It is crystal clear... crystal clear, that there were were explosive charges in the buildings.
911proof.com/11.html
It is shocking to see people...still to day, after nearly 6 years, close their eyes for so obvious and clear fact. Very shocking.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 6 2007, 09:57 PM)
Ley person's 'safety factor'.
The design rules specify calculating the DCR for every member and every connection under the contractual design load. Simplified, there is the dead weight, D, the maximum legal live weight, L, and environment loads, such as earthquakes E. The entire load for computing the DCR is then
D+L+E
Now E is an example of an extreme event. Further, most buildings are rarely operating any where near L. More typical is 0.25L, although much higher for warehouses.
Since earthquakes are rare events, office building, schools and hospitals (only a few stories high) done according to GSA rules use instead
D+0.25L+E
for determining the DCR during an earthquake.
By the way, FEMA offers three levels of building safety:
Immediate Occupancy --- cracks in walls and windows, building equipment may not be operating, but available for emergency shelter. Safe.
Life Safety --- Building partial collapses or other damage is unlikely to kill anybody, although there may be serious injuries.
Structural Safety --- Building does not collapse or overturn.
These might be used in conjunction with ever more unlikely earthquakes:
Major --- Magnitude 7.0 and up
Great --- Magnitude 8.0 and up
Stupendous(?) --- Magnitude 9.0 and up. There have only been two such in the last 102 years, one in Alaska and one in Chile. Of some interest with regard in the Chilean 9.5 event was that many people were attending mass when the earth shook and the churches were well enough built that at least the Structural Safety criterion was met, and probably the Life Safety one as well.
I beleive in Canadian Building Code, "environmental loads" are referred to as "catastrophic loads". Catastrophic loads are very hard to compute as they are unknowns. When we do a seismic upgrade now we are basing our catastrophic load on a 9.2 earth quake with zero fatalities. As long as everyone gets out before any sort of failure or progressive collapse the building is "safe". If I'm not mistaken we use a combination of Gravity Load, Live Load and Catastrophic Load to determine a relative safety factor. Your design Live Weight (superimposed dead load + live load) is usually 1/4 the Legal Live Weight.
I will have to check what exactly is meant here when we refer to the safety factor of 2. Perhaps we are just referring to the previous catastrophic safety factor and the new one based on a 9.2 event.
The design rules specify calculating the DCR for every member and every connection under the contractual design load. Simplified, there is the dead weight, D, the maximum legal live weight, L, and environment loads, such as earthquakes E. The entire load for computing the DCR is then
D+L+E
Now E is an example of an extreme event. Further, most buildings are rarely operating any where near L. More typical is 0.25L, although much higher for warehouses.
Since earthquakes are rare events, office building, schools and hospitals (only a few stories high) done according to GSA rules use instead
D+0.25L+E
for determining the DCR during an earthquake.
By the way, FEMA offers three levels of building safety:
Immediate Occupancy --- cracks in walls and windows, building equipment may not be operating, but available for emergency shelter. Safe.
Life Safety --- Building partial collapses or other damage is unlikely to kill anybody, although there may be serious injuries.
Structural Safety --- Building does not collapse or overturn.
These might be used in conjunction with ever more unlikely earthquakes:
Major --- Magnitude 7.0 and up
Great --- Magnitude 8.0 and up
Stupendous(?) --- Magnitude 9.0 and up. There have only been two such in the last 102 years, one in Alaska and one in Chile. Of some interest with regard in the Chilean 9.5 event was that many people were attending mass when the earth shook and the churches were well enough built that at least the Structural Safety criterion was met, and probably the Life Safety one as well.
I beleive in Canadian Building Code, "environmental loads" are referred to as "catastrophic loads". Catastrophic loads are very hard to compute as they are unknowns. When we do a seismic upgrade now we are basing our catastrophic load on a 9.2 earth quake with zero fatalities. As long as everyone gets out before any sort of failure or progressive collapse the building is "safe". If I'm not mistaken we use a combination of Gravity Load, Live Load and Catastrophic Load to determine a relative safety factor. Your design Live Weight (superimposed dead load + live load) is usually 1/4 the Legal Live Weight.
I will have to check what exactly is meant here when we refer to the safety factor of 2. Perhaps we are just referring to the previous catastrophic safety factor and the new one based on a 9.2 event.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 6 2007, 11:34 PM)
It is crystal clear... crystal clear, that there were were explosive charges in the buildings.
911proof.com/11.html
It is shocking to see people...still to day, after nearly 6 years, close their eyes for so obvious and clear fact. Very shocking.
The only thing that is crystal clear is there were explosions heard, the source of which is unknown. Why you have come to the conclusion they were from planted explosives is your own personal agenda.
911proof.com/11.html
It is shocking to see people...still to day, after nearly 6 years, close their eyes for so obvious and clear fact. Very shocking.
The only thing that is crystal clear is there were explosions heard, the source of which is unknown. Why you have come to the conclusion they were from planted explosives is your own personal agenda.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 11:35 PM)
... on a 9.2 earth quake with zero fatalities.
That is some goal!
By environmental load, I meant whatever the local environment offers for imposed loads. Typical examples are snow, wind and earthquake. An atypical example is having an unattended D-10 Caterpillar bulldozer amble into a wall and make its way into the basement, stalling trying to climb the opposite basement wall...
That is some goal!
By environmental load, I meant whatever the local environment offers for imposed loads. Typical examples are snow, wind and earthquake. An atypical example is having an unattended D-10 Caterpillar bulldozer amble into a wall and make its way into the basement, stalling trying to climb the opposite basement wall...
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 6 2007, 09:18 PM)
The main consideration in the safety factor is seismic activity for that region. Having worked in Vancouver, a highly seismic area, I have never seen a building safety factor above 2. I believe I discussed this over at the JREF forum with a structural engineer, he agreed as well. I'm almost certain that a safety factor of 20 is not even possible in a 110 story building above ground.
I ask, again: considering the state of computers science in the 60's and 70's, on what basis would engineers decide to forgo a traditional safety factor, and settle for 2x? Are you suggesting that, even prior to the 60's and 70's, a typical safety factor was not 6x, but only 2x?
If so, are you claiming that there was a prior transition from 6x -> 2x, or are you claiming that, in spite of what Morrone learned in school, it was really only 2x all along?
Another possibility is that 6x was typical for non-building objects (say, automobiles, e.g.). However, considering how critical preventing collapse in densely populated Manhattan would be, if anything, higher than normal safety factors seem to be what would be called for.
I ask, again: considering the state of computers science in the 60's and 70's, on what basis would engineers decide to forgo a traditional safety factor, and settle for 2x? Are you suggesting that, even prior to the 60's and 70's, a typical safety factor was not 6x, but only 2x?
If so, are you claiming that there was a prior transition from 6x -> 2x, or are you claiming that, in spite of what Morrone learned in school, it was really only 2x all along?
Another possibility is that 6x was typical for non-building objects (say, automobiles, e.g.). However, considering how critical preventing collapse in densely populated Manhattan would be, if anything, higher than normal safety factors seem to be what would be called for.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 06:34 PM)
since nearly day one, i have been pointing out that the (first and fatal) problem with the official lie, which (plastic) hinges on BZ, assumes an instant one storey drop, because that is what was seen.
NOPE.
NIST only agrees that Bazant's 8.4 X the necessary energy was the LOWER LIMIT.
They are silent as to the rest of the paper, so no, it doesn't HINGE on Bazant.
Personally I don't particularly agree with Bazant, mainly with respect to the WTC1, because (IMHO) I think it ignores the way the towers were constructed.
The truss seats had the same strength for ALL the floors. But the MECHANICAL floors (in WTC 1) were only a few floors below the collapse zone and they were SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER. So when the truss floors hit the beam frame floors the truss seated floors lost, thus causing a CRUSH UP, until sufficient mass accumulated to overcome the beam connections and then it would proceed much like Bazant claims in B & V.
Arthur
NOPE.
NIST only agrees that Bazant's 8.4 X the necessary energy was the LOWER LIMIT.
They are silent as to the rest of the paper, so no, it doesn't HINGE on Bazant.
Personally I don't particularly agree with Bazant, mainly with respect to the WTC1, because (IMHO) I think it ignores the way the towers were constructed.
The truss seats had the same strength for ALL the floors. But the MECHANICAL floors (in WTC 1) were only a few floors below the collapse zone and they were SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER. So when the truss floors hit the beam frame floors the truss seated floors lost, thus causing a CRUSH UP, until sufficient mass accumulated to overcome the beam connections and then it would proceed much like Bazant claims in B & V.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jun 6 2007, 11:34 PM)
... assumes an instant one storey[sic] drop, because that is what was seen.
Maybe that is what you see, but not what NEU-FONZE actually measured.
Due to the tilt, the south end of two floors of WTC 1 would first impact in about 0.8 seconds of collapse. Thus the core has dropped about 2 meters and is descending at about 5 m/s.
GR's elastic recovery paper does energy double-dipping, according to NEU-FONZE. Earlier on this thread, about pages 200--206, I showed an important elastic effect that GR simply ignored.
GR's lines are wrong according to shagster. I have no aptitude for phto-interpretation. But I do understand Newton's laws and the crush-down equation is nothing more than one dimensional Newton's Laws with the force of gravity and a resistive force opposing.
Maybe that is what you see, but not what NEU-FONZE actually measured.
Due to the tilt, the south end of two floors of WTC 1 would first impact in about 0.8 seconds of collapse. Thus the core has dropped about 2 meters and is descending at about 5 m/s.
GR's elastic recovery paper does energy double-dipping, according to NEU-FONZE. Earlier on this thread, about pages 200--206, I showed an important elastic effect that GR simply ignored.
GR's lines are wrong according to shagster. I have no aptitude for phto-interpretation. But I do understand Newton's laws and the crush-down equation is nothing more than one dimensional Newton's Laws with the force of gravity and a resistive force opposing.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 6 2007, 11:55 PM)
That is some goal!
I know, very ambitious. I believe it was based on the 9.2 event on centered on the Northern Part of Vancouver Island. The Juan de Fuca plate is very active. (Unless you believe in Expanding Earth then it's the Juan de Fuca expansion joint
)
I know, very ambitious. I believe it was based on the 9.2 event on centered on the Northern Part of Vancouver Island. The Juan de Fuca plate is very active. (Unless you believe in Expanding Earth then it's the Juan de Fuca expansion joint
)
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 12:06 AM)
... even prior to the 60's and 70's, a typical safety factor was not 6x, but only 2x?
Steel construction requires a safety factor of about 1.67 against buckling in the DCR computation. This has been known ever since steel began to replace cast iron.
I don't know about earlier design practices, but an organization that buys lots of multi-story buildings (not skyscrapers) requires the structural engineers to use a DCR between 0.90 and 1.10, inclusive. That is for the full, maximum design load.
Buildings seldom suffer earthquakes or high winds. Buildings are typically operating at about 0.25 live load. Hence, most of the time, the DCR will be below one.
In the core of the towers, NIST computed a DCR of about 0.5. Taking 1/DCR as a so-called 'safety factor', that's about 2X.
Steel construction requires a safety factor of about 1.67 against buckling in the DCR computation. This has been known ever since steel began to replace cast iron.
I don't know about earlier design practices, but an organization that buys lots of multi-story buildings (not skyscrapers) requires the structural engineers to use a DCR between 0.90 and 1.10, inclusive. That is for the full, maximum design load.
Buildings seldom suffer earthquakes or high winds. Buildings are typically operating at about 0.25 live load. Hence, most of the time, the DCR will be below one.
In the core of the towers, NIST computed a DCR of about 0.5. Taking 1/DCR as a so-called 'safety factor', that's about 2X.
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 12:06 AM)
I ask, again: considering the state of computers science in the 60's and 70's, on what basis would engineers decide to forgo a traditional safety factor, and settle for 2x? Are you suggesting that, even prior to the 60's and 70's, a typical safety factor was not 6x, but only 2x?
If so, are you claiming that there was a prior transition from 6x -> 2x, or are you claiming that, in spite of what Morrone learned in school, it was really only 2x all along?
Another possibility is that 6x was typical for non-building objects (say, automobiles, e.g.). However, considering how critical preventing collapse in densely populated Manhattan would be, if anything, higher than normal safety factors seem to be what would be called for.
I think there is some confusion regarding component safety factor and building safety factor.
Table II. Safety Factors in the National Building Code of Canada 1970
Type of construction Basic Safety Factor
Steel and Aluminum 1.67
Yield or plastic resistance
Elastic Buckling 1.92
Bolts 2.50
Reinforced Concrete 1.7 to 2.0
Beams and slabs - bending 1.8 to 2.1
- shear 2 to 2.4
Columns
masonry 3 or more
Wood Allowable stresses are based on experience
Foundation 3
If so, are you claiming that there was a prior transition from 6x -> 2x, or are you claiming that, in spite of what Morrone learned in school, it was really only 2x all along?
Another possibility is that 6x was typical for non-building objects (say, automobiles, e.g.). However, considering how critical preventing collapse in densely populated Manhattan would be, if anything, higher than normal safety factors seem to be what would be called for.
I think there is some confusion regarding component safety factor and building safety factor.
Table II. Safety Factors in the National Building Code of Canada 1970
Type of construction Basic Safety Factor
Steel and Aluminum 1.67
Yield or plastic resistance
Elastic Buckling 1.92
Bolts 2.50
Reinforced Concrete 1.7 to 2.0
Beams and slabs - bending 1.8 to 2.1
- shear 2 to 2.4
Columns
masonry 3 or more
Wood Allowable stresses are based on experience
Foundation 3
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 7 2007, 12:13 AM)
I believe it was based on the 9.2 event on centered on the Northern Part of Vancouver Island.
Wow! When did this occur?
Wow! When did this occur?
QUOTE
Lets say there was no bombs in the building. It is still an inside job. They let the attacks happen and funded the terrorist. Like they said in PNAC "We need a new pearl harbor" And they got it. This guys are truly evil.
QUOTE
I've already explained this several times, but the speed of sound in steel is 20,000fps, 20x as fast as in air, so any sudden shock to the structure at 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard at ground level.
Please stop your BS
QUOTE
I've already explained this several times, but the speed of sound in steel is 20,000fps, 20x as fast as in air, so any sudden shock to the structure at 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard at ground level.
Please stop your BS
For the record, Malmo, you make me sick, too.
I suppose you think that the NWO faked the speed of sound tables' values for steel and air, too, just to hide their Evil ways and delude the "sheeple".
Your Marxist propaganda indoctrination shows how little you understand of how the world really works. They fed you a line of BS and you swallowed it whole.
While you're lecturing me on engineering and everyone else on history, why don't you read something about Pol Pot, who seems to be your hero. He believed in all the same lies you did. Boy, did he ever transform Cambodia into a Workers' Paradise!
I don't need to post any links supporting the fact that a truss failure 700 feet up in the air will be felt at ground level before it's heard directly, everyone else here already gets that point, and you won't bother reading anything that doesn't come in a Red cover.
And you better pray we never meet face-to-face.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 12:28 AM)
Wow! When did this occur?
March 27, 1964. I googled it. It appears for the Canadians it happened in Canada, and for the Americans it happened in Alaska. I can't find confirmation that this was the Northern part of the Juan de Fuca or not. I believe it is.
March 27, 1964. I googled it. It appears for the Canadians it happened in Canada, and for the Americans it happened in Alaska. I can't find confirmation that this was the Northern part of the Juan de Fuca or not. I believe it is.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 7 2007, 12:55 AM)
March 27, 1964. I googled it. It appears for the Canadians it happened in Canada, and for the Americans it happened in Alaska. I can't find confirmation that this was the Northern part of the Juan de Fuca or not. I believe it is.
Canadian chauvinism. It occurred fairly close to Valdez and Anchorage, a long, long way from Vancouver Island and the Juan de Fuca plate.
However, I am sure it was felt in parts of B.C., since it was as far south as California...
Canadian chauvinism. It occurred fairly close to Valdez and Anchorage, a long, long way from Vancouver Island and the Juan de Fuca plate.
However, I am sure it was felt in parts of B.C., since it was as far south as California...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 12:21 AM)
Steel construction requires a safety factor of about 1.67 against buckling in the DCR computation. This has been known ever since steel began to replace cast iron.
If by this you mean any engineer dealing with steel, since the time steel began to replace cast iron, has favored a safety factor of 1.67, then why was Morrone taught otherwise?
You make it sound as if his experience was unique.
I don't know about earlier design practices, but an organization that buys lots of multi-story buildings (not skyscrapers) requires the structural engineers to use a DCR between 0.90 and 1.10, inclusive. That is for the full, maximum design load.
Buildings seldom suffer earthquakes or high winds. Buildings are typically operating at about 0.25 live load. Hence, most of the time, the DCR will be below one.
In the core of the towers, NIST computed a DCR of about 0.5. Taking 1/DCR as a so-called 'safety factor', that's about 2X.
From an earlier quote of yours, wherein failure is associated with a DCR of 2.0, if we instead consider 'safety factor' as the ratio of DCR(failure) / DCR(normal load), we instead come up with 4x.
I suppose, though, we should consider safety factor as DCR(failure) / DCR(max design load), in which case this is 2x (I think).
If by this you mean any engineer dealing with steel, since the time steel began to replace cast iron, has favored a safety factor of 1.67, then why was Morrone taught otherwise?
You make it sound as if his experience was unique.
QUOTE
I don't know about earlier design practices, but an organization that buys lots of multi-story buildings (not skyscrapers) requires the structural engineers to use a DCR between 0.90 and 1.10, inclusive. That is for the full, maximum design load.
Buildings seldom suffer earthquakes or high winds. Buildings are typically operating at about 0.25 live load. Hence, most of the time, the DCR will be below one.
In the core of the towers, NIST computed a DCR of about 0.5. Taking 1/DCR as a so-called 'safety factor', that's about 2X.
From an earlier quote of yours, wherein failure is associated with a DCR of 2.0, if we instead consider 'safety factor' as the ratio of DCR(failure) / DCR(normal load), we instead come up with 4x.
I suppose, though, we should consider safety factor as DCR(failure) / DCR(max design load), in which case this is 2x (I think).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 01:10 AM)
Canadian chauvinism. It occurred fairly close to Valdez and Anchorage, a long, long way from Vancouver Island and the Juan de Fuca plate.
However, I am sure it was felt in parts of B.C., since it was as far south as California...
Yes, further research has shown that it was a subduction of the Pacfic and North American plate that caused said event. They based this 9.2 I guess on the similarities between the subduction zones of the Great Alaska Earthquake and the one in Chile, anticipating a similar "stupendous" event. No matter what safety factor, I don't want to be around when the big one hits.
However, I am sure it was felt in parts of B.C., since it was as far south as California...
Yes, further research has shown that it was a subduction of the Pacfic and North American plate that caused said event. They based this 9.2 I guess on the similarities between the subduction zones of the Great Alaska Earthquake and the one in Chile, anticipating a similar "stupendous" event. No matter what safety factor, I don't want to be around when the big one hits.
QUOTE (3bodyproblem+Jun 7 2007, 12:24 AM)
I think there is some confusion regarding component safety factor and building safety factor.
Now we're getting somewhere. Please explain what these differences are.
One of my long-standing complaints about the Bazant Zhou paper (and it's derivatives) is that the inter-connected structure of the building is ignored.
Of course, we all know that the structure was compromised. But we also know that it was highly redundant. And highly inter-connected.
Consider the perimeter columns. Bazant and Zhou seem perfectly content to calculate buckling energies, not only ignoring dynamic effects, (ala Caladine and English), but apparently also ignoring the stabilizing effects of the spandrels.
It would be nice if we could actually see BZ's calculations, but even though Bazant is now a co-author with 2 of physorg's own - viz., Greening and Benson - I have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this.
Note to Greening and Benson: Well, what IS the deal with lateral connections, such as spandrels? Did Bazant ignore these, as seems likely, or not? Also, did you even bother MENTIONING Calladine and English to him?
It makes perfect (intuitive) sense to me that, e.g., an unsupported column would be designed to be resistant to buckling by only a factor of 1.67, while that same column, considered embedded in a building with not one but two spandrels connected to it, it would be 6x resistant to buckling. Surely the spandrels were not there for purely decorative purposes. How has Bazant, and now Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson accounted for these spandrels in their calculations?
Of course, even if this were the case, I didn't get that sense from Morrone (though, once again, I've not questioned him on this point).
Table II. Safety Factors in the National Building Code of Canada 1970
Type of construction Basic Safety Factor
Steel and Aluminum 1.67
Yield or plastic resistance
Elastic Buckling 1.92
Bolts 2.50
Reinforced Concrete 1.7 to 2.0
Beams and slabs - bending 1.8 to 2.1
- shear 2 to 2.4
Columns
masonry 3 or more
Wood Allowable stresses are based on experience
Foundation 3
Thanks for posting this.
Now we're getting somewhere. Please explain what these differences are.
One of my long-standing complaints about the Bazant Zhou paper (and it's derivatives) is that the inter-connected structure of the building is ignored.
Of course, we all know that the structure was compromised. But we also know that it was highly redundant. And highly inter-connected.
Consider the perimeter columns. Bazant and Zhou seem perfectly content to calculate buckling energies, not only ignoring dynamic effects, (ala Caladine and English), but apparently also ignoring the stabilizing effects of the spandrels.
It would be nice if we could actually see BZ's calculations, but even though Bazant is now a co-author with 2 of physorg's own - viz., Greening and Benson - I have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this.
Note to Greening and Benson: Well, what IS the deal with lateral connections, such as spandrels? Did Bazant ignore these, as seems likely, or not? Also, did you even bother MENTIONING Calladine and English to him?
It makes perfect (intuitive) sense to me that, e.g., an unsupported column would be designed to be resistant to buckling by only a factor of 1.67, while that same column, considered embedded in a building with not one but two spandrels connected to it, it would be 6x resistant to buckling. Surely the spandrels were not there for purely decorative purposes. How has Bazant, and now Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson accounted for these spandrels in their calculations?
Of course, even if this were the case, I didn't get that sense from Morrone (though, once again, I've not questioned him on this point).
QUOTE
Table II. Safety Factors in the National Building Code of Canada 1970
Type of construction Basic Safety Factor
Steel and Aluminum 1.67
Yield or plastic resistance
Elastic Buckling 1.92
Bolts 2.50
Reinforced Concrete 1.7 to 2.0
Beams and slabs - bending 1.8 to 2.1
- shear 2 to 2.4
Columns
masonry 3 or more
Wood Allowable stresses are based on experience
Foundation 3
Thanks for posting this.
sto·rey (stôr'ē, stōr'ē) pronunciation
n. Chiefly British.
Variant of story2.
The noun storey has one meaning:
Meaning #1: structure consisting of a room or set of rooms comprising a single level of a multilevel building
Synonyms: floor, level, story
n. Chiefly British.
Variant of story2.
The noun storey has one meaning:
Meaning #1: structure consisting of a room or set of rooms comprising a single level of a multilevel building
Synonyms: floor, level, story
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 01:25 AM)
If by this you mean any engineer dealing with steel, since the time steel began to replace cast iron, has favored a safety factor of 1.67, then why was Morrone taught otherwise?
From an earlier quote of yours, wherein failure is associated with a DCR of 2.0, if we instead consider 'safety factor' as the ratio of DCR(failure) / DCR(normal load), we instead come up with 4x.
I suppose, though, we should consider safety factor as DCR(failure) / DCR(max design load), in which case this is 2x (I think).
Because there are two completely different meanings of the phrase safety factor. With regard to computing a DCR for a column, a safety factor of about 1.67 is common. That's the engineer's DCR meaning of safety factor.
The other, lay person's meaning, is 1/DCR. Under maximum design load conditions, it'll be about 1 for ordinary buildings (I don't know about skyscrapers). Since these conditions rarely occur, maybe some structures operate at a 1/DCR of 6X, although that seems high for buildings designed by architects and engineers. For ordinary frame houses it sounds believable.
In principle and in practice, some inelastic behavior will occur for a DCR greater than 1.10. However, none of the reports I have read get very excited about 1.15 and sometimes not even 1.33. (These are acceptable for Immediate Occupancy status. It doesn't mean there is no damage.) But a DCR of 2 is certainly going to buckle and break and almost certainly also for 1.67 ~ 5/3.
The capacity is constant. It is only the loads which differ. So taking ratios is ok, just not ordinary practice. But what you are calling a 'safety factor' clearly is not usual practice by any one. Use another term. Critical load would be fine.
From an earlier quote of yours, wherein failure is associated with a DCR of 2.0, if we instead consider 'safety factor' as the ratio of DCR(failure) / DCR(normal load), we instead come up with 4x.
I suppose, though, we should consider safety factor as DCR(failure) / DCR(max design load), in which case this is 2x (I think).
Because there are two completely different meanings of the phrase safety factor. With regard to computing a DCR for a column, a safety factor of about 1.67 is common. That's the engineer's DCR meaning of safety factor.
The other, lay person's meaning, is 1/DCR. Under maximum design load conditions, it'll be about 1 for ordinary buildings (I don't know about skyscrapers). Since these conditions rarely occur, maybe some structures operate at a 1/DCR of 6X, although that seems high for buildings designed by architects and engineers. For ordinary frame houses it sounds believable.
In principle and in practice, some inelastic behavior will occur for a DCR greater than 1.10. However, none of the reports I have read get very excited about 1.15 and sometimes not even 1.33. (These are acceptable for Immediate Occupancy status. It doesn't mean there is no damage.) But a DCR of 2 is certainly going to buckle and break and almost certainly also for 1.67 ~ 5/3.
The capacity is constant. It is only the loads which differ. So taking ratios is ok, just not ordinary practice. But what you are calling a 'safety factor' clearly is not usual practice by any one. Use another term. Critical load would be fine.
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 01:41 AM)
Note to Greening and Benson: Well, what IS the deal with lateral connections, such as spandrels? Did Bazant ignore these, as seems likely, or not? Also, did you even bother MENTIONING Calladine and English to him?
It makes perfect (intuitive) sense to me that, e.g., an unsupported column would be designed to be resistant to buckling by only a factor of 1.67, while that same column, considered embedded in a building with not one but two spandrels connected to hit, would be 6x resistant ...
But inspection of Ground Zero shows that little of the exterior walls were crushed. So forget about spandrels. In the core, there were moment connections along column lines, associated with also supporting the floor.
Thus the right calculation against buckling, which you can check on the efunda.com calculator, gives, for 12 feet between pins, a component safety factor of 1.67. That's a divisor on the yield strength of the steel being used to determine its capacity for the DCR calculation.
No, we didn't mention C&E to him. He's written over 415 papers on structural engineering and so knows quite a bit about dynamical effects. Around pages 200--206 of this thread I worked out some dynamical effects for sudden loads of infinite duration. These effects are in general agreement with Simitses & Hodges and in complete disagreement with GR.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 7 2007, 01:43 AM)
sto·rey (stôr'ē, stōr'ē) pronunciation
Apologies, it wasn't in the spell checker.
Apologies, it wasn't in the spell checker.
Metamars:
You claim to "have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this...."
Well Metamars, you know Prof. Bazant is a TRUE scholar and a gentleman and a world authority in Civil Engineering.... (Unlike the other "Scholars" who "peer review" their own articles, Prof. Bazant does not need to proclaim his scholarship, it's A FACT).
So, I would not be so condescending as to ask Prof. Bazant if he has read a particular engineering paper from more than 10 years ago!
However, if YOU have a particular question YOU wish to be addressed about our new paper YOU should write to Prof. Bazant...... if you present your inquiry as a genuine scientific issue of concern I am sure he would respond......
or I would be happy to pass such a question on to him.
On the other hand, YOU could always write your own paper and submit it to a REAL journal for review.
You claim to "have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this...."
Well Metamars, you know Prof. Bazant is a TRUE scholar and a gentleman and a world authority in Civil Engineering.... (Unlike the other "Scholars" who "peer review" their own articles, Prof. Bazant does not need to proclaim his scholarship, it's A FACT).
So, I would not be so condescending as to ask Prof. Bazant if he has read a particular engineering paper from more than 10 years ago!
However, if YOU have a particular question YOU wish to be addressed about our new paper YOU should write to Prof. Bazant...... if you present your inquiry as a genuine scientific issue of concern I am sure he would respond......
or I would be happy to pass such a question on to him.
On the other hand, YOU could always write your own paper and submit it to a REAL journal for review.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 6 2007, 09:10 AM)
Malmoesoldier
Are you aware that Ross is Craig T. Furlong's co-disinformationist in his now thoroughly trashed paper claiming explosions BEFORE plane impacts???
All you have done is provide another instance where Gordon just "doesn't get it". It seems that anywhere you see Gordon's or Furlong's name on something, it will be nothing but lies, half truths and misunderstanding and misuse of even the simplest physical concept.(and in Furlong's case, paranoid delusions of firetrucks and Lying-for-Jesus rants)
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Neither of these two "gentlemen" has a bit of academic or scientific credibility left, they sold it all to profit from gullible, know-nothing clowns of the "troother" sort(just as Jones, Woods, et al have). They will never get a dime from me for their snake oil and the next time those of this ilk visit Ground Zero to spew their hateful garbage, I hope it is during a teamsters or firefighters convention.
Grumpy
Your rant is the joke around here, and you are still wrong.
I reiterate, I am not in this for the money. Truth and justice is the issue -- and of course I realize this is something alien to you. You wouldn't know it if it fell on top of you.
The paper still stands. No one has given any proof that the 8:46:40 is NOT when the plane hit WTC1 per the radar data (your WWII chaff fantasies aside), and it certainly isn't overturned by the fraudulent Hlava video, which probably doesn't even exist any longer...you do know "they" like to get rid of the "evidence"...come to think of it, your OCT side is very good at getting rid of the evidence.
Now go away, little kid, ya bother me...go see what Sleeping Beauty wants--she's calling for you.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
Are you aware that Ross is Craig T. Furlong's co-disinformationist in his now thoroughly trashed paper claiming explosions BEFORE plane impacts???
All you have done is provide another instance where Gordon just "doesn't get it". It seems that anywhere you see Gordon's or Furlong's name on something, it will be nothing but lies, half truths and misunderstanding and misuse of even the simplest physical concept.(and in Furlong's case, paranoid delusions of firetrucks and Lying-for-Jesus rants)
Gordon wants to consider the strengths of the frames and the floors as one monolithic entity, he is wrong. The building is only as strong as it's weakest structure(as is a chain). When this weakest "link" fails, that is the limit of strain energy that can be transfered to the rest of the frame. That weakest link was the floor connections.
Neither of these two "gentlemen" has a bit of academic or scientific credibility left, they sold it all to profit from gullible, know-nothing clowns of the "troother" sort(just as Jones, Woods, et al have). They will never get a dime from me for their snake oil and the next time those of this ilk visit Ground Zero to spew their hateful garbage, I hope it is during a teamsters or firefighters convention.
Grumpy
Your rant is the joke around here, and you are still wrong.
I reiterate, I am not in this for the money. Truth and justice is the issue -- and of course I realize this is something alien to you. You wouldn't know it if it fell on top of you.
The paper still stands. No one has given any proof that the 8:46:40 is NOT when the plane hit WTC1 per the radar data (your WWII chaff fantasies aside), and it certainly isn't overturned by the fraudulent Hlava video, which probably doesn't even exist any longer...you do know "they" like to get rid of the "evidence"...come to think of it, your OCT side is very good at getting rid of the evidence.
Now go away, little kid, ya bother me...go see what Sleeping Beauty wants--she's calling for you.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
David B. Benson,
Regarding safety-factors and DCRs for perimeter columns...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20III%...ine%20Final.pdf
Notice the claims on page 35 of this presentation that on the one hand:
And on the other hand:
And on the other hand:
On September 11, the wind loads were minimal, thus allowing significantly more reserve capacity for the exterior walls (demand on exterior columns was about 1/5 their capacity).
This means that the capacities of the (fully floor-restrained) perimeter columns were 5 times the live+dead loads they were subjected to on that day.
If we also assume that the in-service live loads accounted for roughly 20% of the total static loads (dead+live) on the perimeter columns then this would mean that their reserve capacities (capacities minus (actual_loads)) would have been (5 - 1)/0.20 = 20. (The assumption just made is equivalent to assuming that design live loads are roughly 80% of dead loads.) The reserve capacities that would have been exhausted by maximal design wind loads would thus have been 20 times greater that the in-service live loads, which were quite ordinary office-building live loads.
This might account for the claim in this old 1964 article that the perimeter walls were designed to take on 2000% increases in live loads. This is just what design wind loads (mid-Atlantic hurricane strength) would have subjected them to. The live-load baseline this 2000% figure is based on would be a reference to the load from normal office-building contents.
This is mere speculation about the significance of this unexplained 2000% figure. The fact the perimeter columns had capacities that were 5 times their static loads (plus minimal wind loads) is however what this NIST presentation claims.
I think David B. Benson might have misinterpreted the safety-factor of perimeter columns through assuming that only static loads and not the design wind loads were part of the baseline demands, or that the latter were quire small. They are very much larger than design static loads in this case.
I still do not fully understand how NIST computes DCRs in the Baseline Analysis but I've tried to preempt some more possible misunderstandings here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=126926
(where I mentioned "plastic strain limits" while I meant "elastic strain limits")
I think it is a good point, as I hadn't given it much thought what it was he was talking about, and the "50-ton" part gave me the impression that it weighed 50 tons. It didn't register he was talking about a press that generates 50 tons.
Actually, I have a 6-ton press in my garage, I never use it. (I can lift it with one hand.)
A key point that actually runs counter to the CD explosives theory - these things are made of steel tubing and are as solid as anything in the building. You could detonate a stick of dynamite right next to it, and it wouldn't do any damage to it.
They are easy to knock over, though, being as top-heavy and stiff, so a shock wave traveling through the floor could bounce it up and it'd fall down. Maybe that's what the guy meant had happened to it, the shock wave knocked it over.
First, I only have your word for it that the garage was destroyed, and you've lied deliberately in virtually every post, often more than once.
And no, I never said anything about *sound* destroying anything.
In that example I provided, the energy of the impulse of a 25ton load deflecting a beam by 1 inch is transmitted through the steel structure, itself. Only the energy associated with making an inch of air move out of the way of the steel is lost from that as sound energy, the rest travels throughout the structure, knocking stuff over and breaking stuff as it goes.
The speed of that impulse through steel travels at the speed of sound in steel, which is about 20x as fast as sound travels through air, so the impulse arrives in 1/300th of a second (from 700 feet) through the steel, and 0.7seconds later, you hear the sound itself via the air (if you hear it at all).
So the sound you hear at ground level from a failed truss 700 feet up arrives 2/3rds of a second later than the energy of the shock wave associated with the failed truss, which you feel as a local "THUD", which also rattles the structure making it go "BANG!" locally. The original sound arriving 2/3rds of a second later gets attenuated by the 700 feet of air, and gets lost in the echoes of the local "BANG!" and THUD.
As for my "ignorance" of history, I know the *real* story about Pearl Harbor, etc., better than you do. All you know is what the commie-propagandists want you to believe. Too bad about the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could've moved there and lived in that Workers' Paradise, if only the people who were born into it hadn't scrapped the system. There's still China (oops, they're going Free Market these days). OK, I suggest you move to North Korea. That's as pure a communist state as you'll find these days. (Bring some food, though, they can't feed their own people.)
Regarding safety-factors and DCRs for perimeter columns...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20III%...ine%20Final.pdf
Notice the claims on page 35 of this presentation that on the one hand:
QUOTE
On September 11, the towers were subjected to in-service live loads, which are considered to be approximately 25 percent of the design live loads.
And on the other hand:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On September 11, the towers were subjected to in-service live loads, which are considered to be approximately 25 percent of the design live loads. |
And on the other hand:
On September 11, the wind loads were minimal, thus allowing significantly more reserve capacity for the exterior walls (demand on exterior columns was about 1/5 their capacity).
This means that the capacities of the (fully floor-restrained) perimeter columns were 5 times the live+dead loads they were subjected to on that day.
If we also assume that the in-service live loads accounted for roughly 20% of the total static loads (dead+live) on the perimeter columns then this would mean that their reserve capacities (capacities minus (actual_loads)) would have been (5 - 1)/0.20 = 20. (The assumption just made is equivalent to assuming that design live loads are roughly 80% of dead loads.) The reserve capacities that would have been exhausted by maximal design wind loads would thus have been 20 times greater that the in-service live loads, which were quite ordinary office-building live loads.
This might account for the claim in this old 1964 article that the perimeter walls were designed to take on 2000% increases in live loads. This is just what design wind loads (mid-Atlantic hurricane strength) would have subjected them to. The live-load baseline this 2000% figure is based on would be a reference to the load from normal office-building contents.
This is mere speculation about the significance of this unexplained 2000% figure. The fact the perimeter columns had capacities that were 5 times their static loads (plus minimal wind loads) is however what this NIST presentation claims.
I think David B. Benson might have misinterpreted the safety-factor of perimeter columns through assuming that only static loads and not the design wind loads were part of the baseline demands, or that the latter were quire small. They are very much larger than design static loads in this case.
I still do not fully understand how NIST computes DCRs in the Baseline Analysis but I've tried to preempt some more possible misunderstandings here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=126926
(where I mentioned "plastic strain limits" while I meant "elastic strain limits")
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 02:03 AM)
Apologies, it wasn't in the spell checker.
no worries, mate, eh.
americans typically forget where their language comes from.
god save the queen.
the fascist regime.
pierre normand, thank you for that demystifying post.
wow, demystifying passed the spell checker. and, here i thought i made it up.
durnnit[sic].
no worries, mate, eh.
americans typically forget where their language comes from.
god save the queen.
the fascist regime.
pierre normand, thank you for that demystifying post.
wow, demystifying passed the spell checker. and, here i thought i made it up.
durnnit[sic].
Moe, you did it!! You found and included the "50-ton press" quote. Only thing is... you might want to google "hydraulic press" and see what he's really talking about, and not what it sounds like. *hint : it's a small thing that would fit into your closet that is capable of pressing 50-tons.
I just did a quick search and found this one, which is only a 30-ton press, but you get the idea.
This one only weighs 202kg. Get the other details : here
Now, I wish you'd cool it on the quote mining. We've seen them all before and most go on to say ALOT more that the small clip you post. That they heard booms and said it sounded like a bomb isn't surprising. The list of possible booms in a major fire is a long one, including every breaker box and stepup or stepdown transformer that got shorted out (they do make a hella BOOM) from melting insulation on the wiring.
I just did a quick search and found this one, which is only a 30-ton press, but you get the idea.
This one only weighs 202kg. Get the other details : here
Now, I wish you'd cool it on the quote mining. We've seen them all before and most go on to say ALOT more that the small clip you post. That they heard booms and said it sounded like a bomb isn't surprising. The list of possible booms in a major fire is a long one, including every breaker box and stepup or stepdown transformer that got shorted out (they do make a hella BOOM) from melting insulation on the wiring.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 7 2007, 06:45 AM)
Moe, you did it!! You found and included the "50-ton press" quote. Only thing is... you might want to google "hydraulic press" and see what he's really talking about, and not what it sounds like. *hint : it's a small thing that would fit into your closet that is capable of pressing 50-tons.
I just did a quick search and found this one, which is only a 30-ton press, but you get the idea.
This one only weighs 202kg. Get the other details : here
Now, I wish you'd cool it on the quote mining. We've seen them all before and most go on to say ALOT more that the small clip you post. That they heard booms and said it sounded like a bomb isn't surprising. The list of possible booms in a major fire is a long one, including every breaker box and stepup or stepdown transformer that got shorted out (they do make a hella BOOM) from melting insulation on the wiring.
yeah. i could see that tiny pop top disappearing in a slight breeze.
good point.
I just did a quick search and found this one, which is only a 30-ton press, but you get the idea.
This one only weighs 202kg. Get the other details : here
Now, I wish you'd cool it on the quote mining. We've seen them all before and most go on to say ALOT more that the small clip you post. That they heard booms and said it sounded like a bomb isn't surprising. The list of possible booms in a major fire is a long one, including every breaker box and stepup or stepdown transformer that got shorted out (they do make a hella BOOM) from melting insulation on the wiring.
yeah. i could see that tiny pop top disappearing in a slight breeze.
good point.
QUOTE
good point.
I think it is a good point, as I hadn't given it much thought what it was he was talking about, and the "50-ton" part gave me the impression that it weighed 50 tons. It didn't register he was talking about a press that generates 50 tons.
Actually, I have a 6-ton press in my garage, I never use it. (I can lift it with one hand.)
A key point that actually runs counter to the CD explosives theory - these things are made of steel tubing and are as solid as anything in the building. You could detonate a stick of dynamite right next to it, and it wouldn't do any damage to it.
They are easy to knock over, though, being as top-heavy and stiff, so a shock wave traveling through the floor could bounce it up and it'd fall down. Maybe that's what the guy meant had happened to it, the shock wave knocked it over.
QUOTE
It was the sound that destroyed the garage?
First, I only have your word for it that the garage was destroyed, and you've lied deliberately in virtually every post, often more than once.
And no, I never said anything about *sound* destroying anything.
In that example I provided, the energy of the impulse of a 25ton load deflecting a beam by 1 inch is transmitted through the steel structure, itself. Only the energy associated with making an inch of air move out of the way of the steel is lost from that as sound energy, the rest travels throughout the structure, knocking stuff over and breaking stuff as it goes.
The speed of that impulse through steel travels at the speed of sound in steel, which is about 20x as fast as sound travels through air, so the impulse arrives in 1/300th of a second (from 700 feet) through the steel, and 0.7seconds later, you hear the sound itself via the air (if you hear it at all).
So the sound you hear at ground level from a failed truss 700 feet up arrives 2/3rds of a second later than the energy of the shock wave associated with the failed truss, which you feel as a local "THUD", which also rattles the structure making it go "BANG!" locally. The original sound arriving 2/3rds of a second later gets attenuated by the 700 feet of air, and gets lost in the echoes of the local "BANG!" and THUD.
As for my "ignorance" of history, I know the *real* story about Pearl Harbor, etc., better than you do. All you know is what the commie-propagandists want you to believe. Too bad about the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could've moved there and lived in that Workers' Paradise, if only the people who were born into it hadn't scrapped the system. There's still China (oops, they're going Free Market these days). OK, I suggest you move to North Korea. That's as pure a communist state as you'll find these days. (Bring some food, though, they can't feed their own people.)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 01:58 AM)
But inspection of Ground Zero shows that little of the exterior walls were crushed. So forget about spandrels.
But inspection of Ground Zero shows little buckling as envisioned in BZ's paper. Therefore, why not forget about his paper, and approach, entirely?
It appears that BZ, and now BLGB, have cherry-picked what they choose to see, and not see. Indeed, I suspect that when your theory is 'tested' with regard to other quantifiable observables, we will find that your 'testing' was also cherry-picked. (Not necessarily deliberately, though the buckling computations seem completely deliberate.)
In the core, there were moment connections along column lines, associated with also supporting the floor.
Thus the right calculation against buckling, which you can check on the efunda.com calculator, gives, for 12 feet between pins, a component safety factor of 1.67.
How do I, and other, check this?
How do I, and other, check this?
No, we didn't mention C&E to him. He's written over 415 papers on structural engineering and so knows quite a bit about dynamical effects. Around pages 200--206 of this thread I worked out some dynamical effects for sudden loads of infinite duration. These effects are in general agreement with Simitses & Hodges and in complete disagreement with GR.
Are they in accord with experiment? CE tested their theory on actual, physical devices?
You claim to "have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this...."
I utterly fail to see the connection between
Well Metamars, you know Prof. Bazant is a TRUE scholar and a gentleman and a world authority in Civil Engineering.... (Unlike the other "Scholars" who "peer review" their own articles, Prof. Bazant does not need to proclaim his scholarship, it's A FACT).
and the paragraph you wrote immediately afterwards:
and the paragraph you wrote immediately afterwards:
So, I would not be so condescending as to ask Prof. Bazant if he has read a particular engineering paper from more than 10 years ago!
It's almost as if you presume that a "scholar" or "world authority" must have read every paper in civil engineering that ever was written. But that, of course, is impossible. So what, exactly, is your point?
Nevertheless, I will take you up on
or I would be happy to pass such a question on to him.
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
Regarding
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
Regarding
On the other hand, YOU could always write your own paper and submit it to a REAL journal for review.
I may indeed write a paper about your theory, which Benson describes as "tested". That depends mostly on how much time I have this summer. As to where I submit it, I have not the great respect for established, peer reviewed journals that you apparently have. I can't think of a better system*, but if you've read my posts on string theory and big bang theory, you know those systems are very flawed, and physicists have a demonstrated record of acting very ignobly ito what they consider worthy or not.
Indeed, I've listened to an interview of LaViolette recently, and he claims that not only did Hans Bethe go to bat for him (as I reported on this thread), but also Brian Josephson, and still at least some of his papers were banned from arxiv.org, even though they are not peer reviewed.
* Well, outside review of the reviewers might help, or some type of appeal system where the adjudicating body has no financial, career, or (lol) ego factors to color their judgements.
But inspection of Ground Zero shows little buckling as envisioned in BZ's paper. Therefore, why not forget about his paper, and approach, entirely?
It appears that BZ, and now BLGB, have cherry-picked what they choose to see, and not see. Indeed, I suspect that when your theory is 'tested' with regard to other quantifiable observables, we will find that your 'testing' was also cherry-picked. (Not necessarily deliberately, though the buckling computations seem completely deliberate.)
QUOTE
In the core, there were moment connections along column lines, associated with also supporting the floor.
Thus the right calculation against buckling, which you can check on the efunda.com calculator, gives, for 12 feet between pins, a component safety factor of 1.67.
How do I, and other, check this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In the core, there were moment connections along column lines, associated with also supporting the floor. Thus the right calculation against buckling, which you can check on the efunda.com calculator, gives, for 12 feet between pins, a component safety factor of 1.67. |
How do I, and other, check this?
No, we didn't mention C&E to him. He's written over 415 papers on structural engineering and so knows quite a bit about dynamical effects. Around pages 200--206 of this thread I worked out some dynamical effects for sudden loads of infinite duration. These effects are in general agreement with Simitses & Hodges and in complete disagreement with GR.
Are they in accord with experiment? CE tested their theory on actual, physical devices?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 7 2007, 02:10 AM)
You claim to "have a feeling that we will be left in the dark as to whether BZ bothered to consider this...."
I utterly fail to see the connection between
QUOTE
Well Metamars, you know Prof. Bazant is a TRUE scholar and a gentleman and a world authority in Civil Engineering.... (Unlike the other "Scholars" who "peer review" their own articles, Prof. Bazant does not need to proclaim his scholarship, it's A FACT).
and the paragraph you wrote immediately afterwards:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Well Metamars, you know Prof. Bazant is a TRUE scholar and a gentleman and a world authority in Civil Engineering.... (Unlike the other "Scholars" who "peer review" their own articles, Prof. Bazant does not need to proclaim his scholarship, it's A FACT). |
and the paragraph you wrote immediately afterwards:
So, I would not be so condescending as to ask Prof. Bazant if he has read a particular engineering paper from more than 10 years ago!
It's almost as if you presume that a "scholar" or "world authority" must have read every paper in civil engineering that ever was written. But that, of course, is impossible. So what, exactly, is your point?
Nevertheless, I will take you up on
QUOTE
or I would be happy to pass such a question on to him.
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
Regarding
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
or I would be happy to pass such a question on to him. |
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
Regarding
On the other hand, YOU could always write your own paper and submit it to a REAL journal for review.
I may indeed write a paper about your theory, which Benson describes as "tested". That depends mostly on how much time I have this summer. As to where I submit it, I have not the great respect for established, peer reviewed journals that you apparently have. I can't think of a better system*, but if you've read my posts on string theory and big bang theory, you know those systems are very flawed, and physicists have a demonstrated record of acting very ignobly ito what they consider worthy or not.
Indeed, I've listened to an interview of LaViolette recently, and he claims that not only did Hans Bethe go to bat for him (as I reported on this thread), but also Brian Josephson, and still at least some of his papers were banned from arxiv.org, even though they are not peer reviewed.
* Well, outside review of the reviewers might help, or some type of appeal system where the adjudicating body has no financial, career, or (lol) ego factors to color their judgements.
David B. Benson and NEU-FONZE,
Some more comments on Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (thereafter BLGB):
When the resisting force F_c, the compaction ratio lambda and the ejected mass fraction kappa_out all are set to zero, then, the crush-down equation (2) reduces to:
d(z*dz/dt)/dt = g*z (the factor g is missing in BLGB p.3. It is not missing in Bazant and Verdure p.313 (thereafter BV))
This is the propagation equation of the crushing front with zero "stretch" and zero structural (and air) resistance. Only the effect of momentum transfer, which is the inertial force exerted on Zone-B from accretion of mass on the front, is considered. The equation is perspicuously written as:
ma - mg = -F_m
(eq. (6) in BLGB with lambda and F_c set to zero)
where F_m = (dm/dt)(dz/dt) is described as the "force required to accelerate to velocity dz/dt the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front."
To get the first equation, divide both terms by m, multiply by z and notice that (dm/dt)/m = (dz/dt)/z when dm/dz is constant as it is assumed here.
(There is also a mistake in BLGB p.3 where z is described as the distance of the current crushing front from the *moving* tower top. It is rather its distance from the initial position of the tower top. That is: z is the (zeta) Lagrangian coordinate of the front as per BV p. 312.)
Now, my main comment.
This simplified equation (with F_c and lambda both set to zero) shows that the energy dissipated through continuous momentum transfer to the accreting mass is already accounted for in BLGB eq. (2). We can quantify this energy if we consider the pressure field extending some short distance dz below the crushing front. The mass located at zeta coordinate z(t)+dz is at rest while the mass at z(t) moves at speed dz/dt with the Zone-B crushed plane (Zone-B has zero thickness in the case lambda = 0). At the crushing front the pressure is (F_m+mg)/A, where A is the footprint area of the tower. At height z+dz, the pressure is just mg/A. Mass that is being accreted thus moves through a pressure gradient over distance dz until it reaches velocity dz/dt at the crushing front. (Over that time interval we picture the dz slice of tower being crushed to zero thickness.) The accreted mass dm thus acquires kinetic energy [dm(dz/dt)^2]/2. Over the same displacement dz of the crushing front, the upper block (Zones-B and C) has performed work F_m*dz, which is equal to (dm/dt)v*dz = dm(dz/dt)^2. (See definition of F_m above. There is thus an extra [dm(dz/dt)^2]/2 that has been dissipated. This just is the work that has been performed through compacting the mass over dz (plastic strain and fracture energy expended through crushing concrete, trusses, furniture, etc).
It is thus not necessary to incorporate once more the force responsible for this work into the factor F_c (as an extra factor F_s). Doing this violates the condition of dynamic equilibrium that allowed the derivation of eq.(2) in BLGB (eq.(12) in BV) according to the d'Alembert principle.
The section titled "Energy Available for Concrete Comminution" in BLGB provides an intuitive explanation of the source of the energy for comminution in the discrete model. Indeed, equation (14) for Delta_K, the maximum kinetic energy available for comminution confirms the result derived above. Let's set gamma = 0 in this equation.
Delta_K = [m_c*m*v^2]/[m_c*m*2]
In the case where m_c << m, this approximates to dm*v^2/2 which matches the result above.
Some more comments on Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (thereafter BLGB):
When the resisting force F_c, the compaction ratio lambda and the ejected mass fraction kappa_out all are set to zero, then, the crush-down equation (2) reduces to:
d(z*dz/dt)/dt = g*z (the factor g is missing in BLGB p.3. It is not missing in Bazant and Verdure p.313 (thereafter BV))
This is the propagation equation of the crushing front with zero "stretch" and zero structural (and air) resistance. Only the effect of momentum transfer, which is the inertial force exerted on Zone-B from accretion of mass on the front, is considered. The equation is perspicuously written as:
ma - mg = -F_m
(eq. (6) in BLGB with lambda and F_c set to zero)
where F_m = (dm/dt)(dz/dt) is described as the "force required to accelerate to velocity dz/dt the stationary mass accreting at the crushing front."
To get the first equation, divide both terms by m, multiply by z and notice that (dm/dt)/m = (dz/dt)/z when dm/dz is constant as it is assumed here.
(There is also a mistake in BLGB p.3 where z is described as the distance of the current crushing front from the *moving* tower top. It is rather its distance from the initial position of the tower top. That is: z is the (zeta) Lagrangian coordinate of the front as per BV p. 312.)
Now, my main comment.
This simplified equation (with F_c and lambda both set to zero) shows that the energy dissipated through continuous momentum transfer to the accreting mass is already accounted for in BLGB eq. (2). We can quantify this energy if we consider the pressure field extending some short distance dz below the crushing front. The mass located at zeta coordinate z(t)+dz is at rest while the mass at z(t) moves at speed dz/dt with the Zone-B crushed plane (Zone-B has zero thickness in the case lambda = 0). At the crushing front the pressure is (F_m+mg)/A, where A is the footprint area of the tower. At height z+dz, the pressure is just mg/A. Mass that is being accreted thus moves through a pressure gradient over distance dz until it reaches velocity dz/dt at the crushing front. (Over that time interval we picture the dz slice of tower being crushed to zero thickness.) The accreted mass dm thus acquires kinetic energy [dm(dz/dt)^2]/2. Over the same displacement dz of the crushing front, the upper block (Zones-B and C) has performed work F_m*dz, which is equal to (dm/dt)v*dz = dm(dz/dt)^2. (See definition of F_m above. There is thus an extra [dm(dz/dt)^2]/2 that has been dissipated. This just is the work that has been performed through compacting the mass over dz (plastic strain and fracture energy expended through crushing concrete, trusses, furniture, etc).
It is thus not necessary to incorporate once more the force responsible for this work into the factor F_c (as an extra factor F_s). Doing this violates the condition of dynamic equilibrium that allowed the derivation of eq.(2) in BLGB (eq.(12) in BV) according to the d'Alembert principle.
The section titled "Energy Available for Concrete Comminution" in BLGB provides an intuitive explanation of the source of the energy for comminution in the discrete model. Indeed, equation (14) for Delta_K, the maximum kinetic energy available for comminution confirms the result derived above. Let's set gamma = 0 in this equation.
Delta_K = [m_c*m*v^2]/[m_c*m*2]
In the case where m_c << m, this approximates to dm*v^2/2 which matches the result above.
wcelliott
What propaganda? it is you that dont understand how the world works. It is you that will go on to the fema buses when they want to pick you up.
What propaganda? it is you that dont understand how the world works. It is you that will go on to the fema buses when they want to pick you up.
He believed in all the same lies you did. Boy
What lies?. You dont agree that there was explosives in WTC maybe. But you cant say history never happened. And they funded the terrorist and let the attack happen so it is still an inside job, cant believe they said in PNAC "we need a new pearl harbor" Hitler didnt even write what he was going to do he just DID it.
I would love to fight you and mark roberts at the same time bit*h boy
I would love to fight you and mark roberts at the same time bit*h boy
First, I only have your word for it that the garage was destroyed, and you've lied deliberately in virtually every post, often more than once.
The garage was destroyed. And there was more then one that heard explosions from the basement and they could feel HEAT from the explosion. Like i showed you, i guess you didnt read it.
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
No you dont seem to know the story of Pearl Harbor or anything els. The real story of Pearl Harbor is that they KNEW that the attack was coming and let it happen, your government that you are so proud of let the soldiers on the ship DIE. Its history so dont say that it aint true. And yes your government was behind hitlers army and al-qaida, they funded theme. Havent you checked the facts by now?? or did you watch fox news instead?
No you dont seem to know the story of Pearl Harbor or anything els. The real story of Pearl Harbor is that they KNEW that the attack was coming and let it happen, your government that you are so proud of let the soldiers on the ship DIE. Its history so dont say that it aint true. And yes your government was behind hitlers army and al-qaida, they funded theme. Havent you checked the facts by now?? or did you watch fox news instead?
Too bad about the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could've moved there and lived in that Workers' Paradise, if only the people who were born into it hadn't scrapped the system. There's still China (oops, they're going Free Market these days). OK, I suggest you move to North Korea. That's as pure a communist state as you'll find these days. (Bring some food, though, they can't feed their own people.)
What are you talking about? man you talk like you was real stupid. You are that type of american that are real proud to be an american, because you live in the "land of the free" america is the opposite of the land of the free, your country has been taken over by Europe and i hope you like the police state it is becoming. A real american protects his family and people from the government.
CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban.
"The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups"
http*://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm
Al Qaeda terrorist worked with FBI Ex-Silicon Valley resident plotted embassy attacks.
http*://www.prisonplanet.com/terrorist_worked_with_fbi.html
And Some of the plans in operation northwoods was:
1. Blow up a manned ship that would result in U.S. Navy members being killed
2. hijacked planes, on U.S. and Cuban soil.
3. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets thusly:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war
http*://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991
"The one who cannot see that on Earth a big endeavor is taking place, an important plan, on which realization we are allowed to collaborate as faithful servants, certainly has to be blind." - Winston Churchill
So you are going to let theme plant a chip in your brain and body???
You are a little boy not me. you are scared of the NWO.
Nor did anything much become of the man who vetoed it as he was blown away by a crazed, lone gunman a few months later. So, there is of course no connection between these events other than being yet one more of the plethora of oddities which fill so much of history...as is also the historical fact that with him gone the military managed to pursue an adventure in SE Asia he was also planning on winding down besides turning down Northwoods.
Some people like to assert that this is what Eisenhower was alluding to in the warnings he made in his farewell address, but that is of course just more historical hooey. By the time he made that speech, Eisenhower was a daft old man with little sense or idea of what he was talking about.
There never was a any sort of military-industrial complex to worry about in the first place. Even if there ever had been, it would have been an American Military-Industrial Complex and therefore it would have been for our benefit and protection. You'd be nuts to think otherwise.
There has always been a Military-Industrial Complex and there still is. And it is not for your protection. They are doing america to a police state. Read history and find out that america has been taken over by europe a long time ago.
QUOTE
Your Marxist propaganda indoctrination shows how little you understand of how the world really works. They fed you a line of BS and you swallowed it whole.
What propaganda? it is you that dont understand how the world works. It is you that will go on to the fema buses when they want to pick you up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your Marxist propaganda indoctrination shows how little you understand of how the world really works. They fed you a line of BS and you swallowed it whole. |
What propaganda? it is you that dont understand how the world works. It is you that will go on to the fema buses when they want to pick you up.
He believed in all the same lies you did. Boy
What lies?. You dont agree that there was explosives in WTC maybe. But you cant say history never happened. And they funded the terrorist and let the attack happen so it is still an inside job, cant believe they said in PNAC "we need a new pearl harbor" Hitler didnt even write what he was going to do he just DID it.
QUOTE
And you better pray we never meet face-to-face.
I would love to fight you and mark roberts at the same time
bit*h boy QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you better pray we never meet face-to-face. |
I would love to fight you and mark roberts at the same time
bit*h boy First, I only have your word for it that the garage was destroyed, and you've lied deliberately in virtually every post, often more than once.
The garage was destroyed. And there was more then one that heard explosions from the basement and they could feel HEAT from the explosion. Like i showed you, i guess you didnt read it.
Sergei Siletzky a Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."
QUOTE
As for my "ignorance" of history, I know the *real* story about Pearl Harbor, etc., better than you do. All you know is what the commie-propagandists want you to believe
No you dont seem to know the story of Pearl Harbor or anything els. The real story of Pearl Harbor is that they KNEW that the attack was coming and let it happen, your government that you are so proud of let the soldiers on the ship DIE. Its history so dont say that it aint true. And yes your government was behind hitlers army and al-qaida, they funded theme. Havent you checked the facts by now?? or did you watch fox news instead?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for my "ignorance" of history, I know the *real* story about Pearl Harbor, etc., better than you do. All you know is what the commie-propagandists want you to believe |
No you dont seem to know the story of Pearl Harbor or anything els. The real story of Pearl Harbor is that they KNEW that the attack was coming and let it happen, your government that you are so proud of let the soldiers on the ship DIE. Its history so dont say that it aint true. And yes your government was behind hitlers army and al-qaida, they funded theme. Havent you checked the facts by now?? or did you watch fox news instead?
Too bad about the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could've moved there and lived in that Workers' Paradise, if only the people who were born into it hadn't scrapped the system. There's still China (oops, they're going Free Market these days). OK, I suggest you move to North Korea. That's as pure a communist state as you'll find these days. (Bring some food, though, they can't feed their own people.)
What are you talking about? man you talk like you was real stupid. You are that type of american that are real proud to be an american, because you live in the "land of the free"
america is the opposite of the land of the free, your country has been taken over by Europe and i hope you like the police state it is becoming. A real american protects his family and people from the government. CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban.
"The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups"
http*://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm
Al Qaeda terrorist worked with FBI Ex-Silicon Valley resident plotted embassy attacks.
http*://www.prisonplanet.com/terrorist_worked_with_fbi.html
And Some of the plans in operation northwoods was:
1. Blow up a manned ship that would result in U.S. Navy members being killed
2. hijacked planes, on U.S. and Cuban soil.
3. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets thusly:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war
http*://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991
"The one who cannot see that on Earth a big endeavor is taking place, an important plan, on which realization we are allowed to collaborate as faithful servants, certainly has to be blind." - Winston Churchill
Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?
The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:
...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)
However, we find no quantitative analysis in the report which shows that this tilting of the building section was sufficient to account for the large apparent drop of the antenna as seen from the north, or that this building-section-tilting occurred before the apparent antenna drop. Furthermore, the FEMA investigators also reviewed "videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles" yet came to the sense that "collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002) Quantitative analysis needs to be done and shown to resolve the issue.
Gordon Ross has written a scholarly paper on the collapse of WTC 1, which carefully considers conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, here: http://www.journalof911studies.com . He shows that even if the Tower started to collapse due to fire and damage, it would not continue to complete collapse. Note that the collapse of the McCormick Place building in Chicago is an example of a partial collapse only of a steel-frame building due to fire. The roof collapsed, but since the walls of that one-story building remained standing, it is clearly not comparable to the complete collapses of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2000.
The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?
The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:
...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)
However, we find no quantitative analysis in the report which shows that this tilting of the building section was sufficient to account for the large apparent drop of the antenna as seen from the north, or that this building-section-tilting occurred before the apparent antenna drop. Furthermore, the FEMA investigators also reviewed "videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles" yet came to the sense that "collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002) Quantitative analysis needs to be done and shown to resolve the issue.
Gordon Ross has written a scholarly paper on the collapse of WTC 1, which carefully considers conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, here: http://www.journalof911studies.com . He shows that even if the Tower started to collapse due to fire and damage, it would not continue to complete collapse. Note that the collapse of the McCormick Place building in Chicago is an example of a partial collapse only of a steel-frame building due to fire. The roof collapsed, but since the walls of that one-story building remained standing, it is clearly not comparable to the complete collapses of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2000.
If you read the Northwood document it talks of MOCK funerals, blowing up drones, non-existent passengers etc etc.
The phrase "even to the extent of wounding" should give you an idea of the amount of damage (and then to Cubans) they were considering.
BUT
the Northwoods program was TURNED DOWN by the CIVILIAN side of our govt and thus NOTHING became of it.
To spout this ill conceived idea THAT WAS REJECTED from the HEIGHT of the Cold War and claim that it shows that we would murder thousands of our own citizens and cause many Billions of direct damages to our country is BEYOND stupid.
Arthur
The phrase "even to the extent of wounding" should give you an idea of the amount of damage (and then to Cubans) they were considering.
BUT
the Northwoods program was TURNED DOWN by the CIVILIAN side of our govt and thus NOTHING became of it.
To spout this ill conceived idea THAT WAS REJECTED from the HEIGHT of the Cold War and claim that it shows that we would murder thousands of our own citizens and cause many Billions of direct damages to our country is BEYOND stupid.
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 07:58 AM)
Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:
...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)
Actually it WAS resolved in the NIST report.
They SPECIFICALLY used it as an example of a situation where observations from a SINGLE vantage point CAN BE MISLEADING.
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)
Arthur
The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:
...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)
Actually it WAS resolved in the NIST report.
They SPECIFICALLY used it as an example of a situation where observations from a SINGLE vantage point CAN BE MISLEADING.
"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005)
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 2 2007, 08:44 PM)
I guess you have dealt with all that like you have dealt with the people in WTC 7 that heard big explosions below floor 8.
Its been dealth with already. And debunked for that matter.
www dot cooperativeresearch dot org slash entity dot jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
Most of Building 7 of the World Trade Center was evacuated around the time the South Tower was hit (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). However, firefighters find three individuals who have become trapped inside it. Among them are Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Mike Hess, New York’s chief lawyer who is also a longtime friend of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The two had gone up to the 23rd floor headquarters of the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management some time before 10 a.m., but found it empty. (It was evacuated at 9:30 a.m.; see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001.) They headed downstairs but became trapped around the sixth floor by smoke and debris that filled the staircase as a result of the North Tower collapsing at 10:28 a.m. After breaking a window and calling for help, they were spotted by firefighters outside. When the firefighters go in, they also find a security officer for one of the businesses based in the building, who is trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. Why this guard did not evacuate earlier, along with the rest of WTC 7, is unknown. All three men are escorted out of the building. [New York Times, 11/21/1997; Associated Press, 9/11/2001; Giuliani, 2002, pp. 20-21 and 244; Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-18 pdf file; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109-110 pdf file]
NISTNCSTAR1-8
Page 109-110(163-164)
Its been dealth with already. And debunked for that matter.
www dot cooperativeresearch dot org slash entity dot jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
Most of Building 7 of the World Trade Center was evacuated around the time the South Tower was hit (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). However, firefighters find three individuals who have become trapped inside it. Among them are Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Mike Hess, New York’s chief lawyer who is also a longtime friend of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The two had gone up to the 23rd floor headquarters of the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management some time before 10 a.m., but found it empty. (It was evacuated at 9:30 a.m.; see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001.) They headed downstairs but became trapped around the sixth floor by smoke and debris that filled the staircase as a result of the North Tower collapsing at 10:28 a.m. After breaking a window and calling for help, they were spotted by firefighters outside. When the firefighters go in, they also find a security officer for one of the businesses based in the building, who is trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. Why this guard did not evacuate earlier, along with the rest of WTC 7, is unknown. All three men are escorted out of the building. [New York Times, 11/21/1997; Associated Press, 9/11/2001; Giuliani, 2002, pp. 20-21 and 244; Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-18 pdf file; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109-110 pdf file]
NISTNCSTAR1-8
Page 109-110(163-164)
Wellcome to PhysOrg Jay38
[removed]
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 10:17 AM)
When they want to plant a chip in your head, plant a bullet in their head.
ROTFLMAO
BIG TALK for such a LITTLE BOY.
What a WACKO
Remember to keep that big box of TINFOIL handy.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
BIG TALK for such a LITTLE BOY.
What a WACKO
Remember to keep that big box of TINFOIL handy.
Arthur
Jay38.
No its not debunked. There was people in wtc 7 that heard one explosion then a bit later one more, so it wasnt the tower collapsing. But that there was people that heard explosions from the basement and the lower floors is true. Look some pages back, i posted the evidence of the witnesses.
No its not debunked. There was people in wtc 7 that heard one explosion then a bit later one more, so it wasnt the tower collapsing. But that there was people that heard explosions from the basement and the lower floors is true. Look some pages back, i posted the evidence of the witnesses.
QUOTE
BIG TALK for such a LITTLE BOY.
So you are going to let theme plant a chip in your brain and body???
You are a little boy not me. you are scared of the NWO.
It is obvious, based on evidence, videos and photos, that the INNER CORE failed first. Fema even admit it... it was so obvious. But how ? Cutter charges ? Most likely.
"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
And nist explain nothing. They just popped up with a magically 50 plus inches truss sagging...and after that, ran a mile away from it all.
"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
And nist explain nothing. They just popped up with a magically 50 plus inches truss sagging...and after that, ran a mile away from it all.
QUOTE
the Northwoods program was TURNED DOWN by the CIVILIAN side of our govt and thus NOTHING became of it.
Nor did anything much become of the man who vetoed it as he was blown away by a crazed, lone gunman a few months later. So, there is of course no connection between these events other than being yet one more of the plethora of oddities which fill so much of history...as is also the historical fact that with him gone the military managed to pursue an adventure in SE Asia he was also planning on winding down besides turning down Northwoods.
Some people like to assert that this is what Eisenhower was alluding to in the warnings he made in his farewell address, but that is of course just more historical hooey. By the time he made that speech, Eisenhower was a daft old man with little sense or idea of what he was talking about.
There never was a any sort of military-industrial complex to worry about in the first place. Even if there ever had been, it would have been an American Military-Industrial Complex and therefore it would have been for our benefit and protection. You'd be nuts to think otherwise.
WRT Pearl Harbor, and who knows more history.
Do you know the name of the agent who passed the German Intelligence document concerning Pearl Harbor to the FBI, who at the FBI accepted it, and why the contents of the document were ignored (overtly)?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then you're just assuming you know more history than I do.
You have a predisposition to believe government leaders are Evil, and then you look for anything that'll support that view.
It's an unfortunate downside of living in countries that allow freedom of the press that wherever there's a market, there will be someone willing to provide a product, and the paranoid lunatic fringe is a ready market for any book that vilifies the government.
"Blah, blah, blah, >> irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> another irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> Dark Innuendo <<, blah, blah, >> Sinister Plot <<,..."
There are lots of out-of-work writers out there who have no original ideas for novels, and aren't photogenic enough for CNN who have to pay the bills somehow, and this is the cr@p they peddle. (They don't pay enough for porn movie scripts to support anybody.)
You'll always be able to find what you're looking for, especially if you're looking for Evil in governments. The very definition of Evil is thwarted Free Will, and government policies often do thwart peoples' Free Will. More often than you're willing to believe, though, the governments find themselves in positions where doing nothing would be worse than any reasonable action they can think of, and they take the least-evil of all their options. When innocent/ignorant/naive (pick one) people see the policy they've chosen, they conveniently ignore the governments other options that weren't picked, including *doing nothing*, the consequences of which would *still* be theirs. (Read my signature, below.)
Yes, FDR knew ahead of time about Pearl Harbor. He had directed the installation of an early-warning Radar system on Hawaii that was supposed to detect the incoming attack in time to alert the fleet. The fleet, alerted, would've been more than capable of defending itself against the Japanese attack, so it was thought that they'd be throwing the first punch in a fight and getting their heads torn off immediately, with a full-rout of the Japanese fleet to follow. One problem, nobody bothered giving the radar operator the means of generating a General Alert. He had no Big Red Button. This was a "snafu", a detail that dumb people overlooked, not understanding the vital nature of the problem. Why didn't FDR tell everyone about what he knew ahead of time? Two reasons: 1) We'd broken the Japanese Imperial Naval Code, which was a strategic advantage we had in the coming war, and the secret wasn't ours to tell. It was derived from the Nazi Enigma cypher, which the British had broken and were still using in the European theater. If we let it be known that we were reading their coded messages, the Nazis would've figured out how and changed their cyphers, leaving Britain at a disadvantage. 2) The agent who brought the Pearl Harbor documents to the FBI was a British double-agent, recruited by the Nazis and turned by the British, and that, too, was a strategic secret of the British over the Nazis, not our secret to tell.
Incidentally, the value of the secrets led our side to victory over the Nazis, otherwise you'd be living in a country that was *actually* as fascist as you think Sweden is. Specifically, knowing the Japanese code helped us win at Midway. Rent the movie, it's fairly accurate, except that it downplays the ability of our codebreakers to decipher their transmissions for added dramatic effect.
"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence."
Do you know the name of the agent who passed the German Intelligence document concerning Pearl Harbor to the FBI, who at the FBI accepted it, and why the contents of the document were ignored (overtly)?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then you're just assuming you know more history than I do.
You have a predisposition to believe government leaders are Evil, and then you look for anything that'll support that view.
It's an unfortunate downside of living in countries that allow freedom of the press that wherever there's a market, there will be someone willing to provide a product, and the paranoid lunatic fringe is a ready market for any book that vilifies the government.
"Blah, blah, blah, >> irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> another irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> Dark Innuendo <<, blah, blah, >> Sinister Plot <<,..."
There are lots of out-of-work writers out there who have no original ideas for novels, and aren't photogenic enough for CNN who have to pay the bills somehow, and this is the cr@p they peddle. (They don't pay enough for porn movie scripts to support anybody.)
You'll always be able to find what you're looking for, especially if you're looking for Evil in governments. The very definition of Evil is thwarted Free Will, and government policies often do thwart peoples' Free Will. More often than you're willing to believe, though, the governments find themselves in positions where doing nothing would be worse than any reasonable action they can think of, and they take the least-evil of all their options. When innocent/ignorant/naive (pick one) people see the policy they've chosen, they conveniently ignore the governments other options that weren't picked, including *doing nothing*, the consequences of which would *still* be theirs. (Read my signature, below.)
Yes, FDR knew ahead of time about Pearl Harbor. He had directed the installation of an early-warning Radar system on Hawaii that was supposed to detect the incoming attack in time to alert the fleet. The fleet, alerted, would've been more than capable of defending itself against the Japanese attack, so it was thought that they'd be throwing the first punch in a fight and getting their heads torn off immediately, with a full-rout of the Japanese fleet to follow. One problem, nobody bothered giving the radar operator the means of generating a General Alert. He had no Big Red Button. This was a "snafu", a detail that dumb people overlooked, not understanding the vital nature of the problem. Why didn't FDR tell everyone about what he knew ahead of time? Two reasons: 1) We'd broken the Japanese Imperial Naval Code, which was a strategic advantage we had in the coming war, and the secret wasn't ours to tell. It was derived from the Nazi Enigma cypher, which the British had broken and were still using in the European theater. If we let it be known that we were reading their coded messages, the Nazis would've figured out how and changed their cyphers, leaving Britain at a disadvantage. 2) The agent who brought the Pearl Harbor documents to the FBI was a British double-agent, recruited by the Nazis and turned by the British, and that, too, was a strategic secret of the British over the Nazis, not our secret to tell.
Incidentally, the value of the secrets led our side to victory over the Nazis, otherwise you'd be living in a country that was *actually* as fascist as you think Sweden is. Specifically, knowing the Japanese code helped us win at Midway. Rent the movie, it's fairly accurate, except that it downplays the ability of our codebreakers to decipher their transmissions for added dramatic effect.
"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence."
QUOTE
American Military-Industrial Complex and therefore it would have been for our benefit and protection. You'd be nuts to think otherwise.
There has always been a Military-Industrial Complex and there still is. And it is not for your protection. They are doing america to a police state. Read history and find out that america has been taken over by europe a long time ago.
[removed]
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 10:59 AM)
i will help you take your country back when the time comes
No thanks Moe, I'd be surprised if you could take back your blanky from the other kids at daycare.
Arthur
No thanks Moe, I'd be surprised if you could take back your blanky from the other kids at daycare.
Arthur
[removed]
Daru
Unfortunately, those of us without x-ray vision are not so sure. FEMA was wrong on several points, it took the NIST investigation to show what ALL the evidence led to, to the limits of the evidence and current technology. The NIST reports are, as usual, free from politics and strictly adhere to the science. It may not be perfect, detail changes are still likely, but it stands unchallenged as the best understanding of what led to collapse. I don't BELIEVE it is infallible, I just accept that it is our best understanding of the tower's collapse as exists today.
And since when does..."one or more failures in the central core area"...equal..."the INNER CORE failed first"...??? Work on that reading comprehension a little, OK???
Malmoesoldier
Unfortunately, those of us without x-ray vision are not so sure. FEMA was wrong on several points, it took the NIST investigation to show what ALL the evidence led to, to the limits of the evidence and current technology. The NIST reports are, as usual, free from politics and strictly adhere to the science. It may not be perfect, detail changes are still likely, but it stands unchallenged as the best understanding of what led to collapse. I don't BELIEVE it is infallible, I just accept that it is our best understanding of the tower's collapse as exists today.
And since when does..."one or more failures in the central core area"...equal..."the INNER CORE failed first"...??? Work on that reading comprehension a little, OK???
Malmoesoldier
When they want to plant a chip in your head, plant a bullet in their head.
Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.
Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer
Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption
(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
Paranoia, the destroyer
Destroyer, The Kinks 196_something
Grumpy
Many americans already have a chip in their body. And they want to make america so every body has it and so you wont pay anything with cash anymore, just with the chip. And they have said in the news that they want to plant it in your BRAIN. You dont know what you are talking about. Zombie
And the molten iron still dont matter right? it was just a tiny sphere.
Malmoesoldier
I would be surprised if you could stand up after i had punched your head of. Go and make out with mark roberts. You will be in a fema camp in some years with a chip in your body
Is this guy retarded?
Clearly.
I would be surprised if you could stand up after i had punched your head of. Go and make out with mark roberts. You will be in a fema camp in some years with a chip in your body
I was hoping this forum would present a much higher calibre of thought in individuals on both sides of the issue. It appears however that the CT camp is infested with sub par intellect in any forum, in any country. Couldn't we refrain from rhetoric and name calling here of all places?
Incidentally, at the present rate of development in nanotechnology and encryption, undetectable tracking of the populous is plausible in the very near future. To what ends has yet to be determined. As a reputable citizen I applaud the efforts. I have always maintained that "the chip" (an outdated term already, certainly some sort scanning that identifies genetic markers is more imaginative) would alleviate much of the stress in day to day life. No more waiting in lines, no more back pain from asymmetrical spinal alignment attributed to wallets, no more forgetting tickets to the theatre, the list of benefits goes on and on. And at what cost of freedom? I contend that freedom from the tedium associated with the current system of personal identification far outweighs the possibility the "government" knowing if I prefer boxers to briefs or coke to pepsi. And in the worst case scenario, being able to check in to FEMA death camps early and unannounced, guaranteeing a Queen size bed and a court yard view at the swipe of a hand does have its benefits.
MalmoStooge -
It's rhetoric like this that justified the existence of the Patriot Act.
