Failure mode in WTC towers
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
-
- Tags
- column
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Actually bofors you're right. So get on it, do what you have to to explore this theory. Talk is cheap.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Zing! Nominated for the Pith Awards.
Heiwa, in that picture you made from the north tower the collapse starts at about floor 14 from the top, the fire zone is much below that point, I also copied that one once from a truther site without verifying. Around the yellow line it starts
In a recent video from the south tower there is a much more interesting thing to see and that is a kink that appears when it collides on the remaining structure, I wanted to determine the angle as function of time, but I've had no time.
ps. after re-reading I still think you have a good point because the damage zone is a whole zone of course and that lowest part indeed doesn't move, strange, I need some time for this...
In a recent video from the south tower there is a much more interesting thing to see and that is a kink that appears when it collides on the remaining structure, I wanted to determine the angle as function of time, but I've had no time.
ps. after re-reading I still think you have a good point because the damage zone is a whole zone of course and that lowest part indeed doesn't move, strange, I need some time for this...
Last edited:
I thought they were not allowed in to look! Where are the forensic reports of the alleged damaged parts of, e.g. the 'initiation zones'? Just one of 580+ columns there suffices; it should be bucklebent or crumpled, then it must be ripped off from the block above and the structure below. Then we need to knwo where it ended up.
Ended up? Either it was deformed several times when the upper block, rigid all the time, you know, impinged on it and the other floors below several times or it was thrown out of the way. I assume the core columns fall in the first category and the perimeter columns in the other.
Of course you will find none.
I cannot understand how anybody still believes the Nist, Bazant, Seffen fairy tale of an intact, rigid, solid upper block of uniform density crushing all the structure below.
This upper block has the density of a bale of wool ... and is probably as solid and rigid. Talking about wool ... doesn't it come from sheep? Plenty of those at this forum.
Last edited:
I concentrate on North WTC1 tower where it is easy to demonstrate for children that the upper block is not solid, rigid, drops straight down, etc. as suggested by 'experts' at FEMA and Nist and by professors and lecturers at universities. In the South WTC2 tower it is even easier to show it - the upper block tilts a lot ... and disappears completely.
If you move the yellow line up a couple floors to floor 98 it will be correct. That is the floor with the symmetrical smoke ejections going around the north and west side of the tower. By the way the collapse initiation started on the south side and moved around to the north side. So the collapse started 12 floors below the top.
Last edited:
Yes it disappeared into the lower block and destroyed it.
Linguistic that is a possibility. But what does that imply ? What happens with the core columns ? They must be destroyed while the block falls down, but it is believed that the connections are the weakest parts, I don't get it.
?? The upper block is supposed to be rigid and solid all the time during the collapse above the crush-zone, while it destroys the structure below. However, the upper block is much weaker than the structure below. The upper block is just (WTC1) say 16 floors (each 1850 tons) connected by columns, and the columns between each pair of floors act as springs. The upper block is like an accordion. Its uniform density is only 0.18 tons/m3.
And what we see on all videos of WTC1 is that the upper block is compressed/shortened 50% prior to starting any destruction of the structure below. What does it mean? Aha, the density of the upper block has doubled, it is now 0.36 ton/m3 ... but is it still solid and rigid as assumed by Nist, Bazant and Seffen? If the upper block is shortened 50% many really solid parts of it (e.g. columns - only <1% of the volume) must have been compressed, broken, split, etc. ... and what caused that? The roof falling down? Yes, the roof fell down 5-6 seconds before anything happened to the intact structure below the initiation zone. The heat? So the whole upper block was heated >800°C?
It is really sad that FEMA never made a proper forensic analysis of the upper block.
I think this topic needs some serious attention. One of the theories is that crush-up and crush-down happens in an early stage during the collapse and then a layer of compacted floors (the comet.... but then in 64m x 64m slabs) should form, that one does in fact the work and the rest simply adds to it and the remaining top block follows. The crush-down first theory is a first order approach to this theory but that is a process that starts at the first two floors that collide. The dust covers the view, it is hard to see what really happens. In your analysis the total distance becomes shorter implying that a couple of stories have compacted but that is not something which happens above the damaged zone, since these stories are weakened it is energetically advantageous that this zone crushes first. It's strange.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Heiwa;3401181The [B said:
And what, at this stage, is the density of the lower block? Roughly 0.18 tons/m3, same as the upper block prior to collapse, isn't it? Given that the density of the upper block, in your model, is now twice that of the lower, which would you expect to suffer more damage? What you seem to be arguing here is that crush-up leads to enhanced crush-down, and vice versa, which seems a very reasonable conclusion but one which doesn't support your belief in the indestructibility of the lower block.
Dave
Very nice powerpoint set of graphics for studying the North Tower collapse initiation.
about 5MB downloadable and well worth it.
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt
Courtesy of Gregory Ulrich.
about 5MB downloadable and well worth it.
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt
Courtesy of Gregory Ulrich.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
Heiwa, could you point me at that potential energy calculation. I missed it in the other thread. Thanks.
Heiwa:
It is incorrect to say, as you do, that "the roof fell down 5-6 seconds before anything happened to the intact structure below the initiation zone."
If you follow the first part of the collapse of WTC 1, the upper block is only VISIBLE for about 3 - 4 seconds after its first motion before it is obscured by smoke and dust.
You must also factor in the tipping of the upper block (even for WTC 1) which requires that you look at videos that were NOT taken from the north of the building since the tipping was to the south.
It is incorrect to say, as you do, that "the roof fell down 5-6 seconds before anything happened to the intact structure below the initiation zone."
If you follow the first part of the collapse of WTC 1, the upper block is only VISIBLE for about 3 - 4 seconds after its first motion before it is obscured by smoke and dust.
You must also factor in the tipping of the upper block (even for WTC 1) which requires that you look at videos that were NOT taken from the north of the building since the tipping was to the south.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I'm pretty sure you can see the tipping fairly well in the ppt file that MajorTom posted above.
Well, as usual, you thought wrong. As I mentioned in the thread on Stacey Loizeaux"s comments, I spoke with Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University. He and a colleague examined the steel samples obtained by NIST and found no evidence whatever of explosives. Let me guess: he's in on it, too. Or, maybe he just can't understand what he's looking at?
You conspiracy liars make up whatever nonsense you need to support the fantasy du jour and you expect people to take you seriously. Yeah, nobody examined the structural steel and nobody thought to consider the shape it was in. The dumbest and most poorly-informed always manage to notice things that super-bright professionals overlook. The real engineers here have explained your errors to you many times. You are incapable of learning.
Of course it depends on what you mean with first motion of roof and from what side you look. We discuss WTC1. The alleged tipping south I have not been able to see on the videos. Regardless - the roof cannot move before the columns buckle in the initiation zone and somebody suggests that the complete south wall bucklebent first, which I have not been able to see either. The enhanced photo of the southwall, showing a large indent extent >30 x 30 metres with a max indentation/pull in of 55 inches is not real! Too much enhancement? And no initiation zone.
Last time we can see the roof, before it disappears in the smoke, it appears to have dropped down 30+ meters. As the upper block is assumed to be rigid/solid/one piece above the buckled columns of the initiation zone (where?, height of upper block?), you evidently look at the area 30 meters below the estimated initiation zone, to see what has happened there. And luckily enough, there is no smoke there ... and no visible damages!
No big deal, actually. The upper block is not rigid at all, it is just similar to a bale of wool or a mattress or an accordion. It compresses, you will be told in the next Nist FAQ April (1st) 2008. Uniform density before compression only 0.18 tons/m3. But what compresses it? The mast above? The air above? Seffen thinks the upper part is a party ballon!! Pouff. I may agree in principle. The upper block someway collapses into itself during 3,4,5 second (before anything else happens below it). How it is done, I have no idea. But it is not normal. My only point is only that the upper block is not rigid at all and then is softer than any structure below that cannot be harmed in any way by the soft mess above. Did you miss that? The mass above becomes a mess like moss before it solidly impacts the structure below and destroys it. Act of God, no doubt?
bofors
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Messages
- 579
You can quibble with the details but Heiwa's point still stands. The upper block of WTC 1 clearly drops several floors while the bottom block is undamaged. Even if substantial tipping occurred to the south, this image is yet another way to prove CD:
