Some Calculations requested regarding why the towers upper portion did not slide off

[Furcifer]

Yes, I posted a similar graphic months and months ago, with no answer.

It was in my thread about "Dr. Greening Refuted Easily". Eventually in an email to me, Greening said that the walls in the upper block slipped inside of the walls of the lower block. LOL, that's what he said. I'm not sure if he still says that or not.

Greening also never answered me on why the smoke from the fires would go from dark black to white as soon as the towers "collapsed". I would think the fuel would be the same stuff, with less oxygen if anything.

I gave an answer.

What he says is correct to some degree, although I would allow for more crushing than slipping myself.

DUST. Almost positive on that since it "falls".

 

[Furcifer]

The walls were bowing inwards according to eye witness testimony so how did they slide inside?

Bowing in or bowing out they can slide inside.

 

[William Rea]

Bowing in or bowing out they can slide inside.

Were both the upper and lower blocks bowing?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, I posted a similar graphic months and months ago, with no answer.

Yes, I posted an answer a few posts above but you seemed to not notice. Is the term, "eyes wide shut" appropiate?

Lozenge seems to think that by "more of a standard collapse" after the lower block hits means is somehow the same as the original FEMA idea. Which is of course the idea that the initiating collapse is caused by a floor slab slipping it's bolts. He didn't bother reading well enough to figure out that I was in fact talking about an even long after the initial collapse. This is a trait common to most truthers: take words out of context, if that's not possible, ignore.

 

[Furcifer]

Were both the upper and lower blocks bowing?

Before during or after collapse initiation? My understanding is the the floors pulled the exterior inwards at the point of impact, and only at initiation. After that neither were "bowing", although one section would have forced the other out of the way during impact. Either way, you can have the upper section getting tucked behind the lower during ythe collapse. I'm not a big fan of that analysis myself, but it is a valid consideration for the first few (2?) seconds of the collapse. It's certainly not an outrageous claim, I've heard worse. Those guys put more effort into the analysis than I have, so if push came to shove I would yield to them. I'm just not feeling it.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

My thread was on Greening's paper. In it, he said there was a top block which remained intact until it "crushed down" through the lower building, all the way to the ground. Then (and only then), the top block itself underwent "Crush Up".

Greening has been forced to abandon this idea. How any honest person could have ever entertained it is beyond me, precisely because of observations such as are made in the graphic posted by Rev.

Currently Greening and Bazant have come up with "crush down crush up", which is still ludicrous. The "collapse" times require low resistance, pulverization requires high resistance (the resistance paradox).

This theory allows for (at most) about 20% of the mass of the towers to be ejected outside the footprint. This means that 80% or more would have to remain inside the footprint.

There is no evidence for this at all. I have requested at least a dozen times, and I will repeat the request now.

Please link us to any evidence whatsoever that 80% or more of the mass of each tower remained in the footprint. I see no evidence of any floor assemblies whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada.

Unless and until that occurs, the Bazant Greening paper is a fantasy.

Evidence please.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes, I posted an answer a few posts above but you seemed to not notice. Is the term, "eyes wide shut" appropiate?

Lozenge seems to think that by "more of a standard collapse" after the lower block hits means is somehow the same as the original FEMA idea. Which is of course the idea that the initiating collapse is caused by a floor slab slipping it's bolts. He didn't bother reading well enough to figure out that I was in fact talking about an even long after the initial collapse. This is a trait common to most truthers: take words out of context, if that's not possible, ignore.

Too true, this seems to be the case with the NIST faq and the pancaking. Seems to me this has to do with initiation and not the global collapse. Mention pancaking and they say "Nope NIST says no so you are lying" It's frustrating, you need to be very particular in how you word things or they get confused, and they do it deliberately. TS1234 seems to do this a lot if I am to believe the discussions elsewhere in this forum. I vaguely remember TS posting this pic and getting answered, he just didn't like the answer.
TS I think you have been warned about this? I personally don't care, but I would be careful using this tactic. I'd rather see you corrected by 50 people than banned

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I certainly don't recall anyone posting evidence for mass inside the footprints. What is the evidence?

 

[Furcifer]

This theory allows for (at most) about 20% of the mass of the towers to be ejected outside the footprint. This means that 80% or more would have to remain inside the footprint.

There is no evidence for this at all. I have requested at least a dozen times, and I will repeat the request now.

Please link us to any evidence whatsoever that 80% or more of the mass of each tower remained in the footprint. I see no evidence of any floor assemblies whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada.

This is known as the CT CD/PC paradox. It was a controlled demo because it fell in its footprint but it wasn't a progressive collase because it didn't fall in its footprint.

 

[lozenge124]

Lozenge seems to think that by "more of a standard collapse" after the lower block hits means is somehow the same as the original FEMA idea. Which is of course the idea that the initiating collapse is caused by a floor slab slipping it's bolts. He didn't bother reading well enough to figure out that I was in fact talking about an even long after the initial collapse. This is a trait common to most truthers: take words out of context, if that's not possible, ignore.

Perhaps you should read the NIST faq and Bazant et al more closely.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

In the structural engineering community, one early speculation was that, because of a supposedly insufficient strength of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability. This hypothesis, however, was invalidated at NIST (...).

