Failure mode in WTC towers

[Heiwa]

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?

And what steel (?) samples did he and a colleague look at?

And who is talking about explosives?

What did the rupture surfaces look like of the damaged steel parts of the structure? Torn apart by brute force? Brittle fracture? Give me some details!

 

[Heiwa]

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.

?? Are we introduced? Why do you call me a conspiracy liar? I write articles for children about the WTC collapses (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ). I keep it simple. I am not a university professor or a super-bright professional. But I am a real engineer. What are you?

 

[Heiwa]

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:

[qimg]http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6558/northtipph0.png[/qimg]

Thank you.

 

[Norseman]

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:

Bofors, the red line indicates how far down into the lower block the edge of the northwest corner of the upper block could have moved. So any damage to the lower block at this point is hidden by the ejected smoke and dust from the collapsing floors in the picture.

 

[pomeroo]

And what steel (?) samples did he and a colleague look at?

And who is talking about explosives?

What did the rupture surfaces look like of the damaged steel parts of the structure? Torn apart by brute force? Brittle fracture? Give me some details!

He looked at the steel NIST had acquired for their tests. Why don't you simply call and ask him? I found him easily enough. Why do you fantasists always expect someone else to the research for you? I thought you were seeking Da Twoof?

 

[pomeroo]

?? Are we introduced? Why do you call me a conspiracy liar? I write articles for children about the WTC collapses (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ). I keep it simple. I am not a university professor or a super-bright professional. But I am a real engineer. What are you?

I call you a conspiracy liar becuase you present debunked nonsense and try to peddle it as research. You are not merely making honest mistakes because your mistakes have been corrected many times by people who know much more than you do.

 

[Major_Tom]

So any damage to the lower block at this point is hidden by the ejected smoke and dust from the collapsing floors in the picture.

Which brings us to an imteresting question:

What is happening to the perimeter columns along floor 98 to 94 (and later 92) during these moments?

People who believe in gravity driven collapse would say that that entire line along the west face (right face) is buckling. Is that true?


I think that there is actually a severing and displacemant process going on along the 97th floor line.

I don't believe quantities of perimeter columns along the 98-96th floors can be found that show that the initial give witnessed along the west perimeter was due to inelastic buckling along this 97th floor line.


I know that this is just a crazy guess at this point, but I don't believe that the perimeter panels within the rubble from the floors 92 to 98 will tend to show buckling.

I believe that the sections of perimeter panels seen leading all the others in freefall are actually from the 98th to 92nd floor region.



Of course I have provided no proof as of yet. I'll try to present my case in the next few days.

 

[Heiwa]

I call you a conspiracy liar becuase you present debunked nonsense and try to peddle it as research. You are not merely making honest mistakes because your mistakes have been corrected many times by people who know much more than you do.

But what are you?

 

[Heiwa]

He looked at the steel NIST had acquired for their tests. Why don't you simply call and ask him? I found him easily enough. Why do you fantasists always expect someone else to the research for you? I thought you were seeking Da Twoof?

You brought up the particular subject. Why not enlighten us completely?

 

[Apollo20]

An experiment to test your powers of observation:

Major Tom/Bofors/Heiwa:

Here is a little experiment for you all to try:

1. Download that series of slides of the collapse of WTC 1 at www.cool-places etc. (See Major Tom's post for the link)
2. Place a straight edge - a clear plastic ruler is best - vertically on your TV screen.
3. Align the straight edge/ruler to mark the position of the antenna at the start of the collapse sequence (you might find it easier to locate the antenna on slide 2 or 3). Now hold the straight edge very still.....
4. Click through the series of slides from 1 to 17 and watch what happens to the vertical alignment of the antenna.
5. Please post what you see on this thread!

This one is only for Heiwa:

6. Now tell me there is no tipping of the upper block of WTC 1!

 

[bofors]

I know that this is just a crazy guess at this point, but I don't believe that the perimeter panels within the rubble from the floors 92 to 98 will tend to show buckling.

I believe that the sections of perimeter panels seen leading all the others in freefall are actually from the 98th to 92nd floor region.

This idea is supported by the evidence presented in the discussion of Curioso #1, the perimeter column section leading descent is not characterized by buckling:

 

[Max Photon]

An experiment to test your powers of observation:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Tom/Bofors/Heiwa:

Here is a little experiment for you all to try:

1. Download that series of slides of the collapse of WTC 1 at www.cool-places etc. (See Major Tom's post for the link)
2. Place a straight edge - a clear plastic ruler is best - vertically on your TV screen.
3. Align the straight edge/ruler to mark the position of the antenna at the start of the collapse sequence (you might find it easier to locate the antenna on slide 2 or 3). Now hold the straight edge very still.....
4. Click through the series of slides from 1 to 17 and watch what happens to the vertical alignment of the antenna.
5. Please post what you see on this thread!

This one is only for Heiwa:

6. Now tell me there is no tipping of the upper block of WTC 1!

Bush won't hold still against the screen.

 

[einsteen]

I call you a conspiracy liar becuase you present debunked nonsense and try to peddle it as research. You are not merely making honest mistakes because your mistakes have been corrected many times by people who know much more than you do.

That's interesting, which people are you referring to, I can't remember a rigid mathematical proof that proves that the top block stays rigid in the impact zone ?

 

[bofors]

Bofors, the red line indicates how far down into the lower block the edge of the northwest corner of the upper block could have moved. So any damage to the lower block at this point is hidden by the ejected smoke and dust from the collapsing floors in the picture.

The northwest corner is not totally obstructed by smoke. The image indicates that the building top is being destroyed faster than the building the bottom.

 

[Major_Tom]

Exactly Bofors (referring to the falling perimeter piece), and note in the same set of pictures, on the left side of the building, there is a large multistory (5 or 6, I believe) piece of perimeter clearly leading the way in freefall.

It is also clearly a corner piece, my guess is it is the corner between 92 and 97. It is a very large piece and it doesn't appear buckled.

According to gravity collapse, this piece should be buckled, no?


Apollo20, I have no problem with the south side of the building leading the north side in the "collapse".

 

[Furcifer]

?? 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.

I proposed last year over at physorg that the upper block was completely destroyed (except perhaps the truss hat) by the time it reached the 50 or 60th floor as is observed in the video. I suggested this may also be a possible reason for the "spire" or free standing core section. I suggest again that you research what was made of this discussion as you may find it of interest. Especially the precollapse wave and the floor truss connections.

As for the upper block being much weaker, I think you need to consider the fact that there is sufficient evidence to show the floor truss conections were detached prior to the upper sections decent. These connections between the core and exterior were important considerations how ridgid the upper and lower blocks would have behaved. A certain amount of mass was being funneled towards the core by the exterior columns in the pre-collapse wave. This would certainly made the lower block much less ridgid prior to it making contact with the upper section.

 

[bofors]

This is Slide #3 from the working set:

IGNORE THE ARROW HEAD. THE LINE ITSELF IS USED TO HIGHLIGHT THE SMOKE.

A line of pre-collapse initiation smoke emerges along a single floor on the West side of the WTC.

Since this smoke emerges before collapse initiation, it proves CD.

 

[Apollo20]

Major Tom:

Yes, but apparently Heiwa does.... he claims to see no tipping at all!

And there are no videos of the south face of WTC 1 during the collapse (as far as I know) but this would tell us a lot about the collapse!

 

[Max Photon]

Perimeter column buckling vs column splice bolt failure

Exactly Bofors (referring to the falling perimeter piece), and note in the same set of pictures, on the left side of the building, there is a large multistory (5 or 6, I believe) piece of perimeter clearly leading the way in freefall.

It is also clearly a corner piece, my guess is it is the corner between 92 and 97. It is a very large piece and it doesn't appear buckled.

According to gravity collapse, this piece should be buckled, no?

Not necessarily.

What about column splice bolt failure - from moment, shear and tensile action - particularly if column splice bolts (and spandrel splice plates) had been heat-weakened?

 

[bofors]

Major Tom/Bofors/Heiwa:

Here is a little experiment for you all to try:

1. Download that series of slides of the collapse of WTC 1 at www.cool-places etc. (See Major Tom's post for the link)
2. Place a straight edge - a clear plastic ruler is best - vertically on your TV screen.
3. Align the straight edge/ruler to mark the position of the antenna at the start of the collapse sequence (you might find it easier to locate the antenna on slide 2 or 3). Now hold the straight edge very still.....
4. Click through the series of slides from 1 to 17 and watch what happens to the vertical alignment of the antenna.
5. Please post what you see on this thread!

This one is only for Heiwa:

6. Now tell me there is no tipping of the upper block of WTC 1!

Flight 11 impacted the north face of the north tower, this means that most of the damage would be on the north side. Shouldn't a gravity driven collapse have begun with tipping towards the north?