It's the existence of loud-mouth ideologues like yourself that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that we need to allow the government the Special Powers they need to protect us from you wild-eyed fanatics.
By your posting this sort of raving lunacy, you're providing the government will all the justification it needs to become the embodiment of all you claim it to be.
You're playing into their hands, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
STFU.
MalmoStooge -
It's rhetoric like this that justified the existence of the Patriot Act.
nothing justifies the patriot act.
go live in north korea if you like totalitarianism.
mind you, i do agree that violence and threats of violence will only make the man say, 'MAKE MY DAY, .....punk'.
Actually, explosives would be the worst way to explain it. Explosives aren't that energetic, they're powerful, which means they dump their energy in a very short period of time. I ran across a physics homework question yesterday (I'll look for it) where the question was "Which has more energy, 100gm of dynamite or 100gm of jelly donut?", and the answer was, the jelly donut, by a large factor.
If you tried to calculate how much explosives it'd take to blow stuff that far out, it'd be measured in scores of tons of explosives.
On the other hand, the energy of a collapsing floor acting like a bellows will generate a lot of high-pressure air going radially outward, taking all sorts of stuff with it. Compare the potential energy of the falling upper sections of the towers with the equivalent explosive yield, and it'll become obvious that it was the potential energy of the falling floors that forced the debris to fall that far away.
Also, please take one stance or the other, thermate isn't an explosive - it doesn't go BANG!, it doesn't accelerate debris - It's an energetic chemical reaction that releases that energy on the order of seconds, not microseconds or milliseconds. No BANG! with thermite/thermate.
So please pick one, and when we debunk that, accept your loss graciously instead of continuously changing the CD scenario to something else every time we shoot holes in the latest version.
So please pick one, and when we debunk that, accept your loss graciously instead of continuously changing the CD scenario to something else every time we shoot holes in the latest version.
Never going to happen.
The Troofers ORIGINAL CONCLUSION from the begining was that it had to be a CD because the towers fell AS FAST AS FREEFALL.
When we showed that it didn't fall nearly as fast as freefall they didn't say: "Oh my CONCLUSION was wrong, I guess it doesn't have to be CD" they simply started looking for something ELSE that could possibly support their CONCLUSION.
We've been through pyroclastic clouds, suitcase nukes, Beam weapons, Pods on plane, rays from helocopters, C4 built into the structure when the towers went up, fires that were not that hot, damage that was not that bad, NIST & FEMA were "In on It" etc etc
We've debunked one after another of these for several years on this forum alone, but NO MATTER, they would simply search out YET ANOTHER way to try to JUSTIFY their ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So CLEARLY, they are NOT looking for the TRUTH.
Arthur
You haven't debunked my Invisible Godzilla theory yet.
Hey, Daru - You're changing the subject. What was it, thermate or explosives?
Pick an answer, any answer, and when we blow it out of the water, have the decency to admit you're wrong.
Pull the other one Daru.
Arthur
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
No such luck. NBA playoffs....
However:
The following is not polished, and I speak of Greening's previously stated figures as though they were assumed in the case of BLGB. The following is an edited version of comments I started writing over the weekend. Also, Greening has already stated that he did not mention Calladine and English to Bazant.
Comments on BLGB
From p.8:
delta_kappa = gamma (m_c * m) / (m_c + m) * v_1**2/2
where we inserted a positive empirical coefficient gamma (<=1), which gives the estimated fraction of kinetic energy that is available for comminutioin of concrete slab. In theory, the kinetic energy of ejected fragments, and the crushing of all the contents of each floor including gypsum, carbohydrates, equipment, furniture, etc., also contribute to energy dissipation and should be covered by coefiicient gamma, but theri contributions are doubtless minor. Therefore we later assume that gamma = 1, which gives the maximum possible crush-down deceleratation due to comminution.
In other words, assume kinetic energy can be utilized as in a pancaking type collapse. Or, if you prefer, there really was a (presumably invisible and geometrically unimaginable) "ball mill" process at work.
The interpretation of the seismic graph with their notion of crush-down/crush-up is interesting, though hardly convincing. Even if the tops are crushed-up well before the reach ground level (as seems almost obvious from at least one of videos), of course they will get further compacted as they slam into the ground.
However, (and I feel like a dummy for not thinking of this earlier and apologies if it's been discussed earlier), looking at diagram 6b), I wonder what can the seismic record tell us about energy transference through the building? Doesn't it, in fact, give us a way to empirically determine Wd??? (used in equation (4)) Since the building didn't fail, for the most part, via buckling failures, the continued use of Wp by Bazant, et. al, is, well, how should I put this?, not confidence-inspiring. However, let's ignore this objection, for the moment, and instead consider Wp to be valid. If we can get an accurate value of power output from the seismic record, should this just equal, at any given time before "crush up", KE(t) - Wd??
If so, then we have a way to test the Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson theory, using a quantifiable observable other than just speed of collapse.
Furthermore, as I mentioned recently, I suspect that BLGB didn't investigate this, as I believe it bodes very ill for their imaginative, yet limited, theory.
BTW, from my layman's perspective, the seismic graphs suggest a fragility to the building. Whether induced (i.e., CD) or "natural" (Bazant, et.al.), one can't tell just from looking at the seismic record. However, it seems clear to me that,
1) if we assume that the ability to transmit energy varies linearly with the ability to absorb energy, then the uncrushed building is absorbing energy in a way that is 'mostly' constant wrt time (until impact of the initial free falling matter, which BLGB claim is the beginning of "crush up")
2) as energy varies not linearly with amplitude, but rather something like amplitude squared, we can see that energy transmitted into the ground during so-called "crush down" is rather trivial compared to so-called "crush up". I have done a screen capture of BLGB's Figure 6b.Comparing peak to trough before crush up, and 2nd trough to 3rd peak after crush up, I get a ratio of 80 pixels/ 13 pixels (at 7x magnification), or 6.15x. So energy transferred through the building during "crush down" is only something like 3% of the KE transferred during "crush up"
Furthermore, I will guess that
3) energy transference into seismic waves during "crush down" was at a faster rate than energy transference into, but not through, the building itself (i.e., energy expended in causing elastic and plastic strain). I'm really on shaky groung here (pun intended!), but this does seem somewhat intuitive.
(At this point, it's perhaps worth noting that 3) above is somewhat similar to chainsaw's claim that a lot of energy is dissipated as sound. IIRC, he reasoned by analogy with striking a bell. However, what I suspect is that the correct "bell" is not the building, but rather the earth that the building is resting upon. Also, if you try and pound a nail into concrete, and only bend it slightly and chip the concrete a bit, where does the energy from the hammer impacts go? I suspect they go into pressure waves in the concrete, eventually degenerating into heat. Or, if you like, sound waves in concrete (metamars), not sound waves in air (chainsaw?) )
If 1), 2), and 3) pan out as I expect, then we not only observe that the a] building is absorbing elastic and plastic strain energy at a constant rate, but also b] we can also put some kind of uppper bound on it.
a] would require that the energy needed to collapse each floor decrease as the collapse progressed during "crush down" (i.e., was less at lower floors), which is quite the opposite of reality. If b] is true, then we can roughly estimate that the energy needed to collapse each floor during "crush down" will be at most {3% of KE during "crush up" / (84 floors) }, which is roughly (using Greening's figures)*:
{3% x (10^^12 J)} / 84 =
357,142,857 J ~.4GJ
This is roughly in accord with Greening's .6GJ esitmate.
However, by the time the collapse front reaches ground level, and "crush up" commences, the speed of the collapse front is more than an order of magnitude greater. In other words, in the same unit of time, we are collapsing (say) 10x as many floors, and yet the rate at which energy is dissipated to accomplish this is roughly constant. Consequently, we get an upper bound of .04GJ per floor, which is completely inconsistent with Greening's .6GJ.
From p. 13:
In other words, assume kinetic energy can be utilized as in a pancaking type collapse. Or, if you prefer, there really was a (presumably invisible and geometrically unimaginable) "ball mill" process at work.
The interpretation of the seismic graph with their notion of crush-down/crush-up is interesting, though hardly convincing. Even if the tops are crushed-up well before the reach ground level (as seems almost obvious from at least one of videos), of course they will get further compacted as they slam into the ground.
However, (and I feel like a dummy for not thinking of this earlier and apologies if it's been discussed earlier), looking at diagram 6b), I wonder what can the seismic record tell us about energy transference through the building? Doesn't it, in fact, give us a way to empirically determine Wd??? (used in equation (4)) Since the building didn't fail, for the most part, via buckling failures, the continued use of Wp by Bazant, et. al, is, well, how should I put this?, not confidence-inspiring. However, let's ignore this objection, for the moment, and instead consider Wp to be valid. If we can get an accurate value of power output from the seismic record, should this just equal, at any given time before "crush up", KE(t) - Wd??
If so, then we have a way to test the Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson theory, using a quantifiable observable other than just speed of collapse.
Furthermore, as I mentioned recently, I suspect that BLGB didn't investigate this, as I believe it bodes very ill for their imaginative, yet limited, theory.
BTW, from my layman's perspective, the seismic graphs suggest a fragility to the building. Whether induced (i.e., CD) or "natural" (Bazant, et.al.), one can't tell just from looking at the seismic record. However, it seems clear to me that,
1) if we assume that the ability to transmit energy varies linearly with the ability to absorb energy, then the uncrushed building is absorbing energy in a way that is 'mostly' constant wrt time (until impact of the initial free falling matter, which BLGB claim is the beginning of "crush up")
2) as energy varies not linearly with amplitude, but rather something like amplitude squared, we can see that energy transmitted into the ground during so-called "crush down" is rather trivial compared to so-called "crush up". I have done a screen capture of BLGB's Figure 6b.Comparing peak to trough before crush up, and 2nd trough to 3rd peak after crush up, I get a ratio of 80 pixels/ 13 pixels (at 7x magnification), or 6.15x. So energy transferred through the building during "crush down" is only something like 3% of the KE transferred during "crush up"
Furthermore, I will guess that
3) energy transference into seismic waves during "crush down" was at a faster rate than energy transference into, but not through, the building itself (i.e., energy expended in causing elastic and plastic strain). I'm really on shaky groung here (pun intended!), but this does seem somewhat intuitive.
(At this point, it's perhaps worth noting that 3) above is somewhat similar to chainsaw's claim that a lot of energy is dissipated as sound. IIRC, he reasoned by analogy with striking a bell. However, what I suspect is that the correct "bell" is not the building, but rather the earth that the building is resting upon. Also, if you try and pound a nail into concrete, and only bend it slightly and chip the concrete a bit, where does the energy from the hammer impacts go? I suspect they go into pressure waves in the concrete, eventually degenerating into heat. Or, if you like, sound waves in concrete (metamars), not sound waves in air (chainsaw?) )
If 1), 2), and 3) pan out as I expect, then we not only observe that the a] building is absorbing elastic and plastic strain energy at a constant rate, but also b] we can also put some kind of uppper bound on it.
a] would require that the energy needed to collapse each floor decrease as the collapse progressed during "crush down" (i.e., was less at lower floors), which is quite the opposite of reality. If b] is true, then we can roughly estimate that the energy needed to collapse each floor during "crush down" will be at most {3% of KE during "crush up" / (84 floors) }, which is roughly (using Greening's figures)*:
{3% x (10^^12 J)} / 84 =
357,142,857 J ~.4GJ
This is roughly in accord with Greening's .6GJ esitmate.
However, by the time the collapse front reaches ground level, and "crush up" commences, the speed of the collapse front is more than an order of magnitude greater. In other words, in the same unit of time, we are collapsing (say) 10x as many floors, and yet the rate at which energy is dissipated to accomplish this is roughly constant. Consequently, we get an upper bound of .04GJ per floor, which is completely inconsistent with Greening's .6GJ.
From p. 13:
The belief that the towers collapsed at the rate of free fall has been the main argument of the critics claiming controlled demolitioin by planted explosives.
(emphasis mine)
This is incorrect, as stated. Certainly, it's true of some critics (we'll assume they meant "free fall" considering wind resistance), but not true of Hoffman and myself, e.g.
There is not even mention in this paper of dynamic effects as studied by Calladine and English, and the ignoring of the body of literature devoted to impacts by papers co-authored by Bazant continues. Since two of his co-authors have known for months about these studies, this is, well, not impressive. Should we assume that they will now focus on this? Instead, of course, we are told that KE > 8.4 Wc (1) - which is a result which ignores dynamic effects ala CE.
Also, Greening and Benson should be aware that their mysterious "ball mill" process (inferred from gamma = 1) is not taken seriously, at least by laymen on this board. One wonders if they even conveyed these objections to Bazant. After all, he may know something along these lines that they don't.
Did they? If not, why not ask him, now? It's good to see that concrete comminution is not being ignored. Why not nail down your arguments wrt rather obvious objections, if you can? And why ignore these long-standing objections? Is it because you didnt' even attempt to solve them, or because you did and didn't like what you found out?
Finally, I suggest that researchers investigate whether or not practitioners of CD have it as a design goal to make sure that buildings are collapsed in a manner such that they can absorb a constant level of converted Kinetic Energy, and that they do absorb a constant amount of kinetic energy. The former implies (I think) cutting columns in a non-time critical fashion (before the CD proper, so to speak). The latter implies (again, I think) precisely timing the destruction of columns in an accelerating, and sequential fashion.
* I've taken the widths of the "crush down" seismic wave train and that of the "crush down" seismic wave train to be equal.
I think I described, without the mathematics, a similar process by which the concrete floors would've been crushed as a natural consequence of the collapse.
The terms "pancaking" and "bageling" are idealized notions of what might've happened if the building was empty and collapsed symmetrically, but in the actual situation, each floor had plenty of furniture, partitions, filing cabinets, desks, bookshelves, etc., each of which would've tended to concentrate the loads on both the falling upper floor(s) and the lower floor. Contact wouldn't have been "flat", but the falling floors would've been broken into random chunks by the nonuniform distribution of impact stresses, all of which would've been far beyond their design load. Fragmentation of all the concrete should be the expected result.
As each floor collapsed in-turn, this process would've been repeated and the resultant concrete fragments could only have fragmented further, each fracture resulting in some significant fraction of pulverization of the concrete chunks, both of the concrete below being impacted at random by the falling debris and the concrete of the floor below, so the chunks would've been made into smaller and smaller chunks and more and more dust as each floor gave way.
Continue this process for dozens of floors and you get a massive amount of concrete dust being ejected with the gale-force winds getting shot out in all directions as the 20 tons (approximately) of air is forced out of the way of the falling debris.
While the "ball-mill" process itself might be difficult to visualize, it's easy to see how a significant fraction of the concrete would've been turned to dust in this process of chunks getting broken into progressively smaller chunks plus dust, especially considering the fact that as the collapse progressed, the falling mass would be increasing floor-by-floor and accelerating floor-by-floor.
wcelliott has a hard time speaking the truth. Tell it like it is
They planed to kill americans in operation northwoods and hijack planes.
They knew that the Japanese was attacking pearl harbor and let it happen
And when america ordered an attack on their own ship uss liberty, president Johnson said "I want that damn ship going to the bottom" When he got a call from the crew that wanted help. And that the crew was going to spend life in prison or being killed if they told anybody what happened
NWO, Prescott bush helped hitlers rise to power.
The anthrax letters came from military labs in america.
Criminals run the banks and there are no law to pay an income tax and the money goes to their privet bank.
CIA created/funded al-quida. And bin laden has nothing to do with al-quida like the government was saying just some hours after the 9-11 attack.
There are 1000 more things they have done.
The NWO is about peace?. Thats why they want to make the population of the earth from 6 billion to just some millions?. And doing the world to a police state?. Thats why they kill kids and Innocent people and have pedophiles amongst theme and are the biggest drug dealers on earth. And BUSH and the NWO is NOT america so stop calling them america. america has been taken over by Europe, There has been an criminal government inside the government long before Kennedy, kennedy warned us about them. George washington admitted that illuminati had come to america, so they have always been in power.
And i still wonder if that molten iron sphere doesnt matter?
I wonder where that 1538C temp came from
And was it jet fuel that destroyed the basement?
They planed to kill americans in operation northwoods and hijack planes.
They knew that the Japanese was attacking pearl harbor and let it happen
And when america ordered an attack on their own ship uss liberty, president Johnson said "I want that damn ship going to the bottom" When he got a call from the crew that wanted help. And that the crew was going to spend life in prison or being killed if they told anybody what happened
NWO, Prescott bush helped hitlers rise to power.
The anthrax letters came from military labs in america.
Criminals run the banks and there are no law to pay an income tax and the money goes to their privet bank.
CIA created/funded al-quida. And bin laden has nothing to do with al-quida like the government was saying just some hours after the 9-11 attack.
There are 1000 more things they have done.
The NWO is about peace?. Thats why they want to make the population of the earth from 6 billion to just some millions?. And doing the world to a police state?. Thats why they kill kids and Innocent people and have pedophiles amongst theme and are the biggest drug dealers on earth. And BUSH and the NWO is NOT america so stop calling them america. america has been taken over by Europe, There has been an criminal government inside the government long before Kennedy, kennedy warned us about them. George washington admitted that illuminati had come to america, so they have always been in power.
And i still wonder if that molten iron sphere doesnt matter?
I wonder where that 1538C temp came from
And was it jet fuel that destroyed the basement?
YAWN
Wake me up when he posts something interesting.
Arthur
QUOTE
It is obvious, based on evidence, videos and photos, that the INNER CORE failed first. Fema even admit it... it was so obvious. But how ? Cutter charges ? Most likely.
"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
And nist explain nothing. They just popped up with a magically 50 plus inches truss sagging...and after that, ran a mile away from it all.
"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
And nist explain nothing. They just popped up with a magically 50 plus inches truss sagging...and after that, ran a mile away from it all.
Unfortunately, those of us without x-ray vision are not so sure. FEMA was wrong on several points, it took the NIST investigation to show what ALL the evidence led to, to the limits of the evidence and current technology. The NIST reports are, as usual, free from politics and strictly adhere to the science. It may not be perfect, detail changes are still likely, but it stands unchallenged as the best understanding of what led to collapse. I don't BELIEVE it is infallible, I just accept that it is our best understanding of the tower's collapse as exists today.
And since when does..."one or more failures in the central core area"...equal..."the INNER CORE failed first"...??? Work on that reading comprehension a little, OK???
Malmoesoldier
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is obvious, based on evidence, videos and photos, that the INNER CORE failed first. Fema even admit it... it was so obvious. But how ? Cutter charges ? Most likely. "This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.) And nist explain nothing. They just popped up with a magically 50 plus inches truss sagging...and after that, ran a mile away from it all. |
Unfortunately, those of us without x-ray vision are not so sure. FEMA was wrong on several points, it took the NIST investigation to show what ALL the evidence led to, to the limits of the evidence and current technology. The NIST reports are, as usual, free from politics and strictly adhere to the science. It may not be perfect, detail changes are still likely, but it stands unchallenged as the best understanding of what led to collapse. I don't BELIEVE it is infallible, I just accept that it is our best understanding of the tower's collapse as exists today.
And since when does..."one or more failures in the central core area"...equal..."the INNER CORE failed first"...??? Work on that reading comprehension a little, OK???
Malmoesoldier
When they want to plant a chip in your head, plant a bullet in their head.
Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Theres a time device inside of me, Im a self-destructin man
Theres a red, under my bed
And theres a little green man in my head
And he said, youre not goin crazy, youre just a bit sad
cause theres a man in ya, knawin ya, tearin ya into two.
Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer
Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy friends, destroy yourself
The time device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption
(yea, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
Paranoia, the destroyer
Destroyer, The Kinks 196_something
Grumpy
QUOTE
Dr. dr. help me please, I know youll understand
Many americans already have a chip in their body. And they want to make america so every body has it and so you wont pay anything with cash anymore, just with the chip. And they have said in the news that they want to plant it in your BRAIN. You dont know what you are talking about. Zombie
And the molten iron still dont matter right? it was just a tiny sphere.
Malmoesoldier
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 04:12 PM)
I would be surprised if you could stand up after i had punched your head of. Go and make out with mark roberts. You will be in a fema camp in some years with a chip in your body
Is this guy retarded?
QUOTE
Is this guy retarded?
Clearly.
Pierre-Normand:
Thanks for your very interesting post. I am not really sure that we "double-dipped" an energy term in our paper. I need to look into your line of reasoning in more detail, but I think this issue needs to be addressed for sure!
Thanks for your very interesting post. I am not really sure that we "double-dipped" an energy term in our paper. I need to look into your line of reasoning in more detail, but I think this issue needs to be addressed for sure!
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 04:12 PM)
I would be surprised if you could stand up after i had punched your head of. Go and make out with mark roberts. You will be in a fema camp in some years with a chip in your body
I was hoping this forum would present a much higher calibre of thought in individuals on both sides of the issue. It appears however that the CT camp is infested with sub par intellect in any forum, in any country. Couldn't we refrain from rhetoric and name calling here of all places?
Incidentally, at the present rate of development in nanotechnology and encryption, undetectable tracking of the populous is plausible in the very near future. To what ends has yet to be determined. As a reputable citizen I applaud the efforts. I have always maintained that "the chip" (an outdated term already, certainly some sort scanning that identifies genetic markers is more imaginative) would alleviate much of the stress in day to day life. No more waiting in lines, no more back pain from asymmetrical spinal alignment attributed to wallets, no more forgetting tickets to the theatre, the list of benefits goes on and on. And at what cost of freedom? I contend that freedom from the tedium associated with the current system of personal identification far outweighs the possibility the "government" knowing if I prefer boxers to briefs or coke to pepsi. And in the worst case scenario, being able to check in to FEMA death camps early and unannounced, guaranteeing a Queen size bed and a court yard view at the swipe of a hand does have its benefits.
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 11:41 AM)
But inspection of Ground Zero shows little buckling as envisioned in BZ's paper. Therefore, why not forget about his paper, and approach, entirely?
Well, I do, but I'm hardly in a position to suggest this to Professor Bazant.
At least just yet.
Do recall that B & Z was written just days after the events, before thorough analysis of all the videos, etc.
Professor Emeritus Simitses has been doing structural analysis for a long time. C & E is about impacts and my analysis, based on average DCRs for WTC 1, assumes large loads, but no impacts until after a three story drop, at which point there is so much excess KE that detailed studies are pointless.
To check the safety factor against column buckling, go to the efunda.com column buckling calcualtor and follow the instructions. I've posted about this calculator several times previously.
Well, I do, but I'm hardly in a position to suggest this to Professor Bazant.
At least just yet.Do recall that B & Z was written just days after the events, before thorough analysis of all the videos, etc.
Professor Emeritus Simitses has been doing structural analysis for a long time. C & E is about impacts and my analysis, based on average DCRs for WTC 1, assumes large loads, but no impacts until after a three story drop, at which point there is so much excess KE that detailed studies are pointless.
To check the safety factor against column buckling, go to the efunda.com column buckling calcualtor and follow the instructions. I've posted about this calculator several times previously.
[removed]
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 7 2007, 05:13 PM)
Pierre-Normand:
Thanks for your very interesting post. I am not really sure that we "double-dipped" an energy term in our paper. I need to look into your line of reasoning in more detail, but I think this issue needs to be addressed for sure!
You're welcome NEU-FONZE,
What ought to be the gist of the argument -- which I might not have succeeded into making very salient -- is that the simplified form of eq. (2) in BLGB where F_c = 0 (and where stretch has whatever value) propagates the crush-down front in accordance with the discrete momentum transfer analysis. We can picture a tower constituted of one million very thin floors spaced a distance dz (h/1,000,000) apart, which oppose no other resistance to impact but inertia. The accretion of mass is thus the result of a series of perfectly inelastic collisions that are by their very nature energy dissipating as the paper show in the "Energy Available for Concrete Comminution" section. This part of the paper only assumes momentum conservation and does not add any external resistive force other than that provided by inertia of the lower floors. That was the gist.
The physical significance of F_c in eq. (2) might be understood thus. It corresponds to the (indirect) momentum coupling of the upper block to the ground (whereas mg represents the momentum coupling to the Earth through gravity). Air resistance F_a is genuinely part of F_c because downward momentum lost by the upper block (pressure*time/area) trough expelling air laterally from compacting stories is communicated to the Earth through exerting the same pressure on the lower floors that still are coupled to the lower structure. The same argument can be made, mutatis mutandis, in the case of the force F_b. These are the momentum coupling factors that insure that the Earth/Tower system conserves momentum, however individual components of F_c would be varying over time. It's just Newton's third law acting over time.
The significance of F_m is different because it does not result from any external coupling of the tower. It is rather an internal coupling of different parts of the Tower, since it is defined as the inertial reaction to the internal "pressure" of the Tower at the precise height of the crushing front. Through F_m, some momentum of the upper block + compacted B-Zone gets transfered to the lower floors that are being accreted rather than its being transfered to the ground. This is what eq. (2) demonstrated when F_c is set to zero. But F_m still dissipates energy since compaction of a volume under pressure requires work (which I compute in my previous post to be dm*v^2/2, as should be expected)
Some small contribution of F_c (principally of F_b) also might go into comminuting some concrete inasmuch as the comminution occurs along paths that still provide mechanical coupling of the upper block to the ground. As soon as floors break free from their moorings, however, the totality of the comminution comes from F_m, since only inertia can maintain some pressure at that point.
This issue might have been obscured by an assumption made in p.7 of the paper:
"To separate the calculations of the acceleration of top part due to gravity and its deceleration due to the energy absorbed by inelastic buckling of columns, we may imagine that, during the collapse of each story, the concrete slab is reduced to fragments immediately upon impact by the upper part, and the inelastic buckling of columns follows subsequently."
However, either the structure (Zone A) is able to resists the impacted slab being imparted momentum or it doesn't. If it does then it is component F_b of the resistive force F_c that's doing work and the momentum is transmitted down the structure (it is just as if the slab was an extension of the supporting columns). If on the other hand the lower structure doesn't resist, then it is the inertia of the slab that maintains the pressure and thus does the work. The energy available for comminution is the work of F_m. My previous post treats this qualitatively. I hope this didn't make the argument more obscure than it was.
Thanks for your very interesting post. I am not really sure that we "double-dipped" an energy term in our paper. I need to look into your line of reasoning in more detail, but I think this issue needs to be addressed for sure!
You're welcome NEU-FONZE,
What ought to be the gist of the argument -- which I might not have succeeded into making very salient -- is that the simplified form of eq. (2) in BLGB where F_c = 0 (and where stretch has whatever value) propagates the crush-down front in accordance with the discrete momentum transfer analysis. We can picture a tower constituted of one million very thin floors spaced a distance dz (h/1,000,000) apart, which oppose no other resistance to impact but inertia. The accretion of mass is thus the result of a series of perfectly inelastic collisions that are by their very nature energy dissipating as the paper show in the "Energy Available for Concrete Comminution" section. This part of the paper only assumes momentum conservation and does not add any external resistive force other than that provided by inertia of the lower floors. That was the gist.
The physical significance of F_c in eq. (2) might be understood thus. It corresponds to the (indirect) momentum coupling of the upper block to the ground (whereas mg represents the momentum coupling to the Earth through gravity). Air resistance F_a is genuinely part of F_c because downward momentum lost by the upper block (pressure*time/area) trough expelling air laterally from compacting stories is communicated to the Earth through exerting the same pressure on the lower floors that still are coupled to the lower structure. The same argument can be made, mutatis mutandis, in the case of the force F_b. These are the momentum coupling factors that insure that the Earth/Tower system conserves momentum, however individual components of F_c would be varying over time. It's just Newton's third law acting over time.
The significance of F_m is different because it does not result from any external coupling of the tower. It is rather an internal coupling of different parts of the Tower, since it is defined as the inertial reaction to the internal "pressure" of the Tower at the precise height of the crushing front. Through F_m, some momentum of the upper block + compacted B-Zone gets transfered to the lower floors that are being accreted rather than its being transfered to the ground. This is what eq. (2) demonstrated when F_c is set to zero. But F_m still dissipates energy since compaction of a volume under pressure requires work (which I compute in my previous post to be dm*v^2/2, as should be expected)
Some small contribution of F_c (principally of F_b) also might go into comminuting some concrete inasmuch as the comminution occurs along paths that still provide mechanical coupling of the upper block to the ground. As soon as floors break free from their moorings, however, the totality of the comminution comes from F_m, since only inertia can maintain some pressure at that point.
This issue might have been obscured by an assumption made in p.7 of the paper:
"To separate the calculations of the acceleration of top part due to gravity and its deceleration due to the energy absorbed by inelastic buckling of columns, we may imagine that, during the collapse of each story, the concrete slab is reduced to fragments immediately upon impact by the upper part, and the inelastic buckling of columns follows subsequently."
However, either the structure (Zone A) is able to resists the impacted slab being imparted momentum or it doesn't. If it does then it is component F_b of the resistive force F_c that's doing work and the momentum is transmitted down the structure (it is just as if the slab was an extension of the supporting columns). If on the other hand the lower structure doesn't resist, then it is the inertia of the slab that maintains the pressure and thus does the work. The energy available for comminution is the work of F_m. My previous post treats this qualitatively. I hope this didn't make the argument more obscure than it was.
QUOTE
Nerve Gas Us All Day We Are Ready To Fight And The People Are Wakeing Up We Are Willing To Spill Our Blood For The Sacrifice
MalmoStooge -
It's rhetoric like this that justified the existence of the Patriot Act.
It's the existence of loud-mouth ideologues like yourself that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that we need to allow the government the Special Powers they need to protect us from you wild-eyed fanatics.
By your posting this sort of raving lunacy, you're providing the government will all the justification it needs to become the embodiment of all you claim it to be.
You're playing into their hands, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
STFU.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 7 2007, 07:32 PM)
MalmoStooge -
It's rhetoric like this that justified the existence of the Patriot Act.
nothing justifies the patriot act.
go live in north korea if you like totalitarianism.
mind you, i do agree that violence and threats of violence will only make the man say, 'MAKE MY DAY, .....punk'.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 7 2007, 06:52 PM)
Do recall that B & Z was written just days after the events, before thorough analysis of all the videos, etc.
Actually, I am going to claim that the collapse in the core of WTC 1 began with one member of each intact column buckling enough to break the connections. That suffices.
NIST steel inventory contains examples of some columns, much lower in the tower, and also in the top block. NIST states they believe the buckling in the top block occurred during crush-up, although they phrase it differently.
Actually, I am going to claim that the collapse in the core of WTC 1 began with one member of each intact column buckling enough to break the connections. That suffices.
NIST steel inventory contains examples of some columns, much lower in the tower, and also in the top block. NIST states they believe the buckling in the top block occurred during crush-up, although they phrase it differently.
Pierre-Normand:
I have forwarded your first post on this topic to Prof. Bazant.
In the meantime I am thinking about your argument in relation to my concrete pulverization calculations as given in my paper on 911Myths. In that paper I consider a breakdown of the energies involved in the collapse of a tower into potential and kinetic contributions from the concrete and the steel. The potential energies are basically the elastic strain energies of the steel and concrete which accumulate in these materials as a result of the impact of the upper (falling) section. This is like compressing a spring up to the point of failure. The kinetic energy terms are created by the release of these strain energies when the steel members and concrete slabs fail. In practice, not all the P.E. is converted to K.E. because of factors such as internal friction; but this can be neglected to a first approximation.
If the initial velocity of impact is vi we may then write a simplified energy balance equation:
½ Mn vi^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^2 + Ed
where,
M1 is the effective mass of the impacted floor.
Mn is the mass of the upper section assumed to consist of n identical floors.
Ed represents the non-kinetic energy decrement associated with the impact.
The various contributions to Ed may be calculated, and since we know v1, Mn and M1 we can calculate vf. This approach does not require any knowledge of which component failed first, etc, since it tacitly assumes that ALL components failed sooner or later and thereby contributed to the energy decrement. It also avoids the complication that sections of steel and concrete moved off after the impact at GREATER velocities than the global average velocity vf. This would tend to slightly under-estimate Ed.... However, the main point is that such an energy balance approach avoids using momentum altogether although momentum may, of course, be calculated once vf has been determined.
Interestingly, I believe Gordon Ross got himself into trouble by mixing momentum and energy in his energy balance calculations.....
I have forwarded your first post on this topic to Prof. Bazant.
In the meantime I am thinking about your argument in relation to my concrete pulverization calculations as given in my paper on 911Myths. In that paper I consider a breakdown of the energies involved in the collapse of a tower into potential and kinetic contributions from the concrete and the steel. The potential energies are basically the elastic strain energies of the steel and concrete which accumulate in these materials as a result of the impact of the upper (falling) section. This is like compressing a spring up to the point of failure. The kinetic energy terms are created by the release of these strain energies when the steel members and concrete slabs fail. In practice, not all the P.E. is converted to K.E. because of factors such as internal friction; but this can be neglected to a first approximation.
If the initial velocity of impact is vi we may then write a simplified energy balance equation:
½ Mn vi^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^2 + Ed
where,
M1 is the effective mass of the impacted floor.
Mn is the mass of the upper section assumed to consist of n identical floors.
Ed represents the non-kinetic energy decrement associated with the impact.
The various contributions to Ed may be calculated, and since we know v1, Mn and M1 we can calculate vf. This approach does not require any knowledge of which component failed first, etc, since it tacitly assumes that ALL components failed sooner or later and thereby contributed to the energy decrement. It also avoids the complication that sections of steel and concrete moved off after the impact at GREATER velocities than the global average velocity vf. This would tend to slightly under-estimate Ed.... However, the main point is that such an energy balance approach avoids using momentum altogether although momentum may, of course, be calculated once vf has been determined.
Interestingly, I believe Gordon Ross got himself into trouble by mixing momentum and energy in his energy balance calculations.....
adoucette.
Gordons awnser to that:
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
QUOTE
He is focused on the inward pulling forces from the sagging trusses, but
they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere
near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the
columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant
and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal
bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns
that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL
SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the
increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and
tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
they were relatively minor, ~ 5kip. These small pull in forces were nowhere
near enough to bend those massive columns. But they DID direct the way the
columns bowed (inward vs outward) and the fact that the columns sagged meant
and created a pull in force meant that the columns lost their horizontal
bracing. Since they sagged on multiple floors this meant you had columns
that were 36 ft long (or longer) supporting increased load with NO LATERAL
SUPPORT.
Ultimately though, the FORCE that bowed in the perimeter columns was the
increased LOAD caused by the load redistribution from the impact damage and
tilt of the towers and the plastic creep (shortening) of the core columns.
Gordons awnser to that:
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
[removed]
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 10:46 PM)
adoucette.
Gordons awnser to that:
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
Are you Gordon? If not, let Gordon come on here and join the discussion.
Gordons awnser to that:
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
Are you Gordon? If not, let Gordon come on here and join the discussion.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jun 7 2007, 05:47 PM)
the Anthrax?
WITH REGARDS TO THE PATRIOT ACT, HERE´S A LITTLE CONTEXT
The anthrax disruption of Congress allowed the US PATRIOT act to pass without it even being read
Regardless, it was not applicable to when it was passed the SECOND time.
Thus the version that we have now was READ and DISCUSSED and CHANGED from that version.
Arthur
WITH REGARDS TO THE PATRIOT ACT, HERE´S A LITTLE CONTEXT
The anthrax disruption of Congress allowed the US PATRIOT act to pass without it even being read
Regardless, it was not applicable to when it was passed the SECOND time.
Thus the version that we have now was READ and DISCUSSED and CHANGED from that version.
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 7 2007, 05:46 PM)
Gordons awnser to that:
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
So Gordon's answer is to build a Strawman?
Typical.
The bow in of the walls were WELL documented.
The ONLY way for the exterior walls to be able to bow in was for the floors to either sag or fall.
If they had FALLEN the bowing in wouldn't have been slowly over time.
But that is EXACTLY what was observed.
Arthur
This is more or less the argument expected. Long on assumption and short on any corroborative physical evidence. Nor does it explain the many separate events and processes that have been identified in the collapse.
An argument that I have heard used is that Osama Bin Laden, having been an engineer would know the best place to hit the towers to bring about their collapse. So using the same argument wouldn't it be logical to assume that his knowledge would have extended to this phenomenon.
So rather than go to all the trouble of finding suicide pilots and aeroplanes, wouldn't it have been easier to rent a floor of office space, place 22 charges on the core to floor connections in the floor and the same number in the ceiling?
Job done.
Gordon.
So Gordon's answer is to build a Strawman?
Typical.
The bow in of the walls were WELL documented.
The ONLY way for the exterior walls to be able to bow in was for the floors to either sag or fall.
If they had FALLEN the bowing in wouldn't have been slowly over time.
But that is EXACTLY what was observed.
Arthur
Deutsche Bank Building (Bankers Trust)
"In 2002, over a year after the attacks, a number of mummified human remains were found inside the building. The remains had been ejected there by the explosions across Liberty Street. Additionally, in September 2005, even more human remains were found on the roof."
wikipedia
WTC Site Map - from September 2001: (Bankers Trust Building nr. 20)
www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
"In 2002, over a year after the attacks, a number of mummified human remains were found inside the building. The remains had been ejected there by the explosions across Liberty Street. Additionally, in September 2005, even more human remains were found on the roof."
wikipedia
WTC Site Map - from September 2001: (Bankers Trust Building nr. 20)
www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 7 2007, 11:07 PM)
Regardless, it was not applicable to when it was passed the SECOND time.
Thus the version that we have now was READ and DISCUSSED and CHANGED from that version.
Arthur
anthrax threats were still applicable.
Thus the version that we have now was READ and DISCUSSED and CHANGED from that version.
Arthur
anthrax threats were still applicable.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 7 2007, 06:41 PM)
anthrax threats were still applicable.
Not to the issue of discussion of the PA prior to passing it, with changes, the second time.
Arthur
Not to the issue of discussion of the PA prior to passing it, with changes, the second time.
Arthur
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 7 2007, 11:41 PM)
Deutsche Bank Building (Bankers Trust)
...
wikipedia
...
Goes to show that Wikipedia, while often a good place to start, often contains some errors.
Use authoritative sources to check it.
...
wikipedia
...
Goes to show that Wikipedia, while often a good place to start, often contains some errors.
Use authoritative sources to check it.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 7 2007, 08:49 PM)
If the initial velocity of impact is vi we may then write a simplified energy balance equation:
½ Mn vi^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^2 + Ed
where,
M1 is the effective mass of the impacted floor.
Mn is the mass of the upper section assumed to consist of n identical floors.
Ed represents the non-kinetic energy decrement associated with the impact.
The various contributions to Ed may be calculated, and since we know v1, Mn and M1 we can calculate vf. This approach does not require any knowledge of which component failed first, etc, since it tacitly assumes that ALL components failed sooner or later and thereby contributed to the energy decrement. It also avoids the complication that sections of steel and concrete moved off after the impact at GREATER velocities than the global average velocity vf. This would tend to slightly under-estimate Ed.... However, the main point is that such an energy balance approach avoids using momentum altogether although momentum may, of course, be calculated once vf has been determined.
I don't see clearly how Ed can be calculated. True: if one knows Ed, one can then calculate vf, and vice-versa. Trough strengthening the structure one would get to the limit where the impacted floor does not fail at all and in that case fv = 0. Ed could then be calculated trivially to be 1/2Mn*vi^2.
Cases approaching the limit vf ~ 0, are cases where I would claim that the energy available for communition mainly comes from F_c (integrated over distance). There is no independent factor F_s in my model. This is because the inertia of the floor plays little role and while the energy is being dissipated as strain in the structure and concrete comminution, most of the momentum is transferred to the structure through elastic waves. Here, most of the energy goes into Ed, at least transiently.
The other extreme case is the case where the structure yields with minimal resistance. In this case, conservation of momentum is the governing factor and all the energy for comminution comes from F_m, the inertial resistance that allows for a pressure buildup during the impact such that compaction of the mass can dissipate energy. (work = (variation of volume) * (pressure)). In this case Ed = 1/2[Mn + M1] vf^2. It is assumed that compaction occurs below the front while the thickness of the B-Zone above is already compacted.
This is closest to the case of the WTC towers where F_c << F_m.
Your approach might work, it seems, if it takes for granted that this latter condition is realized. However, one must not assumed that Ed in itself, expressed as force over distance, has the power to slow down the collapse. This would amount to double counting this part of the energy requirement at the additional cost of not just neglecting but actually violating the law of conservation of momentum. (Moving or falling objects cannot slow down on their own through dissipating their kinetic energies internally!) The energy for concrete comminution might better be viewed as a sink than as a requirement. It is governed by (and does not govern) whatever Ed magnitude happens to be found available, on other firmer grounds such as the analysis of a dynamic free body diagram (the method Bazant and Verdure uses for deriving the continuum model equations).
½ Mn vi^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^2 + Ed
where,
M1 is the effective mass of the impacted floor.
Mn is the mass of the upper section assumed to consist of n identical floors.
Ed represents the non-kinetic energy decrement associated with the impact.
The various contributions to Ed may be calculated, and since we know v1, Mn and M1 we can calculate vf. This approach does not require any knowledge of which component failed first, etc, since it tacitly assumes that ALL components failed sooner or later and thereby contributed to the energy decrement. It also avoids the complication that sections of steel and concrete moved off after the impact at GREATER velocities than the global average velocity vf. This would tend to slightly under-estimate Ed.... However, the main point is that such an energy balance approach avoids using momentum altogether although momentum may, of course, be calculated once vf has been determined.
I don't see clearly how Ed can be calculated. True: if one knows Ed, one can then calculate vf, and vice-versa. Trough strengthening the structure one would get to the limit where the impacted floor does not fail at all and in that case fv = 0. Ed could then be calculated trivially to be 1/2Mn*vi^2.
Cases approaching the limit vf ~ 0, are cases where I would claim that the energy available for communition mainly comes from F_c (integrated over distance). There is no independent factor F_s in my model. This is because the inertia of the floor plays little role and while the energy is being dissipated as strain in the structure and concrete comminution, most of the momentum is transferred to the structure through elastic waves. Here, most of the energy goes into Ed, at least transiently.
The other extreme case is the case where the structure yields with minimal resistance. In this case, conservation of momentum is the governing factor and all the energy for comminution comes from F_m, the inertial resistance that allows for a pressure buildup during the impact such that compaction of the mass can dissipate energy. (work = (variation of volume) * (pressure)). In this case Ed = 1/2[Mn + M1] vf^2. It is assumed that compaction occurs below the front while the thickness of the B-Zone above is already compacted.
This is closest to the case of the WTC towers where F_c << F_m.
Your approach might work, it seems, if it takes for granted that this latter condition is realized. However, one must not assumed that Ed in itself, expressed as force over distance, has the power to slow down the collapse. This would amount to double counting this part of the energy requirement at the additional cost of not just neglecting but actually violating the law of conservation of momentum. (Moving or falling objects cannot slow down on their own through dissipating their kinetic energies internally!) The energy for concrete comminution might better be viewed as a sink than as a requirement. It is governed by (and does not govern) whatever Ed magnitude happens to be found available, on other firmer grounds such as the analysis of a dynamic free body diagram (the method Bazant and Verdure uses for deriving the continuum model equations).
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 7 2007, 06:41 PM)
Deutsche Bank Building (Bankers Trust)
"In 2002, over a year after the attacks, a number of mummified human remains were found inside the building. The remains had been ejected there by the explosions across Liberty Street. Additionally, in September 2005, even more human remains were found on the roof."
wikipedia
WTC Site Map - from September 2001: (Bankers Trust Building nr. 20)
www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
The SOURCE for this information in WIKI is this:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/130li...ty_findings.asp
But the article NEVER mentions EXPLOSIONS, so that was probably snuck in by a Toofer or someone who was careless with their words (remember anyone can edit a Wiki article)
What the REFERENCE said was:
Q: Where have the remains been found?
A: Remains have largely been found in a layer of stone on the roof known as the ballast, and in other areas that would have been exposed to falling debris from the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
Q: Why have more remains been found recently?
A: More remains have been found recently because the searches have been so thorough.
After an increase in the finding of potential human remains during the thorough cleaning of the stone that comprises the roof ballast, the LMDC implemented an even more thorough search plan for the roof, which was derived through meetings and discussions with family members of 9/11 victims, contractors working on site, the FDNY and the OCME.
In early April, the LMDC implemented this new search plan, which included OCME and FDNY personnel, an anthropologist from LMDC’s environmental consulting firm, and retired firefighters joining in the search. The painstaking work of searching every inch of roof ballast is taking place with crews on their hands and knees going through the stone. This has yielded a greater number of findings in recent weeks.
So when we are talking REMAINS we are really talking about TINY FRAGMENTS.
Arthur
"In 2002, over a year after the attacks, a number of mummified human remains were found inside the building. The remains had been ejected there by the explosions across Liberty Street. Additionally, in September 2005, even more human remains were found on the roof."
wikipedia
WTC Site Map - from September 2001: (Bankers Trust Building nr. 20)
www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
The SOURCE for this information in WIKI is this:
http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/130li...ty_findings.asp
But the article NEVER mentions EXPLOSIONS, so that was probably snuck in by a Toofer or someone who was careless with their words (remember anyone can edit a Wiki article)
What the REFERENCE said was:
Q: Where have the remains been found?
A: Remains have largely been found in a layer of stone on the roof known as the ballast, and in other areas that would have been exposed to falling debris from the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
Q: Why have more remains been found recently?
A: More remains have been found recently because the searches have been so thorough.
After an increase in the finding of potential human remains during the thorough cleaning of the stone that comprises the roof ballast, the LMDC implemented an even more thorough search plan for the roof, which was derived through meetings and discussions with family members of 9/11 victims, contractors working on site, the FDNY and the OCME.
In early April, the LMDC implemented this new search plan, which included OCME and FDNY personnel, an anthropologist from LMDC’s environmental consulting firm, and retired firefighters joining in the search. The painstaking work of searching every inch of roof ballast is taking place with crews on their hands and knees going through the stone. This has yielded a greater number of findings in recent weeks.
So when we are talking REMAINS we are really talking about TINY FRAGMENTS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 7 2007, 11:52 PM)
True: if one knows Ed, one can then calculate vf, and vice-versa.
But NEU-FONZE measured the drops for the first few seconds. Hence, v(t) is determinable from this data and then Ed can be estimated.
Indeed, using the B & V crush-down equation with a stretch of 0.14 I obtained a very good estimate of 510 MJ per story for these first few seconds.
But NEU-FONZE measured the drops for the first few seconds. Hence, v(t) is determinable from this data and then Ed can be estimated.
Indeed, using the B & V crush-down equation with a stretch of 0.14 I obtained a very good estimate of 510 MJ per story for these first few seconds.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 8 2007, 12:02 AM)
But NEU-FONZE measured the drops for the first few seconds. Hence, v(t) is determinable from this data and then Ed can be estimated.
Indeed, using the B & V crush-down equation with a stretch of 0.14 I obtained a very good estimate of 510 MJ per story for these first few seconds.
I agree fully.
But it is not this paper that we were discussing. It is Greening's earlier one in which vf, after one floor impact, is calculated as a function of vi, Mn (mass of n floors) and M1 (mass of one floor). This method is based on an energy balance equation and does not rely on conservation of momentum. The contributions of Ed were calculated independently, with no reliance on the observed acceleration either, I believe. I did cut some of the post I was responding to so the context might have been lacking.
*******
On edit: I must make clear that I agree fully with the methodology and main conclusions of the new paper. I think it is a fantastic achievement. I only have this small qualm with the manner of accounting for the concrete comminution energy requirements with the use of an external resistive force F_s that is independent of F_m. I have no doubt that this will be resolved in due time, possibly through fixing some misunderstandings of my own.
*******
Indeed, using the B & V crush-down equation with a stretch of 0.14 I obtained a very good estimate of 510 MJ per story for these first few seconds.
I agree fully.
But it is not this paper that we were discussing. It is Greening's earlier one in which vf, after one floor impact, is calculated as a function of vi, Mn (mass of n floors) and M1 (mass of one floor). This method is based on an energy balance equation and does not rely on conservation of momentum. The contributions of Ed were calculated independently, with no reliance on the observed acceleration either, I believe. I did cut some of the post I was responding to so the context might have been lacking.
*******
On edit: I must make clear that I agree fully with the methodology and main conclusions of the new paper. I think it is a fantastic achievement. I only have this small qualm with the manner of accounting for the concrete comminution energy requirements with the use of an external resistive force F_s that is independent of F_m. I have no doubt that this will be resolved in due time, possibly through fixing some misunderstandings of my own.
*******
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 7 2007, 11:53 PM)
But the article NEVER mentions EXPLOSIONS...
The source was about the human remains, yes. But the only way to explain it is a explosion force. Just look at the area and see how unbelivenble it is. And furthermore if one research the debris field. Most of the mass ejected outside from the tower... Its just a fact. Maybe Hoffman was right when he estimaded that about 80-90% ended up outside the footprint.
www.waarheid911.nl/wtc_explosieven.html
The source was about the human remains, yes. But the only way to explain it is a explosion force. Just look at the area and see how unbelivenble it is. And furthermore if one research the debris field. Most of the mass ejected outside from the tower... Its just a fact. Maybe Hoffman was right when he estimaded that about 80-90% ended up outside the footprint.
www.waarheid911.nl/wtc_explosieven.html
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 8 2007, 12:40 AM)
But it is not this paper that we were discussing. It is Greening's earlier one in which vf, after one floor impact, is calculated as a function of vi, Mn (mass of n floors) and M1 (mass of one floor). This method is based on an energy balance equation and does not rely on conservation of momentum. The contributions of Ed were calculated independently, with no reliance on the observed acceleration either, I believe.
I wasn't sufficiently clear. I could do the same with Greening's new equation to obtain a good estimate of Ed for the first few seconds.
I wasn't sufficiently clear. I could do the same with Greening's new equation to obtain a good estimate of Ed for the first few seconds.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 8 2007, 12:55 AM)
I wasn't sufficiently clear. I could do the same with Greening's new equation to obtain a good estimate of Ed for the first few seconds.
OK. Thank you for this clarification David B. Benson. See also my recent edit to the post above.
OK. Thank you for this clarification David B. Benson. See also my recent edit to the post above.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 8 2007, 12:40 AM)
But the only way to explain it is a explosion force. ...
Most of the mass ejected outside from the tower...
False.
False again.
I recommend you thoroughly read the Debunking 911 site, following the links to other sites and reading those. The sites you have been using are out to confuse you.
Most of the mass ejected outside from the tower...
False.
False again.
I recommend you thoroughly read the Debunking 911 site, following the links to other sites and reading those. The sites you have been using are out to confuse you.
QUOTE (Daru+Jun 7 2007, 07:40 PM)
The source was about the human remains, yes. But the only way to explain it is a explosion force.
Only for those with limited imagination and less knowledge of Physics.
The WTC tower was >1400 ft tall
The Bankers trust building was only 560 ft tall and less than 300 ft away.
No surprise that pieces were found on its roof.
Arthur
Only for those with limited imagination and less knowledge of Physics.
The WTC tower was >1400 ft tall
The Bankers trust building was only 560 ft tall and less than 300 ft away.
No surprise that pieces were found on its roof.
Arthur
Pierre-Normand:
Thanks for all your excellent posts!
This is indeed a very interesting topic and has certainly got me re-thinking a few things.........
Prof. Bazant has told me he is looking into your question and is also very appreciative of your input.
Thanks for all your excellent posts!
This is indeed a very interesting topic and has certainly got me re-thinking a few things.........
Prof. Bazant has told me he is looking into your question and is also very appreciative of your input.
QUOTE
The source was about the human remains, yes. But the only way to explain it is a explosion force.
Actually, explosives would be the worst way to explain it. Explosives aren't that energetic, they're powerful, which means they dump their energy in a very short period of time. I ran across a physics homework question yesterday (I'll look for it) where the question was "Which has more energy, 100gm of dynamite or 100gm of jelly donut?", and the answer was, the jelly donut, by a large factor.
If you tried to calculate how much explosives it'd take to blow stuff that far out, it'd be measured in scores of tons of explosives.
On the other hand, the energy of a collapsing floor acting like a bellows will generate a lot of high-pressure air going radially outward, taking all sorts of stuff with it. Compare the potential energy of the falling upper sections of the towers with the equivalent explosive yield, and it'll become obvious that it was the potential energy of the falling floors that forced the debris to fall that far away.
Also, please take one stance or the other, thermate isn't an explosive - it doesn't go BANG!, it doesn't accelerate debris - It's an energetic chemical reaction that releases that energy on the order of seconds, not microseconds or milliseconds. No BANG! with thermite/thermate.
So please pick one, and when we debunk that, accept your loss graciously instead of continuously changing the CD scenario to something else every time we shoot holes in the latest version.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 8 2007, 01:16 AM)
every time we shoot holes in the latest version.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 7 2007, 08:16 PM)
So please pick one, and when we debunk that, accept your loss graciously instead of continuously changing the CD scenario to something else every time we shoot holes in the latest version.
Never going to happen.
The Troofers ORIGINAL CONCLUSION from the begining was that it had to be a CD because the towers fell AS FAST AS FREEFALL.
When we showed that it didn't fall nearly as fast as freefall they didn't say: "Oh my CONCLUSION was wrong, I guess it doesn't have to be CD" they simply started looking for something ELSE that could possibly support their CONCLUSION.
We've been through pyroclastic clouds, suitcase nukes, Beam weapons, Pods on plane, rays from helocopters, C4 built into the structure when the towers went up, fires that were not that hot, damage that was not that bad, NIST & FEMA were "In on It" etc etc
We've debunked one after another of these for several years on this forum alone, but NO MATTER, they would simply search out YET ANOTHER way to try to JUSTIFY their ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So CLEARLY, they are NOT looking for the TRUTH.
Arthur
QUOTE
We've been through pyroclastic clouds, suitcase nukes, Beam weapons, Pods on plane, rays from helocopters, C4 built into the structure when the towers went up, fires that were not that hot, damage that was not that bad, NIST & FEMA were "In on It" etc etc
You haven't debunked my Invisible Godzilla theory yet.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 8 2007, 01:07 AM)
False.
False again.
I recommend you thoroughly read the Debunking 911 site, following the links to other sites and reading those. The sites you have been using are out to confuse you.
False ? Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, a Berkeley, California-based designer of fireproofed steel-framed buildings, agree with me:
"...Also, almost all of the mass of the building coming down from above was being ejected outside the footprint as it fell..."
stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html
And about the fall time... it was about 12-15 sec... it is what one would expect if he take the air resistance in accont. Obviously no resistance from the structure.
False again.
I recommend you thoroughly read the Debunking 911 site, following the links to other sites and reading those. The sites you have been using are out to confuse you.
False ? Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, a Berkeley, California-based designer of fireproofed steel-framed buildings, agree with me:
"...Also, almost all of the mass of the building coming down from above was being ejected outside the footprint as it fell..."
stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html
And about the fall time... it was about 12-15 sec... it is what one would expect if he take the air resistance in accont. Obviously no resistance from the structure.
QUOTE
And about the fall time...
Hey, Daru - You're changing the subject. What was it, thermate or explosives?
Pick an answer, any answer, and when we blow it out of the water, have the decency to admit you're wrong.
QUOTE
And about the fall time... it was about 12-15 sec... it is what one would expect if he take the air resistance in accont.
Pull the other one Daru.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 7 2007, 08:47 AM)
WRT Pearl Harbor, and who knows more history.
Do you know the name of the agent who passed the German Intelligence document concerning Pearl Harbor to the FBI, who at the FBI accepted it, and why the contents of the document were ignored (overtly)?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then you're just assuming you know more history than I do.
You have a predisposition to believe government leaders are Evil, and then you look for anything that'll support that view.
It's an unfortunate downside of living in countries that allow freedom of the press that wherever there's a market, there will be someone willing to provide a product, and the paranoid lunatic fringe is a ready market for any book that vilifies the government.
"Blah, blah, blah, >> irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> another irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> Dark Innuendo <<, blah, blah, >> Sinister Plot <<,..."
There are lots of out-of-work writers out there who have no original ideas for novels, and aren't photogenic enough for CNN who have to pay the bills somehow, and this is the cr@p they peddle. (They don't pay enough for porn movie scripts to support anybody.)
You'll always be able to find what you're looking for, especially if you're looking for Evil in governments. The very definition of Evil is thwarted Free Will, and government policies often do thwart peoples' Free Will. More often than you're willing to believe, though, the governments find themselves in positions where doing nothing would be worse than any reasonable action they can think of, and they take the least-evil of all their options. When innocent/ignorant/naive (pick one) people see the policy they've chosen, they conveniently ignore the governments other options that weren't picked, including *doing nothing*, the consequences of which would *still* be theirs. (Read my signature, below.)
Yes, FDR knew ahead of time about Pearl Harbor. He had directed the installation of an early-warning Radar system on Hawaii that was supposed to detect the incoming attack in time to alert the fleet. The fleet, alerted, would've been more than capable of defending itself against the Japanese attack, so it was thought that they'd be throwing the first punch in a fight and getting their heads torn off immediately, with a full-rout of the Japanese fleet to follow. One problem, nobody bothered giving the radar operator the means of generating a General Alert. He had no Big Red Button. This was a "snafu", a detail that dumb people overlooked, not understanding the vital nature of the problem. Why didn't FDR tell everyone about what he knew ahead of time? Two reasons: 1) We'd broken the Japanese Imperial Naval Code, which was a strategic advantage we had in the coming war, and the secret wasn't ours to tell. It was derived from the Nazi Enigma cypher, which the British had broken and were still using in the European theater. If we let it be known that we were reading their coded messages, the Nazis would've figured out how and changed their cyphers, leaving Britain at a disadvantage. 2) The agent who brought the Pearl Harbor documents to the FBI was a British double-agent, recruited by the Nazis and turned by the British, and that, too, was a strategic secret of the British over the Nazis, not our secret to tell.
Incidentally, the value of the secrets led our side to victory over the Nazis, otherwise you'd be living in a country that was *actually* as fascist as you think Sweden is. Specifically, knowing the Japanese code helped us win at Midway. Rent the movie, it's fairly accurate, except that it downplays the ability of our codebreakers to decipher their transmissions for added dramatic effect.
"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence."
Your comments regarding Pearl Harbor are incomplete (and tend toward the inaccurate).
If anyone would like to know what really happened at Pearl Harbor, see the book "Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor" (2000) by Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran.
Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.”
Nevertheless, we were betrayed at Pearl Harbor and not just by the Japanese.
An excellent, short synopsis of this book and this betrayal can be found here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-...7no12_facts.htm
BTW, the Japanese code "Magic" did indeed have a connection to the NAZI code "Enigma". An interesting brief on it is found here:
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Nt-Pa/Operation-Magic.html
I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH HIM WHO STRENGTHENS ME
Do you know the name of the agent who passed the German Intelligence document concerning Pearl Harbor to the FBI, who at the FBI accepted it, and why the contents of the document were ignored (overtly)?
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then you're just assuming you know more history than I do.
You have a predisposition to believe government leaders are Evil, and then you look for anything that'll support that view.
It's an unfortunate downside of living in countries that allow freedom of the press that wherever there's a market, there will be someone willing to provide a product, and the paranoid lunatic fringe is a ready market for any book that vilifies the government.
"Blah, blah, blah, >> irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> another irrelevant detail <<, blah, blah, >> Dark Innuendo <<, blah, blah, >> Sinister Plot <<,..."
There are lots of out-of-work writers out there who have no original ideas for novels, and aren't photogenic enough for CNN who have to pay the bills somehow, and this is the cr@p they peddle. (They don't pay enough for porn movie scripts to support anybody.)
You'll always be able to find what you're looking for, especially if you're looking for Evil in governments. The very definition of Evil is thwarted Free Will, and government policies often do thwart peoples' Free Will. More often than you're willing to believe, though, the governments find themselves in positions where doing nothing would be worse than any reasonable action they can think of, and they take the least-evil of all their options. When innocent/ignorant/naive (pick one) people see the policy they've chosen, they conveniently ignore the governments other options that weren't picked, including *doing nothing*, the consequences of which would *still* be theirs. (Read my signature, below.)
Yes, FDR knew ahead of time about Pearl Harbor. He had directed the installation of an early-warning Radar system on Hawaii that was supposed to detect the incoming attack in time to alert the fleet. The fleet, alerted, would've been more than capable of defending itself against the Japanese attack, so it was thought that they'd be throwing the first punch in a fight and getting their heads torn off immediately, with a full-rout of the Japanese fleet to follow. One problem, nobody bothered giving the radar operator the means of generating a General Alert. He had no Big Red Button. This was a "snafu", a detail that dumb people overlooked, not understanding the vital nature of the problem. Why didn't FDR tell everyone about what he knew ahead of time? Two reasons: 1) We'd broken the Japanese Imperial Naval Code, which was a strategic advantage we had in the coming war, and the secret wasn't ours to tell. It was derived from the Nazi Enigma cypher, which the British had broken and were still using in the European theater. If we let it be known that we were reading their coded messages, the Nazis would've figured out how and changed their cyphers, leaving Britain at a disadvantage. 2) The agent who brought the Pearl Harbor documents to the FBI was a British double-agent, recruited by the Nazis and turned by the British, and that, too, was a strategic secret of the British over the Nazis, not our secret to tell.
Incidentally, the value of the secrets led our side to victory over the Nazis, otherwise you'd be living in a country that was *actually* as fascist as you think Sweden is. Specifically, knowing the Japanese code helped us win at Midway. Rent the movie, it's fairly accurate, except that it downplays the ability of our codebreakers to decipher their transmissions for added dramatic effect.
"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence."
Your comments regarding Pearl Harbor are incomplete (and tend toward the inaccurate).
If anyone would like to know what really happened at Pearl Harbor, see the book "Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor" (2000) by Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran.
Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.”
Nevertheless, we were betrayed at Pearl Harbor and not just by the Japanese.
An excellent, short synopsis of this book and this betrayal can be found here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-...7no12_facts.htm
BTW, the Japanese code "Magic" did indeed have a connection to the NAZI code "Enigma". An interesting brief on it is found here:
http://www.espionageinfo.com/Nt-Pa/Operation-Magic.html
I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH HIM WHO STRENGTHENS ME
[offtopic removed]
[offtopic removed]
[offtopic removed]
[removed]
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 7 2007, 11:44 AM)
Hopefully, I will prepare such questions by tonight.
No such luck. NBA playoffs....
However:
The following is not polished, and I speak of Greening's previously stated figures as though they were assumed in the case of BLGB. The following is an edited version of comments I started writing over the weekend. Also, Greening has already stated that he did not mention Calladine and English to Bazant.
Comments on BLGB
From p.8:
QUOTE
delta_kappa = gamma (m_c * m) / (m_c + m) * v_1**2/2
where we inserted a positive empirical coefficient gamma (<=1), which gives the estimated fraction of kinetic energy that is available for comminutioin of concrete slab. In theory, the kinetic energy of ejected fragments, and the crushing of all the contents of each floor including gypsum, carbohydrates, equipment, furniture, etc., also contribute to energy dissipation and should be covered by coefiicient gamma, but theri contributions are doubtless minor. Therefore we later assume that gamma = 1, which gives the maximum possible crush-down deceleratation due to comminution.
In other words, assume kinetic energy can be utilized as in a pancaking type collapse. Or, if you prefer, there really was a (presumably invisible and geometrically unimaginable) "ball mill" process at work.
The interpretation of the seismic graph with their notion of crush-down/crush-up is interesting, though hardly convincing. Even if the tops are crushed-up well before the reach ground level (as seems almost obvious from at least one of videos), of course they will get further compacted as they slam into the ground.
However, (and I feel like a dummy for not thinking of this earlier and apologies if it's been discussed earlier), looking at diagram 6b), I wonder what can the seismic record tell us about energy transference through the building? Doesn't it, in fact, give us a way to empirically determine Wd??? (used in equation (4)) Since the building didn't fail, for the most part, via buckling failures, the continued use of Wp by Bazant, et. al, is, well, how should I put this?, not confidence-inspiring. However, let's ignore this objection, for the moment, and instead consider Wp to be valid. If we can get an accurate value of power output from the seismic record, should this just equal, at any given time before "crush up", KE(t) - Wd??
If so, then we have a way to test the Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson theory, using a quantifiable observable other than just speed of collapse.
Furthermore, as I mentioned recently, I suspect that BLGB didn't investigate this, as I believe it bodes very ill for their imaginative, yet limited, theory.
BTW, from my layman's perspective, the seismic graphs suggest a fragility to the building. Whether induced (i.e., CD) or "natural" (Bazant, et.al.), one can't tell just from looking at the seismic record. However, it seems clear to me that,
1) if we assume that the ability to transmit energy varies linearly with the ability to absorb energy, then the uncrushed building is absorbing energy in a way that is 'mostly' constant wrt time (until impact of the initial free falling matter, which BLGB claim is the beginning of "crush up")
2) as energy varies not linearly with amplitude, but rather something like amplitude squared, we can see that energy transmitted into the ground during so-called "crush down" is rather trivial compared to so-called "crush up". I have done a screen capture of BLGB's Figure 6b.Comparing peak to trough before crush up, and 2nd trough to 3rd peak after crush up, I get a ratio of 80 pixels/ 13 pixels (at 7x magnification), or 6.15x. So energy transferred through the building during "crush down" is only something like 3% of the KE transferred during "crush up"
Furthermore, I will guess that
3) energy transference into seismic waves during "crush down" was at a faster rate than energy transference into, but not through, the building itself (i.e., energy expended in causing elastic and plastic strain). I'm really on shaky groung here (pun intended!), but this does seem somewhat intuitive.
(At this point, it's perhaps worth noting that 3) above is somewhat similar to chainsaw's claim that a lot of energy is dissipated as sound. IIRC, he reasoned by analogy with striking a bell. However, what I suspect is that the correct "bell" is not the building, but rather the earth that the building is resting upon. Also, if you try and pound a nail into concrete, and only bend it slightly and chip the concrete a bit, where does the energy from the hammer impacts go? I suspect they go into pressure waves in the concrete, eventually degenerating into heat. Or, if you like, sound waves in concrete (metamars), not sound waves in air (chainsaw?) )
If 1), 2), and 3) pan out as I expect, then we not only observe that the a] building is absorbing elastic and plastic strain energy at a constant rate, but also b] we can also put some kind of uppper bound on it.
a] would require that the energy needed to collapse each floor decrease as the collapse progressed during "crush down" (i.e., was less at lower floors), which is quite the opposite of reality. If b] is true, then we can roughly estimate that the energy needed to collapse each floor during "crush down" will be at most {3% of KE during "crush up" / (84 floors) }, which is roughly (using Greening's figures)*:
{3% x (10^^12 J)} / 84 =
357,142,857 J ~.4GJ
This is roughly in accord with Greening's .6GJ esitmate.
However, by the time the collapse front reaches ground level, and "crush up" commences, the speed of the collapse front is more than an order of magnitude greater. In other words, in the same unit of time, we are collapsing (say) 10x as many floors, and yet the rate at which energy is dissipated to accomplish this is roughly constant. Consequently, we get an upper bound of .04GJ per floor, which is completely inconsistent with Greening's .6GJ.
From p. 13:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
delta_kappa = gamma (m_c * m) / (m_c + m) * v_1**2/2 where we inserted a positive empirical coefficient gamma (<=1), which gives the estimated fraction of kinetic energy that is available for comminutioin of concrete slab. In theory, the kinetic energy of ejected fragments, and the crushing of all the contents of each floor including gypsum, carbohydrates, equipment, furniture, etc., also contribute to energy dissipation and should be covered by coefiicient gamma, but theri contributions are doubtless minor. Therefore we later assume that gamma = 1, which gives the maximum possible crush-down deceleratation due to comminution. |
In other words, assume kinetic energy can be utilized as in a pancaking type collapse. Or, if you prefer, there really was a (presumably invisible and geometrically unimaginable) "ball mill" process at work.
The interpretation of the seismic graph with their notion of crush-down/crush-up is interesting, though hardly convincing. Even if the tops are crushed-up well before the reach ground level (as seems almost obvious from at least one of videos), of course they will get further compacted as they slam into the ground.
However, (and I feel like a dummy for not thinking of this earlier and apologies if it's been discussed earlier), looking at diagram 6b), I wonder what can the seismic record tell us about energy transference through the building? Doesn't it, in fact, give us a way to empirically determine Wd??? (used in equation (4)) Since the building didn't fail, for the most part, via buckling failures, the continued use of Wp by Bazant, et. al, is, well, how should I put this?, not confidence-inspiring. However, let's ignore this objection, for the moment, and instead consider Wp to be valid. If we can get an accurate value of power output from the seismic record, should this just equal, at any given time before "crush up", KE(t) - Wd??
If so, then we have a way to test the Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson theory, using a quantifiable observable other than just speed of collapse.
Furthermore, as I mentioned recently, I suspect that BLGB didn't investigate this, as I believe it bodes very ill for their imaginative, yet limited, theory.
BTW, from my layman's perspective, the seismic graphs suggest a fragility to the building. Whether induced (i.e., CD) or "natural" (Bazant, et.al.), one can't tell just from looking at the seismic record. However, it seems clear to me that,
1) if we assume that the ability to transmit energy varies linearly with the ability to absorb energy, then the uncrushed building is absorbing energy in a way that is 'mostly' constant wrt time (until impact of the initial free falling matter, which BLGB claim is the beginning of "crush up")
2) as energy varies not linearly with amplitude, but rather something like amplitude squared, we can see that energy transmitted into the ground during so-called "crush down" is rather trivial compared to so-called "crush up". I have done a screen capture of BLGB's Figure 6b.Comparing peak to trough before crush up, and 2nd trough to 3rd peak after crush up, I get a ratio of 80 pixels/ 13 pixels (at 7x magnification), or 6.15x. So energy transferred through the building during "crush down" is only something like 3% of the KE transferred during "crush up"
Furthermore, I will guess that
3) energy transference into seismic waves during "crush down" was at a faster rate than energy transference into, but not through, the building itself (i.e., energy expended in causing elastic and plastic strain). I'm really on shaky groung here (pun intended!), but this does seem somewhat intuitive.
(At this point, it's perhaps worth noting that 3) above is somewhat similar to chainsaw's claim that a lot of energy is dissipated as sound. IIRC, he reasoned by analogy with striking a bell. However, what I suspect is that the correct "bell" is not the building, but rather the earth that the building is resting upon. Also, if you try and pound a nail into concrete, and only bend it slightly and chip the concrete a bit, where does the energy from the hammer impacts go? I suspect they go into pressure waves in the concrete, eventually degenerating into heat. Or, if you like, sound waves in concrete (metamars), not sound waves in air (chainsaw?) )
If 1), 2), and 3) pan out as I expect, then we not only observe that the a] building is absorbing elastic and plastic strain energy at a constant rate, but also b] we can also put some kind of uppper bound on it.
a] would require that the energy needed to collapse each floor decrease as the collapse progressed during "crush down" (i.e., was less at lower floors), which is quite the opposite of reality. If b] is true, then we can roughly estimate that the energy needed to collapse each floor during "crush down" will be at most {3% of KE during "crush up" / (84 floors) }, which is roughly (using Greening's figures)*:
{3% x (10^^12 J)} / 84 =
357,142,857 J ~.4GJ
This is roughly in accord with Greening's .6GJ esitmate.
However, by the time the collapse front reaches ground level, and "crush up" commences, the speed of the collapse front is more than an order of magnitude greater. In other words, in the same unit of time, we are collapsing (say) 10x as many floors, and yet the rate at which energy is dissipated to accomplish this is roughly constant. Consequently, we get an upper bound of .04GJ per floor, which is completely inconsistent with Greening's .6GJ.
From p. 13:
The belief that the towers collapsed at the rate of free fall has been the main argument of the critics claiming controlled demolitioin by planted explosives.
(emphasis mine)
This is incorrect, as stated. Certainly, it's true of some critics (we'll assume they meant "free fall" considering wind resistance), but not true of Hoffman and myself, e.g.
There is not even mention in this paper of dynamic effects as studied by Calladine and English, and the ignoring of the body of literature devoted to impacts by papers co-authored by Bazant continues. Since two of his co-authors have known for months about these studies, this is, well, not impressive. Should we assume that they will now focus on this? Instead, of course, we are told that KE > 8.4 Wc (1) - which is a result which ignores dynamic effects ala CE.
Also, Greening and Benson should be aware that their mysterious "ball mill" process (inferred from gamma = 1) is not taken seriously, at least by laymen on this board. One wonders if they even conveyed these objections to Bazant. After all, he may know something along these lines that they don't.
Did they? If not, why not ask him, now? It's good to see that concrete comminution is not being ignored. Why not nail down your arguments wrt rather obvious objections, if you can? And why ignore these long-standing objections? Is it because you didnt' even attempt to solve them, or because you did and didn't like what you found out?
Finally, I suggest that researchers investigate whether or not practitioners of CD have it as a design goal to make sure that buildings are collapsed in a manner such that they can absorb a constant level of converted Kinetic Energy, and that they do absorb a constant amount of kinetic energy. The former implies (I think) cutting columns in a non-time critical fashion (before the CD proper, so to speak). The latter implies (again, I think) precisely timing the destruction of columns in an accelerating, and sequential fashion.
* I've taken the widths of the "crush down" seismic wave train and that of the "crush down" seismic wave train to be equal.
QUOTE
Also, Greening and Benson should be aware that their mysterious "ball mill" process (inferred from gamma = 1) is not taken seriously, at least by laymen on this board.
I think I described, without the mathematics, a similar process by which the concrete floors would've been crushed as a natural consequence of the collapse.
The terms "pancaking" and "bageling" are idealized notions of what might've happened if the building was empty and collapsed symmetrically, but in the actual situation, each floor had plenty of furniture, partitions, filing cabinets, desks, bookshelves, etc., each of which would've tended to concentrate the loads on both the falling upper floor(s) and the lower floor. Contact wouldn't have been "flat", but the falling floors would've been broken into random chunks by the nonuniform distribution of impact stresses, all of which would've been far beyond their design load. Fragmentation of all the concrete should be the expected result.
As each floor collapsed in-turn, this process would've been repeated and the resultant concrete fragments could only have fragmented further, each fracture resulting in some significant fraction of pulverization of the concrete chunks, both of the concrete below being impacted at random by the falling debris and the concrete of the floor below, so the chunks would've been made into smaller and smaller chunks and more and more dust as each floor gave way.
Continue this process for dozens of floors and you get a massive amount of concrete dust being ejected with the gale-force winds getting shot out in all directions as the 20 tons (approximately) of air is forced out of the way of the falling debris.
While the "ball-mill" process itself might be difficult to visualize, it's easy to see how a significant fraction of the concrete would've been turned to dust in this process of chunks getting broken into progressively smaller chunks plus dust, especially considering the fact that as the collapse progressed, the falling mass would be increasing floor-by-floor and accelerating floor-by-floor.
QUOTE
So the New World Order seems to be based on making a go of a peace-time economy, with everyone in the world doing business with each other.
wcelliott has a hard time speaking the truth. Tell it like it is
They planed to kill americans in operation northwoods and hijack planes.
They knew that the Japanese was attacking pearl harbor and let it happen
And when america ordered an attack on their own ship uss liberty, president Johnson said "I want that damn ship going to the bottom" When he got a call from the crew that wanted help. And that the crew was going to spend life in prison or being killed if they told anybody what happened
NWO, Prescott bush helped hitlers rise to power.
The anthrax letters came from military labs in america.
Criminals run the banks and there are no law to pay an income tax and the money goes to their privet bank.
CIA created/funded al-quida. And bin laden has nothing to do with al-quida like the government was saying just some hours after the 9-11 attack.
There are 1000 more things they have done.
The NWO is about peace?. Thats why they want to make the population of the earth from 6 billion to just some millions?. And doing the world to a police state?. Thats why they kill kids and Innocent people and have pedophiles amongst theme and are the biggest drug dealers on earth. And BUSH and the NWO is NOT america so stop calling them america. america has been taken over by Europe, There has been an criminal government inside the government long before Kennedy, kennedy warned us about them. George washington admitted that illuminati had come to america, so they have always been in power.
And i still wonder if that molten iron sphere doesnt matter?
I wonder where that 1538C temp came from
And was it jet fuel that destroyed the basement?
Malmoesoldier
Yes, it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk
Grumpy
QUOTE
And was it jet fuel that destroyed the basement? laugh.gif
Yes, it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk
Grumpy
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 8 2007, 12:21 PM)
They planed to kill americans in operation northwoods and hijack planes.
Have you ever read the Northwoods paper?
I think not, because they never mention the killing of Americans.
Have you ever read the Northwoods paper?
I think not, because they never mention the killing of Americans.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 8 2007, 12:21 PM)
The NWO is about peace?. Thats why they want to make the population of the earth from 6 billion to just some millions?.
You really are delusional. Where do you find this stuff....
You really are delusional. Where do you find this stuff....
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 8 2007, 07:21 AM)
They planed to kill americans in operation northwoods and hijack planes.
They knew that the Japanese was attacking pearl harbor and let it happen
And when america ordered an attack on their own ship uss liberty, president Johnson said "I want that damn ship going to the bottom" When he got a call from the crew that wanted help. And that the crew was going to spend life in prison or being killed if they told anybody what happened
NWO, Prescott bush helped hitlers rise to power.
The anthrax letters came from military labs in america.
Criminals run the banks and there are no law to pay an income tax and the money goes to their privet bank.
CIA created/funded al-quida. And bin laden has nothing to do with al-quida like the government was saying just some hours after the 9-11 attack.
There are 1000 more things they have done.
The NWO is about peace?. Thats why they want to make the population of the earth from 6 billion to just some millions?. And doing the world to a police state?. Thats why they kill kids and Innocent people and have pedophiles amongst theme and are the biggest drug dealers on earth. And BUSH and the NWO is NOT america so stop calling them america. america has been taken over by Europe, There has been an criminal government inside the government long before Kennedy, kennedy warned us about them. George washington admitted that illuminati had come to america, so they have always been in power.
And i still wonder if that molten iron sphere doesnt matter?
I wonder where that 1538C temp came from
And was it jet fuel that destroyed the basement?
YAWN
Wake me up when he posts something interesting.
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.