The "pancake theory" is one that refers to the entire building collapse not just the initiating moments as you seem to be implying. The idea that the collapse progressed because "force easily overcomes the connections of the floors to the columns" is obsolete and not supported by NIST whether at initiation or at any point thereafter (unless you disagree with NIST of course).

 

[Furcifer]

I certainly don't recall anyone posting evidence for mass inside the footprints. What is the evidence?

Lol, we were talking about the picture, not the mass in the foot prints.

TS could you please try and incorporate what you think happened when you ask questions? I'd hate to spend 10 minutes explaining something to you, only for you to say "But it was dustified by a space beam..."

I think you have been directed to Bazant's work on how they arrived at the 80% figure.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps you should read the NIST faq and Bazant et al more closely.

The "pancake theory" is one that refers to the entire building collapse not just the initiating moments as you seem to be implying. The idea that the collapse progressed because "force easily overcomes the connections of the floors to the columns" is obsolete and not supported by NIST whether at initiation or at any point thereafter (unless you disagree with NIST of course).

I never said "the pancake theory". I said pancake collapse. I am not responsible for you changing my words. If you do not understand what I write, I will not apologize to you. If you actually read what I said in CONTEXT, you would realize what I was saying had NOTHING to do with the FEMA pancake theory. Especially if you had taken the time to look through the calculations I've done regarding what the energy requirements for failing one floor/column would be.

 

[Furcifer]

Lozenge: No one said the floors pancaked and left an "empty framed tube" here. This is why you are mistaken.

 

[lozenge124]

Too true, this seems to be the case with the NIST faq and the pancaking. Seems to me this has to do with initiation and not the global collapse. Mention pancaking and they say "Nope NIST says no so you are lying" It's frustrating, you need to be very particular in how you word things or they get confused, and they do it deliberately. TS1234 seems to do this a lot if I am to believe the discussions elsewhere in this forum. I vaguely remember TS posting this pic and getting answered, he just didn't like the answer.
TS I think you have been warned about this? I personally don't care, but I would be careful using this tactic. I'd rather see you corrected by 50 people than banned

NIST made this kind of confusion inevitable by deciding not to cover the collapse beyond initiation in any detail in their report. Whatever side of the fence you are setting, clearly they did not satisfy their mandate to explain "how and why WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed" (NISTNCSTAR1 p.xxix).

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is known as the CT CD/PC paradox. It was a controlled demo because it fell in its footprint but it wasn't a progressive collase because it didn't fall in its footprint.

It was WTC7 that imploded into its footprint. The twin towers exploded. Almost none of the towers' mass ended up in the footprints.

 

[lozenge124]

I never said "the pancake theory". I said pancake collapse. I am not responsible for you changing my words. If you do not understand what I write, I will not apologize to you. If you actually read what I said in CONTEXT, you would realize what I was saying had NOTHING to do with the FEMA pancake theory. Especially if you had taken the time to look through the calculations I've done regarding what the energy requirements for failing one floor/column would be.

For the record, I was quoting from the NIST faq:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers.

 

[Newtons Bit]

NIST made this kind of confusion inevitable by deciding not to cover the collapse beyond initiation in any detail in their report. Whatever side of the fence you are setting, clearly they did not satisfy their mandate to explain "how and why WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed" (NISTNCSTAR1 p.xxix).

Uhh, no, they did. You see, to any engineer, all the information about how and why the collapse happened is why the building originally failed. It is the msiguided laypeople who yell "we want the truth!" who seem to think that what happened after the initial collapse has any bearing on building safety or responsibility of the engineer/owner/contractor.

There is no reason to investigate what happened after the initial collapse started. Studying the collapse prior to that can yield information that will further our undertanding of structural mechanics which can then be used to modify building codes. Which by the way, the study has already done. Most codes have already introduced new provisions based upon the NIST study.

Studying the collapse after it happened is a waste of money and would serve almost no purpose to furthering understanding of structural mechanics. The only thing it would do is appease the ignorant and bitter in the population for a few minutes before one in their ranks steps forward and says, "omg lol this is wrong!!21" and then we're right back where we started except that there's less money to fund actual real research that could save lives.

 

[Newtons Bit]

For the record, I am quoting the NIST faq:
[/B]

For the record, I never said "The Pancake Theory". So why the [rule8] are you quoting it?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm not tew smurt with this kinda stuff, but momma always said that gravity pulls things down, not sideways. If the building below the tip is not longer underneath the top, why would the top fall to the side?

If I jump off a building, i don't continue to fall at my angle of jump. I quickly go straight down. If someone pushes me I fall over to the side. Because the ground is a pivotal point. If someone pushed me, then dropped the ground out from underneath me, I wouldn't fall sideways, I would start to go straight down once the ground was gone. And I would probably be tiled at the same degree I was just as the ground was removed.

And Momma says Alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth.

 

[Corsair 115]

The twin towers exploded. Almost none of the towers' mass ended up in the footprints.

No, they collapsed, and debris was spread quite widely due to the chaotic way it collapsed. Where is the problem?