Failure mode in WTC towers

[rwguinn]

Hi Einsteen,

The green ones go in the triangular holes, the blue ones go in the square holes, and the red ones go in the round holes.

Or, you can lift the yellow plate with the holes out of the way, and put the green, red, and blue blocks directly into the box.

Did you have any other questions you need help with?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[truthermode]
With the proper hammer, you don't have to use much force to put any object through any hole[/truthermodde]

 

[bofors]

They say that the whole top section funneled, try to imagine it, if you can't I don't blame you.

I would like to accept whatever gravity driven mechanism for collapse initialization they are proposing for the moment, and examine the mechanism of floor collapse.

I would like to know how a debris driven collapse could result in this:



What model for floor collapse explains the feature observed, specifically:

(1) linearity of the collapse fronts.

(2) several floor lag between the adjoining faces of the collapse.

 

[einsteen]

Hi Einsteen,

The green ones go in the triangular holes, the blue ones go in the square holes, and the red ones go in the round holes.

Or, you can lift the yellow plate with the holes out of the way, and put the green, red, and blue blocks directly into the box.

Did you have any other questions you need help with?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks man, I got it for my first birthday and still can't figure it out...

 

[bofors]

Did you have any other questions you need help with?

Yes, can you explain this in terms of debris driving a collapse?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

 

[beachnut]

I would like to accept whatever gravity driven mechanism for collapse initialization they are proposing for the moment, and examine the mechanism of floor collapse.

I would like to know how a debris driven collapse could result in this:



What model for floor collapse explains the feature observed, specifically:

(1) linearity of the collapse fronts.

(2) several floor lag between the adjoining faces of the collapse.

lol. This is funny stuff. Good job; I was wondering what would make me laugh as I clean and cut the bamboo; the bamboo is not funny. On your quest to messing up 9/11 stuff, at least you guys are funny from a funny engineering standpoint. I have to make a trip back to Atlanta and visit my high school teachers and thank them for teaching me physics, chemistry, calculus, and most of all to think for myself. At least you guys think you are doing great things. That is important. Keep up the good work. Classic statements are rare.

I would like to accept whatever gravity driven mechanism for collapse initialization they are proposing for the moment,

Thanks again, you inspired me to make that trip and thank them again.

That video is pure stupid. What kind of expert is he? Wave of explosions, silent ones, good job.

 

[bofors]

I have to make a trip back to Atlanta and visit my high school teachers...

Don't forget this:

 

[beachnut]

Don't forget this:

Your video was really not very good. What does the guy who made it do for a living. Fiction? You believe idiots who make up lies on video, but are unable to ask your own teachers or real expert how things work. Cool. You will leave this thread like you do the rest, not willing to learn on your own, or from others.

Still waiting for Bofors to explain why shrapnel from a continuous rod warhead (also commonly referred to as "annular blast fragmentation warheads") isn't really shrapnel.

You left this one, and you know more about the rod warhead, than building mechanics.

 

[Furcifer]

Hi Einsteen,

The green ones go in the triangular holes, the blue ones go in the square holes, and the red ones go in the round holes.

Or, you can lift the yellow plate with the holes out of the way, and put the green, red, and blue blocks directly into the box.

Did you have any other questions you need help with?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[truther mode] And I suppose "gravity" pulls them through the holes? lolz. Expolsionz originating from inside the box create a vacuum. Notice the counterclockwise rotation of the yellow truss hat, only possible if most of the explosives were placed on the North East corner of the box!. THE EDGEZ OF THE HOLEZ ARE TOO SMOOTH! They were obviously cut with thermite chargez here, here and here. Have you ever see a box with a circlular, square and triangular holez? NEVER! Obviously, the shapes on the ground emminated from inside the box (cutting the holes in the truss hat) then were propelled downward using some silent propellant, FASTER THAN GRAVITY! [and off]

Someone call NIST.

 

[pomeroo]

The point was that there is no evidence what-so-ever that the top portion remained rigid or intact. You might as well just say what you never say "Oh, I guess you are right."

But conspiracy liars are never right. Or, hadn't you noticed?

 

[pomeroo]

Hi Einsteen,

The green ones go in the triangular holes, the blue ones go in the square holes, and the red ones go in the round holes.

Or, you can lift the yellow plate with the holes out of the way, and put the green, red, and blue blocks directly into the box.

Did you have any other questions you need help with?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad, Myriad, it is so obvious where you are going wrong! You are addressing a twoofer--this must be kept in mind at all times! Your approach is far too sophisticated. Too many advanced concepts packed together in the same post have no chance whatever of being comprehended. Here's how you should have attempted to educate the ineducable:

Devote one separate post to establishing that some of the pegs are green. Be prepared for a sneering rejoinder from Lost Child to the effect that you are merely claiming that they are green without evidence. Assume that at least ten posts will be required to establish that some pegs are green.

Next, you ask the twoofers to count the green pegs and estimate how many there are. Again, expect a heated dispute.

Twenty-five to thirty posts in, you might be able to inquire if all the pegs are the same color. The question will, of course, fail to produce a clear consensus, but after much wrangling, you will have to proceed as though it is possible to discern different colors on the pegs.

By now, there will be well over a hundred posts. You might--might, I say--begin ever so gingerly to suggest that the pegs have definite shapes and they are not all shaped the same. You will find that further progress is impossible. Disagreement will be predictably furious, with at least one twoofer contending that there are no pegs at all.

Don't even think about getting to the stage where fitting pegs into holes could come under consideration.

 

[einsteen]

What does the guy who made it do for a living. Fiction? You believe idiots who make up lies on video, but are unable to ask your own teachers or real expert how things work.

As long as this is not fully explained it is an open question. You are a smart man Beachnut, you believe that everything could be explained 100% with a little small collapse initiation 0.0001 seconds and the rest is "the simple consequence afterwards". But beachnut, this is not explained, far from explained. As long as that is the case I'm an agnostic. I'm also creative, I can find workarounds, fixes and desperate remedies to talk towards the official theory, but that's not the proper way.

 

[pomeroo]

As long as this is not fully explained it is an open question. You are a smart man Beachnut, you believe that everything could be explained 100% with a little small collapse initiation 0.0001 seconds and the rest is "the simple consequence afterwards". But beachnut, this is not explained, far from explained. As long as that is the case I'm an agnostic. I'm also creative, I can find workarounds, fixes and desperate remedies to talk towards the official theory, but that's not the proper way.

Fully-fueled commercial airliners slammed into the Twin Towers at high speeds. The impacts dislodged fireproofing and caused widespread fires that led to the inward bowing of external columns that everyone observes on the videos. Instead of the endless tap dancing, why doesn't your side explain why the buildings should NOT have collapsed?

 

[Myriad]

Yes, can you explain this in terms of debris driving a collapse?:

(followed by broken link, I used the link in post 342 instead)

I'm taking your questions from post 342 also.

Keep in mind that you're asking me to speculate. I'm happy to oblige but in the absence of any scientific investigation of the detailed dynamics of the collapse (due to computer modeling systems being inadequate to the task) that's all I can do.

(1) linearity of the collapse fronts.

Debris (especially concrete floor slabs from the floors above) landing on floors is causing floors to pancake. (You know, of course, that NIST ruled out the pancaking theory of collapse initiation, which is not the same thing as declaring that pancaking never occurred during the collapse.)

One process helping the progression of floor failure to remain roughly horizontal is the resistance of the structure. This resistance slows the collapse to slower than free-fall speed.

Now, consider the collapse from the point of view of a single undamaged floor. When does that floor provide the most resistance to further collapse? The answer is, while it's stationary and its connections to the columns are still completely intact (for however brief a period that might be, once the debris starts impacting it). As it starts to tear free and starts to accelerate, its resistance decreases. That means that the first debris to reach the floor encounters more resistance than debris that hits it later (we're talking small fractions of a second difference here). So the leading debris is slowed down more. This would tend to keep the falling debris on an even front.

(2) several floor lag between the adjoining faces of the collapse.

No such lag is evident in the video you linked. In each frame, lines aligned with the linear collapse fronts of the two visible sides intersect in the corner.

However, the collapse front at the corner itself does lag behind. This suggests that the standing corner structure is stronger, which makes sense (the meeting of two walls at a right angle is stronger than a span of flat wall). The corner floor trusses also had a stronger two-way arrangement. Corner collapse might well have lagged behind due to the increased resistance there, with corners shearing off as the main portion of the floors fell.

Also, you showed some images and videos on another thread that did appear to show the collapse front running several floors apart on opposite sides of the building. I wouldn't be surprised if floors on opposite sides of the long axis of the core did pancake separately, one side ahead of the other. The floor trusses between the short walls of the core and the walls ran parallel to the long axis of the core, so the only thing preventing half a floor from separating from the other half along that axis would have been the relatively weak (and few) bridging trusses, some deck support angles, four inches of concrete (brittle under shear), and the thin floor pan. The increased resistance of having to part the floors in two would have tended to keep the two sides even, but that might not have been enough to compensate for a head start of one side's collapse due to the initial tilt of the top section.

Until the technology exists to model the whole process under a whole array of starting conditions within the range of uncertainty of the known starting conditions, and observe the range of behaviors and probe the causes of each phenomenon of interest, such answers will be only speculative. That's why the published peer-reviewed scientific papers so far have focused on the overall characteristics of the collapse that don't depend on knowing what pieces broke in what order, such as the calculations that show ample potential energy available to destroy the structure in the time observed.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

As long as this is not fully explained it is an open question. You are a smart man Beachnut, you believe that everything could be explained 100% with a little small collapse initiation 0.0001 seconds and the rest is "the simple consequence afterwards". But beachnut, this is not explained, far from explained. As long as that is the case I'm an agnostic. I'm also creative, I can find workarounds, fixes and desperate remedies to talk towards the official theory, but that's not the proper way.

Next time you have an accident explain all of it. Go get an education so you can understand fire destroys the strength of steel. The pile of dumb posts grows as some people who believe 9/11 truth try to make up their own dumbed downed version of 9/11 physics for dummies.

The video sucked. It was the worse analysis I have listened to. It was wrong, not close to reality. How can someone so dumb say so much crap about something he can not even understand.

What was not fully explained? Why does 9/11 true fail to see heat destroys the strength of steel. If you let a building burn for hours there is a good chance you can have failures. There are thousands of examples of steel failing and killing people, and destroying buildings. 9/11 truth avoids talking about where buildings are that hand major fires; they are in the dump. Go talk to firemen if you do not understand the real world. A bunch of idiots on the internet are not experts. The video shown where the idiot says explosives are used is nuts on this aspect of 9/11; he is pure propaganda truth, and does not care if you are mislead. You are letting yourself be mislead. Do you even know it?

The trouble with ignorance, the only cure is hard work and study. The only problem with 9/11 truth is the members fail to live up to the potential many have to think for themselves. Is all of 9/11 truth made up of simpletons and mindless bots? Why are people giving up their right to think for themselves and stop making up lies based on hearsay.

Why do you ignore the impacts, and fires, and just go with a collapse initiation which I think took the time you see from impact to collapse. You want to ignore the floors slowing sagging, the very slow bowing of the exterior. No the collapse initiation started at 8:46 and 9:03. Sorry, you can not just make up ideas based on nothing. There was no sudden collapse initiation. It took time.

How can people believe the experts from 9/11 truth who make up lies and spread hearsay?

Carry on into ignorance on 9/11 with bofors, Heiwa, Gregory, major tom and terral; the posts you make are usually smarter than most.

 

[Max Photon]

Fully-fueled commercial airliners slammed into the Twin Towers at high speeds. The impacts dislodged fireproofing and caused widespread fires that led to the inward bowing of external columns [snip]

The purpose of this thread is to explore how the columns failed.

 

[Max Photon]

Error, error, on the wall...

Double post
Double post

Do U Blepo St.

Doub Le'Post

Do ublepos t?

 

[bofors]

(followed by broken link, I used the link in post 342 instead)

I'm taking your questions from post 342 also.

Keep in mind that you're asking me to speculate. I'm happy to oblige but in the absence of any scientific investigation of the detailed dynamics of the collapse (due to computer modeling systems being inadequate to the task) that's all I can do.

Thanks for trying to answer my questions. Your response largely consists of the Pancake progressive collapse type theory.

However, I think we can rule out Pancake collapse (as I believe NIST did even for "global collapse") for a number of reasons, several of which are captured in this picture of the South Tower:

Taken from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc2_trinity.html

What is really interesting about this footage is that the non-linear collapse front on the bright face actually becomes linear do to some explosive event:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_trinity.mp4

 

[pomeroo]

The purpose of this thread is to explore how the columns failed.

Rationalists with strong technical backgrounds have explained why the columns failed. The conspiracy liars, as always, are unable or refuse to understand.

 

[pomeroo]

Thanks for trying to answer my questions. Your response largely consists of the Pancake progressive collapse type theory.

However, I think we can rule out Pancake collapse (as I believe NIST did even for "global collapse") for a number of reasons, several are captures in the picture of South Tower:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2738/05mf8.jpg

Taken from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc2_trinity.html

What is really interesting about this footage is that the non-linear collapse front on the bright face actually because linear do to some explosive event:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_trinity.mp4

What nonsensical gibberish! And you claim to be an engineer?

 

[bofors]

What nonsensical gibberish! And you claim to be an engineer?

Do you like this better?

The distinct and sustained linearity of "collapse" fronts can not be explained by a non-"pancake" gravity driven collapse theory and such "pancake" theory can be ruled out.