Failure mode in WTC towers

[pomeroo]

Ron, are you trying to say that the columns could not be weakened with the use of thermite?

Yes. That is the conclusion of people who actually know something about thermite. They keep posting and you keep ignoring.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is used in everyday demolitions. Thermite wouldn't be as efficient as explosives and since legal demolitions wouldn't require stealth, they would just use explosives. Thermite was developed for stealth for use by the military where artillery could be destroyed/disabled without any noise.

What about the molten metal in the rubble? Do you deny that it was there or do you have another explanation for its existence?

Yes, everyone agrees that there was molten metal in the rubble (not "steel"), insulated and "cooking." None of the engineers and scientists who have commented on it seem to find its presence in any way anomalous. It has nothing to do with the collapses of the buildings and provides absolutely no evidence for the use of thermite. But, you already knew that.

Why did NIST only get a few core columns from the fire affected areas?

You've been JAQing off for years--why not ask NIST? I have no trouble reaching Mike Newman.

I am not incapable of learning and have learned in the last two years that there was more to 911 than we have been told.

I don't believe that you've learned anything that contradicts the conclusions of the real researchers. Certainly, you haven't shown us anything.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything but strawman or very weak arguments used to refute the evidence that the towers and building 7 were demolitions.

The arguments refuting the conspiracy liars' myths about explosives are crushing. The fantasy movement has nothing to support its baseless claims. All the strawmen and weak arguments are the property of the evil movement you serve.

 

[pomeroo]

I am only going to talk about the buildings as that is the subject of this thread. There is plenty of plausible speculation on what was done with the planes and I am sure you know where to find it.

Of course you are going to duck this vital issue. That's why you people are correctly termed conspiracy liars.

Your fantasy requires that the planes hit specific floors. You are trapped and you know it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Of course you are going to duck this vital issue. That's why you people are correctly termed conspiracy liars.

Your fantasy requires that the planes hit specific floors. You are trapped and you know it.

Hardly. I am thinking there could be a new term coined here like conspiracy fools which would be for the naive among us who don't believe it ever happens.

You really should start another thread on the plane subject if you want to get into that.

 

[pomeroo]

Hardly. I am thinking there could be a new term coined here like conspiracy fools which would be for the naive among us who don't believe it ever happens.

Good point. I can, as you know, produce an avalanche of lies peddled by the fantasy movement to justify calling its myrmidons "conspiracy liars." All you have to do is present evidence of a real conspiracy.

You really should start another thread on the plane subject if you want to get into that.

There are many. The conspiracy liars flee from all of them with their tails tucked firmly between their legs.

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Greg, I elaborated on why an axially loaded column could be expected to fail at its splice on the first page of this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3374831&postcount=27

The diagram you show is not representative of the columns in the towers and is thus a little misleading.

Timoshenko and Gere state that in the case of columns fixed at both ends the concept of an eccentric axial load has no meaning and that any moment applied at the end of the column is directly resisted by the supports and produces no bending of the column itself. The columns in the twin towers were fixed at both ends.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Good point. I can, as you know, produce an avalanche of lies peddled by the fantasy movement to justify calling its myrmidons "conspiracy liars." All you have to do is present evidence of a real conspiracy.





There are many. The conspiracy liars flee from all of them with their tails tucked firmly between their legs.

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

It seems like when you can't win an argument on the building collapses you switch gears to another issue with 911. It almost sounds like you are arguing with yourself. I can't say that I blame you as anyone would do this when confronted with a potential conspiracy of the magnitude of 911.

 

[pomeroo]

It seems like when you can't win an argument on the building collapses you switch gears to another issue with 911. It almost sounds like you are arguing with yourself. I can't say that I blame you as anyone would do this when confronted with a potential conspiracy of the magnitude of 911.

Excuse me? You were knocked cold on the building collapses. You were exposed as an uninformed charlatan posing as an engineer. You haven't contacted NIST because you have nothing to say. You can't show them errors in their report because you can't find any. You can't respond to Mackey's paper refuting Griffin's lies because Mackey is here and he will hand you your empty head. You lamely responded to a real engineer's annihilation of your falsehoods by citing the nonsensical fantasies of a know-nothing. You have produced absolutely zilch to support your pernicious myths.

The planes were "expected" to hit certain floors, according to you. Fine--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[beachnut]

It seems like when you can't win an argument on the building collapses you switch gears to another issue with 911. It almost sounds like you are arguing with yourself. I can't say that I blame you as anyone would do this when confronted with a potential conspiracy of the magnitude of 911.

realcddeal, you said the thermite was in the WTC already before impacts of the terrorist flights. Who flew the planes and how did they avoid damaging the thermite fused, the planted thermite, and how much thermite was there. You must of run the calculations, because Jones made it all up, Max Photon made it all up, I assume you really ran some numbers and have how much thermite it took. Yes you said it happen, you show the numbers.

The impact of the panes is real important, and who flew them is an integral part of your STUPID theory. You made it up, you fill in the information smart guy.

Just fire, not thermite, and steel is twisted and fails. Thermite is ten times less heat than jet fuel per pound. Why use thermite, when you injected 10,000 gallons of jet fuel? 67,000 pounds of jet fuel! You need 670,000 pounds of themite to equal the heat. Do you think someone would notice 670,000 pounds of thermite being hauled up to the upper floors of the WTC? Tony, wake up and stop making up lies about 9/11 without evidence.

The planes are a major part of the failure of the WTC. To deny this is pure stupidity. Without the planes there is no failure mode. But then you have a theory of thermite, and now you must fill in the rest of the story? How did the terrorist know where to hit? Who were the pilots is a very good question.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal, you said the thermite was in the WTC already before impacts of the terrorist flights. Who flew the planes and how did they avoid damaging the thermite fused, the planted thermite, and how much thermite was there. You must of run the calculations, because Jones made it all up, Max Photon made it all up, I assume you really ran some numbers and have how much thermite it took. Yes you said it happen, you show the numbers.

The impact of the panes is real important, and who flew them is an integral part of your STUPID theory. You made it up, you fill in the information smart guy.

The planes are a major part of the failure of the WTC. To deny this is pure stupidity. Without the planes there is no failure mode. But then you have a theory of thermite, and now you must fill in the rest of the story? How did the terrorist know where to hit? Who were the pilots is a very good question.

How much molten metal was in the rubble? The planes appear to have been nothing more than causal ruses intended to fool us into thinking they caused the buildings to collapse, so that outsiders could be blamed. Many of us have awoken from that stupor. You and others like Ron Wieck apparently haven't yet.

 

[pomeroo]

How much molten metal was in the rubble?

Who cares?

The planes appear to have been nothing more than causal ruses intended to fool us into thinking they caused the buildings to collapse, so that outsiders could be blamed.

Completely wrong. The planes were hijacked by jihadists who remain proud of their victory and mystified by the ravings of lunatics who want to stand reality on its head.

Many of us have awoken from that stupor. You and others like Ron Wieck apparently haven't yet.

You have no hope of awakening from your self-induced stupor. Confront your worst fears. Confront the reality that buries your evil movement. Tell us--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[beachnut]

How much molten metal was in the rubble? The planes appear to have been nothing more than causal ruses intended to fool us into thinking they caused the buildings to collapse, so that outsiders could be blamed. Many of us have awoken from that stupor. You and others like Ron Wieck apparently haven't yet.

Pure stupid; your post, is dumb. You failed to even post a single number to support your thermite stupidity. Like your paper this post is indicative of your lack of evidence, calculations, or real work. Even Max Photon delivered numbers. But you are just a truth engineer, not a reality major.

Please present the pilots, the amount of thermite, and how it was placed, fused, and detonated? Failure to post real numbers to support your ideas is admitting failure to have an idea based in reality. Just a hint for any kids watching, thermite has 10 times les heat energy than jet fuel. But realcddeal does not care if his plot can not work, he is making it all up anyway.

Tony stop posting this garbage, even your paper is wrong, section by section of pure talk and hearsay.

 

[Furcifer]

When the core columns are destroyed, very possibly via heat weakening, they would pull on the perimeter walls through the floors.

You entertain the fantasy that some unknown method of using thermite, placed there months before, by somebody, and somehow made it through the plane impact intact, then waited for an hour to begin burning, then heat weakened the steel?

But it couldn't possibly be the combination of fuel, fire and oxygen from the obvious airliner impact, gaping hole and raging fire?

And we're the naive ones?

 

[Max Photon]

Excuse me? You [realcddeal] were knocked cold on the building collapses. You were exposed as an uninformed charlatan posing as an engineer. [snip]

Please don't squeeze the Charlatan.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Who cares?





Completely wrong. The planes were hijacked by jihadists who remain proud of their victory and mystified by the ravings of lunatics who want to stand reality on its head.





You have no hope of awakening from your self-induced stupor. Confront your worst fears. Confront the reality that buries your evil movement. Tell us--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

deleted

 

[DGM]

One of the more hilarious parts of the OCT is the alleged ability of the cessna trained hijackers to fly on instruments. You can't fly VFR from 35,000 feet. Oh, I forgot some here have said they could have learned instrument flying on Microsoft simulator. Many real pilots have also said there was no way that these guys could have threaded a proverbial needle and flown those planes into those 209 foot wide buildings while moving at 500 mph so easily. That is like doing 200 mph down a residential street and pulling into your driveway. When landing commercial aircraft are moving at around 140 to 170 mph. Big difference. If it was really the alleged hojackers at least one of them would have missed on the first attempt. Nope they were two for two. Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else.

The other puzzling thing is all the reports of some of these alleged hijackers being seen on U.S. military bases. What is your answer for that Ron? It sounds to me like they were agents intended to play hijackers in a drill and that would also explain why 15 of them were from a friendly country like Saudi Arabia.

Tony:
Don't go this route you will only be made to look completely stupid. Just some honest friendly advice.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I fully discussed NIST's hypothesized initiation mechanism, due to alleged floor and core column sagging, in the paper, and I provide an alternate explanation for the observed perimeter column bowing and buckling.

I took a look at your failure mode, and applied some simple arithmetic, which is often a good idea before you rush to publish things.

First of all, let's look at the tower dimensions. The cores were 87 x 133 feet and the outer dimensions were 209 feet square. That gives floor spans from the core to the perimeter of 61 feet and 38 feet.

Next, the alleged antenna drop. The source referenced in your paper gives a drop of at most 10-12 feet over the first two seconds of collapse. Let's take the upper end of that range.

Now, assume that the core has dropped by 12 feet relative to the perimeter columns, and the floor joists have remained connected. The result will be that the perimeter columns are pulled in at every level above the point where the core is severed, which is not what was observed. However, let's propose that a mechanism exists by which the core could only pull in on the perimeter columns close to the collapse initiation zone, and nowhere else. What is the maximum amount the perimeter columns could be pulled in by a core drop of twelve feet?

First of all, it should be obvious that the longer the floor span, the greater the pull-in, so we'll look at the longer floor span of 61 feet. As the core drops, the floor truss will be angled, so the horizontal projection of its length is given by constructing a right-angled triangle where the vertical side is 12 feet, the hypotenuse is 61 feet, and the horizontal is the unknown to be determined. By Pythagoras' theorem, therefore, the projection is SQRT( 61^2 - 12^2 ) feet, which is 59 feet 10 inches. Subtract this from 61 feet and we have 1 foot 2 inches.

The maximum distance the perimeter columns could be pulled in by the mechanism you suggest is therefore 1 foot 2 inches, and this is about two seconds after collapse initiation.

According to NIST, the perimeter columns on the South face of WTC1 were pulled in up to 55 inches - approximately four times the maximum pull-in expected according to your collapse model - at 10:23am, shortly before collapse initiation.

Realcddeal, do you have any explanation for why your model fails so grossly at predicting either the time or the extent of the pull-in of the perimeter columns? And do you have any excuse for not already having done this trivially simple piece of arithemetic yourself?

Dave

 

[MikeW]

The other puzzling thing is all the reports of some of these alleged hijackers being seen on U.S. military bases.

Ah yes, like the Newsweek report that said:

Military records show that the three used as their address 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located. In March 1997, Saeed Alghamdi listed the address to register a 1998 Oldsmobile;
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915newsweek

But the hijacker Saeed al Ghamdi gives his birth date as 21st of November 1979, which would make him 17 at the time.

There's also a reporting of the Saeed al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Nami pairing living in Florida in 1992:

According to records, Ahmed Alnami and Saeed Al-Ghamdi, two members of the terrorist crew on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that went down in a Pennsylvania field, and Hamza Al-Ghamdi, who took over United Airlines Flight 175 and steered the second hijacked airplane into the World Trade Center, lived at the Delray Racquet Club in Delray Beach, Fla., beginning in 1992. "I saw them a few times a year over the years," said one resident who lives on the same floor where the three men lived. "They never spoke, nodded when I said 'Hi' but that was it. They had a few visitors but I never heard much noise."
The Boston Herald
September 16, 2001

If those are the base trainees, then they're not the hijackers: al Ghamdi would have been 12 or 13 at the time.

But surely there can't be other people called Saeed al Ghamdi. Can there?

Well, yes.

That's from a search carried out in August 2007. It shows a Saeed with a Pensacola address, another one at Dover AFB, both two old to be the hijacker, but they could have been the base trainees. More here.

 

[Furcifer]

I took a look at your failure mode, and applied some simple arithmetic, which is often a good idea before you rush to publish things.

First of all, let's look at the tower dimensions. The cores were 87 x 133 feet and the outer dimensions were 209 feet square. That gives floor spans from the core to the perimeter of 61 feet and 38 feet.

Next, the alleged antenna drop. The source referenced in your paper gives a drop of at most 10-12 feet over the first two seconds of collapse. Let's take the upper end of that range.

Now, assume that the core has dropped by 12 feet relative to the perimeter columns, and the floor joists have remained connected. The result will be that the perimeter columns are pulled in at every level above the point where the core is severed, which is not what was observed. However, let's propose that a mechanism exists by which the core could only pull in on the perimeter columns close to the collapse initiation zone, and nowhere else. What is the maximum amount the perimeter columns could be pulled in by a core drop of twelve feet?

First of all, it should be obvious that the longer the floor span, the greater the pull-in, so we'll look at the longer floor span of 61 feet. As the core drops, the floor truss will be angled, so the horizontal projection of its length is given by constructing a right-angled triangle where the vertical side is 12 feet, the hypotenuse is 61 feet, and the horizontal is the unknown to be determined. By Pythagoras' theorem, therefore, the projection is SQRT( 61^2 - 12^2 ) feet, which is 59 feet 10 inches. Subtract this from 61 feet and we have 1 foot 2 inches.

The maximum distance the perimeter columns could be pulled in by the mechanism you suggest is therefore 1 foot 2 inches, and this is about two seconds after collapse initiation.

According to NIST, the perimeter columns on the South face of WTC1 were pulled in up to 55 inches - approximately four times the maximum pull-in expected according to your collapse model - at 10:23am, shortly before collapse initiation.

Realcddeal, do you have any explanation for why your model fails so grossly at predicting either the time or the extent of the pull-in of the perimeter columns? And do you have any excuse for not already having done this trivially simple piece of arithemetic yourself?

Dave

You've very gractiously allowed that the truss connections in the fire/impact zone remained intact, while the ones in the upper levels didn't. If you're going to do that, then you may as well also assume the floor trusses were stretched about 2m, but remained attached to the core and exterior. You may as well also assume that NIST is lying and the pull-in was no where near 55 inches and closer to 36 inches. Then it all makes sense.

The Theory of MAXimum Complexity.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The diagram you show is not representative of the columns in the towers and is thus a little misleading.

Timoshenko and Gere state that in the case of columns fixed at both ends the concept of an eccentric axial load has no meaning and that any moment applied at the end of the column is directly resisted by the supports and produces no bending of the column itself. The columns in the twin towers were fixed at both ends.

No Mr. Szamboti. A moment frame with an eccentric axial load has bending moments in it along the length of the column.

This is structural engineering 101. And just to show everyone else that you don't have any freaking clue about what you're talking about, I took a moment frame with eccentric end connections and tossed it into Risa-3d.



Here's the problem.


And the magnified deflected shape. Sure looks like there's bending there to me!

 

[GregoryUrich]

Those of us who lack an engineering background wonder why the twoofer pretend-engineers seem to know so much less than the real engineers. Mackey raises a point that is comprehensible to everyone: given the observable inward bowing, how would explosives produce such an effect?

C'mon, stretch those imaginations. All of you frauds have screamed about explosives, in the absence of a shred of evidence, for years. Explain how powerful blasts pulled the exterior columns inward.

I for one have not pushed explosive or thermite demolition, but don't be silly. Explosives or thermite can fail any structural component just as well as a "NIST fire".