??? Topic is GUrich c/ Bazant if release of potential energy caused the WTC1 collapse. Pls do not terrorize this thread with OT questions.
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
??? Topic is GUrich c/ Bazant if release of potential energy caused the WTC1 collapse. Pls do not terrorize this thread with OT questions.
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 405
doesn't this just confirm what we already know, that the load was not evenly spread over one story?
ooooo hissy fit.
From the man who doesn't know the difference between the wtc towers and conventional multistorey steel framed structures, has no idea regarding the known vulnerability of structural steel to fire and isn't even very coherent on the difference between thermal insulation and fireproofing.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It is on-topic! If you're not willing to concede that planes hit the WTC then there are likely many other things you are ignoring in your "calculations".
Gregory notes:
None of the 47 core columns are staggered.
They all have column-to-column connections at same elevations.
This is why I introduced the idea of "weld planes".
There are about 40 separate horizontal planes separated by about 38 feet all the way up the building that contained every core column-to-column connection.
This is a unique and very important design within the towers.
None of the 47 core columns are staggered.
They all have column-to-column connections at same elevations.
This is why I introduced the idea of "weld planes".
There are about 40 separate horizontal planes separated by about 38 feet all the way up the building that contained every core column-to-column connection.
This is a unique and very important design within the towers.
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
It's not unique, almost all buildings with columns over 50 feet splice the columns.
you ignore the easy questions that may interfere with the truth as you see it
Oh, you do not know? Ignore? Easy question, how much weight can a WTC floor handle before it fails?
The question is how much weight can one floor take? 70,000,000 pounds? 31,000,000 pounds? What will the floor fail to hold?
Oh, you do not know? Ignore? Easy question, how much weight can a WTC floor handle before it fails?
Greg asks:
Yes, the black line is floor 97 and is right along the tops of the windows.
The straight blackened horizontal lines across the entire north and west faces of floors 97 and 94, WTC 1 are truly fascinating.
Using the NIST NCSTAR 1.5A, Chapters 8 and 9 study of the fire progression of WTC 1 and 2, I extracted all the time-stamped photos and grouped them according which face is shown in the photo.
This way, only by looking at the pictures in order, anyone can see the progression of the fire activity from airplane impact to collapse on any of the 4 facades of WTC 1 or WTC 2.
At the following link I show the fire progression on the north and west faces, WTC 1.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52&MMN_position=97:97
These photos show how these 2 horizontal blackened straight lines on floors 94 and 97 across the entire north and west faces slowly formed.
Gregory, this blackened line is rather interesting.
Yes, the black line is floor 97 and is right along the tops of the windows.
The straight blackened horizontal lines across the entire north and west faces of floors 97 and 94, WTC 1 are truly fascinating.
Using the NIST NCSTAR 1.5A, Chapters 8 and 9 study of the fire progression of WTC 1 and 2, I extracted all the time-stamped photos and grouped them according which face is shown in the photo.
This way, only by looking at the pictures in order, anyone can see the progression of the fire activity from airplane impact to collapse on any of the 4 facades of WTC 1 or WTC 2.
At the following link I show the fire progression on the north and west faces, WTC 1.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52&MMN_position=97:97
These photos show how these 2 horizontal blackened straight lines on floors 94 and 97 across the entire north and west faces slowly formed.
Gregory, this blackened line is rather interesting.
Last edited:
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Great job with the photos. Very helpful to understand what took place. I was surprised there was so much fire apparent on floor 97 on the West Side when the majority of fuel went into 95-96.
NB, I'm talking about the lack of staggered collections in the core. All 47 core columns have their column-to-column connections at the exact same elevations.
Correction: I don't know how unique the design is, but it is very important to understand to notice unique features of the "collapses" (demolitions).
This existence of unique "weld planes" separated by 3 floors is very important to know when modelling the towers, no?
Especially considering how column "failure" happened at these very welds.
For example, Einstein asks:
Maybe there is a relation?
Greg, I'd like you to be familiar with this research tool. I remember you have mentioned "raging fires" before.
Having this ability to view each facade separately using NIST's own time stamped photos in the proper time sequence allows you to really see if these fires were "raging" or not, and for how long they "raged".
You can know the fire activity along any face at any time.
Having this ability to view each facade separately using NIST's own time stamped photos in the proper time sequence allows you to really see if these fires were "raging" or not, and for how long they "raged".
You can know the fire activity along any face at any time.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Columns spliced at the same floor is a common characteric of buildings. Staggering the splices is uncommon. Though the net effect of staggering the moment frame splices would result in smaller splices. Oops.
You are not qualified to comment then on this thread, you paper is pure junk and really bad. Even 9/11 truth people have shown you errors and you persist to make bad decisions on 9/11 based on bad assumptions and bad engineering.
Do not forget you paper is really bad as you go around thinking you have something more that false information on 9/11!
You do not even know some simple stuff like:How much weight can one floor take? 70,000,000 pounds? 31,000,000 pounds? What will the floor fail to hold?
Last edited:
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Why is Heiwa still contradicting himself?
Oh, but it has everything to do with your claims, Heiwa:
Heiwa wrote:
In 2006, Heiwa went to great lengths to claim NO aircraft hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Heiwa, if you claim aircraft would have NO effect on the Towers, why are you afraid to tell us whether planes hit or not? Something about your consistent evasions must be scaring you, am I correct, Heiwa?
Why are you afraid to clear up your contradiction, Heiwa?
Oh, but it has everything to do with your claims, Heiwa:
Heiwa wrote:
Thus we have you - Heiwa - admitting that aircraft hit each tower. And you claim that the impacts would have no effect on the tower whatsoever, even from the damage and fires they caused.
In 2006, Heiwa went to great lengths to claim NO aircraft hit WTC 1 and WTC 2.
So we have Heiwa first claiming NO planes hit the towers. Then he reverses himself and says planes hit the towers but would have no effect. Interestingly, when asked to clarify his position, Heiwa has gone to great lengths to avoid answering.
Heiwa, if you claim aircraft would have NO effect on the Towers, why are you afraid to tell us whether planes hit or not? Something about your consistent evasions must be scaring you, am I correct, Heiwa?
Why are you afraid to clear up your contradiction, Heiwa?
No it does not. It moves simultaneously with the roof and the exterior wall above. The clip einsteen posted is just a bad quality crop. You will find a fairly good quality version here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#northtower
It is titled North Tower collapse from northeast. The collapse initiates on the opposite side of the building, the upper block rotates away from the camera's view. This clip shows clearly that the part you talk about GregoryUrich, moves simultaneously with the upper part. That part of the exterior wall is hanging in the air, its columns was cut by Flight 11's left wing on floor 94. So when the reminder of the exterior columns on the north side buckle up and fails in the area of floor 97/98, this part of the wall is already free to move with the upper block. Just compare it to any photo of Flight 11's entry hole.
(By the way the claim in the text that the antenna moves one second before the facade is wrong, it moves simultaneously, but the top of antenna will show more movement because it is at the upper end of the rotating part, therefore movement in the antenna will be easier to spot initially. But what can we expect since this is a truther site.)
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Well, not quite. See the right side? Remember that the collapse began on the opposite side. It's helpful to see the whole top:
Last edited:
As Greg keeps posting, evidence of his lack of knowledge on 9/11 grows. I want him to post his independent paper, not a hack attack on a paper done to show something he does not even understand. He even falls for the cherry picked video cut.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I am aware it is the north side. A part, left middle, moves downward before the surrounding area of facade.
Is that your last hope for your silent explosives at work.
The entire top is moving down. Darn, you can image a floor failing inside but the whole top is coming down. So you are not correct. You are still a member of some 9/11 truth group, and you have peer group Journal cheering you on. The entire building is falling at the top, not some part in the middle; you mean to say the entire top is moving down!
If not you are going to remain wrong. What do you think; and how much can a floor hold? Cat got your tongue?
Last edited:
Sorry to see that you and your colleaugues still terrorize this thread.
Actually I was quoting the Nist report about air planes hitting the towers. No evidence for that, of course. And observed that the towers were still standing, etc. Plenty of evidence for that, though.
But the subject now is what happens at time Tcause more than an hour later in WTC1. Then it is suggested that the complete 'initiation zone' (IZ)(the area where the plane crashed and a fire burnt) suddenly disappears enabling the rigid mass above (RMA) to suddenly fall down the height of IZ and release its potential energy on the rigid structure below (RMB), that happens at time Teffect, i.e. RMA bumps into RMB.
When RMA bumps into RMB at time Teffect, you would expect that first there is a jolt or a little jerk or shake up, RMA slows down, before RMB disintegrates due to lack of strain energy, but none is seen.
Actually, apart from IZ that disappeared out of sight at time Tcause, also RMA seems to have disappeared before Teffect. Very strange cause and effect, to say the least.
Why can't Nist establish times Tcause and Teffect and provide us a time table for these events. And an explanation how IZ disappears (how?, where?), RMA falls down, its energy (easy to calculate), RMA disappears (how?, where?), the strain energy of RMB (easy to calculate), etc, etc.
It is very disturbing that Nist just produces nonsense - fairy tales - in its scientific report.
Don't blame the piano player if the music is bad. Nist produced the music and, I agree, it is awful.