• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Angular momentum of south tower

pdoherty76 said:
do u have a link to Bazants paper augustine?
Click to expand...

I cannot post links yet. However, if you Google "Zdenek Bazant" (not too many of those), you will see a link to his homepage at Northwestern. Many many many of his papers are downloadable. (...and I warn you, many many many of them will give you a headache.)
 
thankyou gravy

i will consider that debunked. u really take this seriously dont you?

im started to be convinced that the towers simply fell cos the steel weakened, hate to admit it
 
pdoherty76 said:
thankyou gravy

i will consider that debunked. u really take this seriously dont you?

im started to be convinced that the towers simply fell cos the steel weakened, hate to admit it
Click to expand...
Congrats, on learning.
But why do you hate to admit it? I thought you were looking for the truth!
 
Last edited:
pdoherty76 said:
reality is a liberating place. but i prefered the bomb theory
Click to expand...


I know.... but I take comfort from knowing that prof jones being wrong about termites bringing down the towers means I can also discount his theories about jesus walking with the mayans.

It helps me sleep at night.

:)
 
Augustine said:
Dr. Zdenek Bazant, Northwestern University. Combined plastic shear resistance of columns could not sustain the horizontal reaction from the tilting, yield hinges developed top and bottom of columns, and thus the top portion of the tower began its downward motion. Movement was primarily vertical at that point.
Click to expand...

pdoherty76 said:
i wont pretend to understand that but i get the jist. jones points out that nist only studies up to the point of collapse initiation. if thay had studied further then this question might not have arose
Click to expand...

OK, I am not an engineer and it's been 30 years since my last Math and Physics class, but let me see if I understand it (and if I do, pdoherty, and you with an advance math/Physics degree don't, I will join the skeptics in line who doubt your credentials)

As I read it the upper building did begin to tilt in the manner shown in several photos I have seen, but this was due to the damage suffered on the side where the aircraft had taken out numerous supports and other columns had been weakened by fire.

But this tilt placed extreme horizontal sheer forces on the remaining columns, many already weakened by the fires and carrying near or over their maximum loads due to the other column failures. It also sheared and destroyed the floor steel lattice on several of the affected floors, causing them to fail. This overall failure, especially at the hinges that held the steel colums together, happening within literally fractions of a second after the upper portion of the building started tilting, led to a vertical fall due to the nature of Gravity.

That the portion did not fall off or continue the tilt was (1) The milliseconds resistance of the remaining steel columns trying to retain the building in a vertical position and (2) The failure milliseconds later of the columns leading to a Gravity controlled descent.

At least, that is how I read the paper. You?
 
Last edited:
Also, NIST Report did address the tilting of both towers and collapse initiation.

One last thing: frankly, the complaint that NIST "only modelled up to collapse initiation" is a complaint that exposes the paucity of computer modelling experience of the person making it. What exactly should have been modelled? Why? What are the difficulties, constraints, complexities, limitations of modelling different behaviors (elastic, plastic, failure mode) and different loads (static, dynamic, impact)? If a person cannot intelligently discuss the previous, or understand the complexities involved, their criticism of the NIST modelling decisions is distinctly flawed.
 
pdoherty76 said:
thankyou gravy

i will consider that debunked. u really take this seriously dont you?

im started to be convinced that the towers simply fell cos the steel weakened, hate to admit it
Click to expand...

Aside: There are plenty of things that gov'ts do that is questionable, or actionable, to keep anyone busy without getting buried into things that lie on the fringe. Consider: secret deportations, possible black (as in black ops) prisons overseas, wiretapping, etc.
 
Augustine said:
Also, NIST Report did address the tilting of both towers and collapse initiation.

One last thing: frankly, the complaint that NIST "only modelled up to collapse initiation" is a complaint that exposes the paucity of computer modelling experience of the person making it. What exactly should have been modelled? Why? What are the difficulties, constraints, complexities, limitations of modelling different behaviors (elastic, plastic, failure mode) and different loads (static, dynamic, impact)? If a person cannot intelligently discuss the previous, or understand the complexities involved, their criticism of the NIST modelling decisions is distinctly flawed.
Click to expand...


i heard they couldnt get the computer models to collapse so they fudged the parameters until it did

is this BS?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Aside: There are plenty of things that gov'ts do that is questionable, or actionable, to keep anyone busy without getting buried into things that lie on the fringe. Consider: secret deportations, possible black (as in black ops) prisons overseas, wiretapping, etc.
Click to expand...


ur starting to sound like alex jones lol

im starting to question jones, on todays show he claimed the government is forcing prozac on 2 year olds and that swat teams raid schools and put fake blood on kids. im not joking
 
It's Danish, I also don't speak that but one should mass download all movies, there is so much there. Yeah I also heard that they couldn't get their numerical models to collapse at all.

I recently did an easy frame by frame analysis from the first moment of collapse to determine the energy to break a storey, the weakest link requires an energy over 1GJ. But even with common sense one can understand that if you heat the weakest link with endless energy, if you have enough, the steel will bend and a new equillibrium will be reached, it's just impossible and the official story is an insult to the average intelligence of an average human...
 
If I may a small point. I assume the NIST investigation was performed to learn more about building performance and how to stop collapses happening in the future. Not to debunk the conspiracy theories. From their point of view, I don't see what the point would be of studying the collapse itself. Surely nobody ever is going to build a skyscraper that could halt a collapse once it had begun? Arresting the progress of 1/3 of a WTC tower travelling at 18mph (after falling 1 storey - somebody check my maths!) is surely next to impossible. No architect would design for it when it would be far, far cheaper to prevent the collapse in the first place.

PS Welcome pdoherty!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom