELL TALE SLAG
How many TONS of Thermite would it take to burn for several weeks?
You see, while paper and such could ignite at reasonable temps, thermite has a VERY HIGH ignition temp.
Why was NO SLAG found??
Arthur
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
Now Foxx, weren't you supporting Hoffman's analysis earlier????
You know the one where the AVERAGE temperature of the PYROCLASTIC CLOUD was over 1,000 deg C.
Caused by the HEATING of the CONCRETE to this TEMP.
So, according to HOFFMAN, it doesn't MATTER where you started in the pile, you were HOT by the time it was all over.
So which is it. Did the collapse CAUSE HEATING or NOT???
As to thermite....
Let me just say
Thermite is:
A ) HEAVY
B ) BURNS FAIRLY QUICKLY
C ) LEAVES TELL TALE SLAG
How many TONS of Thermite would it take to burn for several weeks?
You see, while paper and such could ignite at reasonable temps, thermite has a VERY HIGH ignition temp.
Why was NO SLAG found??
Arthur
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.