• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Failure mode in WTC towers

Heiwa said:
The only gravity driven collapses known to mankind are snow avalanches (or similar), i.e. an upper block of snow that gets lose on a slope due to the gravity force exceeding the friction between the upper block and ground.
Click to expand...


I think what you really need to consider is that an avalanche is a perfect example of a system in resting on the point of equilibrium. It only takes a very small input of energy to push it out of equilibrium. This is what the fires did on 9/11.

Regardless of the density of the snow, if the lower portion can no longer support the upper you get an avalanche. You're trying to draw analogies using density that simply don't fit. It really doesn't matter how dense the upper section was relative to the lower, what matters is that the point of equilibrium was passed and the static very quickly changed to dynamic. In the dynamic state the system was doomed.
 
Newtons Bit, rwgwinn:
I'm not an engineer but I am a builder. You probably have been reading my responses to Tony. I'm not off the wall here, right? This is the way I visualize what he proposes happening. Thanks in advance for your input and or criticisms.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
I think you needed them to get to 650 degrees C to lose enough strength for a collapse to even be possible. Where is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...

Is this based in the structure being intact or damaged? I think you will agree determining the temperature required, the exact temperature required, depends on the damage.

If NIST proved anything, they proved this is very difficult to do. Even with a team of scientists and a very large budget.
 
DGM said:
Newtons Bit, rwgwinn:
I'm not an engineer but I am a builder. You probably have been reading my responses to Tony. I'm not off the wall here, right? This is the way I visualize what he proposes happening. Thanks in advance for your input and or criticisms.
Click to expand...
You're doing ok.
He hasn't got anything on the same planet as a clue.
It's obvious that Realcddeal thinks that bending moments just go away...
 
realcddeal said:
Another blah, blah, blah comment without support. Some of you guys seem really good at that.
Click to expand...


Um, some of us noticed that your fantasy is unsupported by either physical evidence or accurate calculations. You have an observed phenomenon, the inward bowing of the exterior columns, and you are trying to account for it without referring to the widespread fires. So far, your laughable effort doesn't rise to the level of a failure. It is, as someone here put it so exactly, not even wrong. You have been reduced to parroting the ravings of a know-nothing who is incapable of processing the information that thermite does not behave as he wants it to.

This pathetically inept performance is preferable to throwing in the towel?
 
realcddeal said:
If you have been following what I have been saying you will realize that I believe the central core columns were taken out at the collapse zone and below and this would have caused a huge plate load in the roof plate and hat truss due to the unsupported core pulling down on it from the center. This would have caused the upper areas to drop, center first.
Click to expand...


WHO FLEW THE PLANES???
 
realcddeal said:
I will get to it Mark when I have the time to do it.

I work nine hour days during the day. Do you?

Since you are right there in NYC why don't you do me a favor and tell them for me? You have my e-mail address, which you have my permission to give them.
Click to expand...


Aren't you embarrassed that you have been promoting pernicious nonsense for years and all you've accomplished is to get spanked repeatedly by real engineers? You've discovered that there many people in the rationalist community who know much more than you do about the science behind the collapses. You are, of course, incapable of displaying intellectual integrity--you wouldn't be a conspiracy liar if you could--but you keep repeating the same errors. Now you dishonestly pretend that you will take your discredited rubbish to a DA. What will you tell him-- "I'm a crank who gets refuted crushingly whenever I peddle my snake oil to real engineers, but I think you should take a look at my inept calculations and show them to other engineers who will inform me that I don't have a clue"?
 
Newtons Bit said:
....

That's an example of a column fixed at both ends, there was no such thing in the towers. They were moment FRAMES. You still have no concept of that. But let's elaborate on Timoshenko and Gere, they say that the SUPPORTS take out the moment. This is true. The support is the column above and below. Hmmm.....

You sir, are intentionally ignorant.
Click to expand...

The support is not the column above and below. That is ridiculous. If that were true we wouldn't need guys on guyed towers. The column there only takes the axial compression and the guys remove the moments. The same thing occurs in a building with horizontal beams. They act like solid guys attached to the mass of the building.

It is the adjacent beams which will apply a counteracting moment and alleviate any moment on the column.

You have to be kidding here or you weren't thinking when you said this. I would be really careful in calling someone ignorant if I were you.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Steel does not bend like this without a higher temperature than 250C
Notice the lack of fractures in the beam...
and there are lots of pictures of such...
Click to expand...

What temperature do you think the steel needed to get to in the collapse zone for a collapse to occur? I said 650 degrees C.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
The support is not the column above and below. That is ridiculous. If that were true we wouldn't need guys on guyed towers. The column there only takes the axial compression and the guys remove the moments. The same thing occurs in a building with horizontal beams. They act like solid guys attached to the mass of the building.

It is the adjacent beams which will apply a counteracting moment and alleviate any moment on the column.

You have to be kidding here or you weren't thinking when you said this. I would be really careful in calling someone ignorant if I were you.
Click to expand...

What the h*** are you talking about?
The moment just... disappears?
I don't know what school you went to, but is is a very bad one if they taught you that...
 
realcddeal said:
The jet fuel was gone in ten minutes. You have to use office fires for your argument. What about the holes and sulfidation found in steel from WTC7? Do you have an answer for that?

Oh, earlier you asked how thermite might be ignited. How about a fire proof box with magnesium ribbon and a small amount of thermite in it which is then placed on the larger mass of thermite. When the magnesium ribbon ignites the thermite inside the box it would burn through the box igniting the larger thermite mass. I am surprised you couldn't think outside the box well enough to conceive of a way to protect the ignition source in a fire.
Click to expand...
At least you come up with more fantasy stuff. You forgot to say how you over came the problems with ignition. You just throw out the standard stuff to light thermite, but failed to explain why your idea is going to solve the problem lighting thermite. You know sources!. How you actually set off the device (on time), and how a device which can not even melt railroad tracks, but actually welds them in place and cools down to make more track, can cut through steel? Failure is yours.

I have no problems thinking out of the box. Your thinking outside the box gives us a paper of errors. You can not even get simple design parameters correct. I tried there is no support in your paper for your conclusions. A BIG ZERO. Fact is the jet fuel had more heat energy than over 300,000 pounds of thermite. When you add the office fires, your thermite looks like a fizzled fire cracker. In fact there is more heat energy in the office fires than any box of thermite you have. Reality is you have never produced the amout of thermite needed to destroy one steel column. You have no estimates of the thermite used to start the WTC falling. Why? I will help you, the fires in the WTC were 20 to 200 times more heat than even large amounts of themite that would be seen being set up. Thermite is dead out of the box, in the box, wherever you want to stick your box. Given 24,000 kg of thermite, the heat energy would be 20 times less than the fires. And guess where a lot of that heat energy goes of thermite; what does the thermite do with that heat energy?

You do not even understand eutectic discussed on the sulfidation of the steel, and that it was a single sample; got more? Could it occur in a fire from the 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel in WTC7. Did you forget to mention there were thousand of gallons of fuel in WTC7. You know the WTC7 building that burned out of control all day at the WTC complex after tons of steel damaged it. BTW, the sulfidation is not from thermite/thermate. You do not understand eutectic, you should have roomed with a chemical engineer and civil engineer for 3 years, like myself and I.

Review for the grade school kids who actually believe firemen. When WTC7 burned all day, with zero fire fighting, zero sprinkler systems work, the building fell. What is unusual about a building falling after burning all day; for many hours! Not a thing. Tony, you have no clue on anything 9/11. It is proven with each statement in your own paper. Here is another statement from your paper with many errors. Your paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volu...itionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf The evidence, which has surfaced in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, in the last two years, is overwhelming. The obvious controlled demolition of WTC7, at 5:20 PM on Sept. 11, 2001, proves that charges were pre-positioned in it, as there would not have been time to rig the building that day, especially with fires in it.
Click to expand...
You presented zero evidence in your paper to support the CD theory you say you have!!!
Where is the evidence that is overwhelming, it is not in your paper, nor sourced; are you telling a lie?
The obvious CD of WTC7; another statement supported by ZERO evidence.
Then more BS than you can shake a stick at.

Your paper is a failure; it has zero support, not a single piece of evidence. Did you even read it yourself? You paper fails to covers this thread topic in anyway. Why is there no evidence to support you hand waving of CD?
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
Is this based in the structure being intact or damaged? I think you will agree determining the temperature required, the exact temperature required, depends on the damage.

If NIST proved anything, they proved this is very difficult to do. Even with a team of scientists and a very large budget.
Click to expand...

It is with 20% of the columns destroyed and or heavily damaged, essentially in a non-load carrying state. That leaves 80% intact and with the original factors of safety of 3:00 to 1 for the core and 5:00 to 1 for the perimeter that leaves 2.40 to 1 for the core and 4.00 to 1 for the perimeter. At 650 degrees C steel loses approximately 60% of its strength and if all the remaining columns in the core reached that temperature then there might have been a chance of a collapse.

However, we don't have physical evidence of these steel temperatures.
 
rwguinn said:
What the h*** are you talking about?
The moment just... disappears?
I don't know what school you went to, but is is a very bad one if they taught you that...
Click to expand...

Tell me mr. guinn are there any bending moments on the column of a guyed tower?
 
Does Tony understand that the whole world can read this forum, which has his real name all over it?
 
realcddeal said:
It is with 20% of the columns destroyed and or heavily damaged, essentially in a non-load carrying state. That leaves 80% intact and with the original factors of safety of 3:00 to 1 for the core and 5:00 to 1 for the perimeter that leaves 2.40 to 1 for the core and 4.00 to 1 for the perimeter. At 650 degrees C steel loses approximately 60% of its strength and if all the remaining columns in the core reached that temperature then there might have been a chance of a collapse.

However, we don't have physical evidence of these steel temperatures.
Click to expand...


The real engineers will, as usual, take you to school on these assertions, but, for the benefit of the non-engineers here, please resolve the following paradox: conspiracy liars have long claimed that demolition experts are wrong to insist that massive amounts of explosives would have been necessary to bring down the Towers in a controlled fashion. A small amount of magic Hushaboom applied on just the right column or columns would have done the trick. Now, you are attempting to sell the notion that leaving 20% of the columns in a non-load-bearing state would not have sufficed to cause a global collapse. Say what?
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
It is with 20% of the columns destroyed and or heavily damaged, essentially in a non-load carrying state. That leaves 80% intact and with the original factors of safety of 3:00 to 1 for the core and 5:00 to 1 for the perimeter that leaves 2.40 to 1 for the core and 4.00 to 1 for the perimeter.
Click to expand...
My, that's a fresh new conception of how to calculate "factors of safety" for a damaged building!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom