WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[Dumb All Over]

Heiwa,

you never told us who reviewed your paper.

This is an important question. May I again ask who reviewed your paper, Heiwa?

I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest that your paper has not been peer reviewed. I do this because it is clear to me that you do not understand what the "peer review process" actually is. What it is not is a submission of work to your friends and compatriots so that they may pat you on the back and say, "Good work."

A quick google search brought up these links explaining peer review-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.a...47;issue=3;spage=210;epage=4;aulast=Gitanjali
http://valinor.ca/peer-review.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html

Typically, a peer reviewed article is published in a scholarly journal. Heiwa, which scholarly journal was your peer reviewed article published in?

 

[milesalpha]

if you knew for sure? then maybe. but when you only want reinvestigations, you already count as a total kook like you deniers call it

and how many have the time to take a closer look at it?
its easy to drag all those who dont go public on your side.

when those "twoofexperts" are such frauds and liars etc, why isnt there a countermovement of you superreal experts to expose those frauds and liars?

a bunch of "skeptics" on jref and a few debunkers that think theyr theory is the only possible one.

.

To summarize, the Truth Movement will never be noted as one of the braver protest groups in history but still has a shot at being the most cowardly.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is absolutely, positively absurd. Kevin Ryan lost his job for misrepresenting his status within Underwriters Laboratories, not for "speaking out against NIST". There are NO repurcussions for criticising NIST. None. Look at Dr. James Quintierre's and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's examples. Have they lost their jobs? Are they hounded by hordes of "NISTians"? No. Why? Because they built their critiques professionally and logically and based them on real concerns. Plus they didn't misrepresent their positions within their organizations. Not lying, and basing things in reality makes all the difference.

The reason we here criticize conspiracy peddler's myths about NIST is precisely because those folks are peddling myths about NIST. When criticism is substantive, there's nothing to rebut.

NIST isn't the mafia, people. Nor do the NIST reports comprise some Bible that requires adherence to doctrine. Again, Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl have severely criticized the report, and no one here's calling them heretics.

Get real about what constitutes genuine criticism and what constitutes fallacy. That's the difference between Ryan and the other two individuals.

it seems that outside JREF the no-claimers are more respected.

Take the critique any way you wish, sir. As long as everyone understands the absurdity of the notion that "speaking out" against NIST results in professional repercussions, then I've successfully made my point.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Your claim, as far as I can see, is that the deceleration experienced by the falling parts of the structure will increase as more floors of the lower structure are punctured by the upper, and more floors of the upper by the lower. I have a few questions to ask about this.

(1) What is the effective force experienced by the upper part of the structure as a result of the resistance to penetration by columns of the floor below?

(2) Since this is a force invariant with the drop of the upper part of the structure - on average there are as many floors in any given interval of height as in any other - is the only component of effective force, therefore, the friction between the columns of one block and the floors of the other?

(3) If so, what is the value of this effective force as a function of the number of floors penetrated?

If you can determine the effective upward force on the falling part of the structure and demonstrate that at some point in the collapse it is greater than the downward force due to gravity, then you have an argument. In your paper you have simply stated without proof that the collapse will be arrested, so your arguments have no other force than your appeal to your own personal authority, which you have not satisfactorily established.

In other words, show your calculations, or your work is worthless.

Dave

Dave

Yes, the parts of the upper block must decelerate when coming in contact with any part of the lower structure = a hammer slows down when hitting a nail.

(1) We are talking about the wall columns of the upper block misaligned inside the lower structure and penetrating the uppermost floor of the lower structure. What force/energy is required to penetrate the thin static floor (nail) by a solid column (hammer) carrying a lot of mass/load? Well, what does the solid column end look like? Sharp or bent? Regardless - energy is required to damage/penetrate the floor and it varies depending on location on floor and shape of the hitting end of the column.

(2) Not understood - layman's terms, please!

(3) Ditto.

Effective upward force on a falling part? You mean the resistance (strain energy) of the floor (nail) to be penetrated by the column (hammer) coming down from above? Yes, this is my point. The lower structure applies a force on the mass coming down from above (part of the upper block) and many things happens; the upper block is slowed down, the upper block may be damaged (at least on the other side where an upper block floor tries to destroy the columns of the lower structure), the upper block geometry will change, it will also tilt as the reaction forces of the lower structure applied on the upper block differ in various locations, the situation changes with time.

How to solve that structural problem? You have to apply FEM analysis of every step when the damage develops. It has been done before - the Japanese have done it of a ship penetrating a tanker in a collision. The collision damages took 10 seconds to develop before arrest (all available energy transformed into deformations and heat/friction) - the FEM analysis took plenty of time ... but it compared very well with reality.

So, what happens when the upper block of WTC1 with all its parts slides down into the lower structure can be calculated using advanced FEM analysis of every step and decelarations involved. NIST should be in a position to do it. My gut feeling is that the local failures are arrested after a few floors of upper/lower parts have been sliced and fallen down and the upper block tilts against the intact columns of the lower sructure as shown in my article.

Heiwa

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, what happens when the upper block of WTC1 with all its parts slides down into the lower structure can be calculated using advanced FEM analysis of every step and decelarations involved. NIST should be in a position to do it. My gut feeling is that the local failures are arrested after a few floors of upper/lower parts have been sliced and fallen down and the upper block tilts against the intact columns of the lower sructure as shown in my article.

Then a summary of the article is, "It is my gut feeling that the WTC towers wouldn't have collapsed, but I have no analysis or calculations to back it up". Could you add a foreword that admits to this please?

Dave

ETA: Two other comments.
(1) You are assuming that the resisting force, which you haven't calculated, is greater than the force of gravity. How can you possibly know that when you haven't calculated it?
(2) When one ship crashes into another, I'm not entirely surprised that the collision is self-arresting, because there's no significant gravitational force driving it. In this respect, the collapse of the Twin Towers is fundamentally different.

 

[Heiwa]

Specifications are written to be understandable by idiots. That's ok, because the people doing the work don't need to understand the principles behind why the design works.

So I write my article for children and normal people interested in the subject. None are idiots. But you can be sure that the physical principles and simple calculations involved are 100% correct. And quite difficult to debunk in a logical and polite manner. Many seems to get upset about that? Probably NWO physics quacks! Have they started their thread yet?

 

[Heiwa]

Then a summary of the article is, "It is my gut feeling that the WTC towers wouldn't have collapsed, but I have no analysis or calculations to back it up". Could you add a foreword that admits to this please?

Dave

Dave

No, the summary and conclusions at the end of the article remains the same. And we are talking about possible collapse due to gravity alone after some local failures up top.

To me it appears that the collapses as seen were assisted by other means than gravity ... but that is outside the subject of the article and this thread.

Paras 1.1 - 1.5 are just about what would happen during a few seconds after initiation (upper block getting loose) and that early collapse arrest of a steel structure is very likely as it has aways happened before.

Heiwa

 

[Minadin]

So I write my article for children and normal people interested in the subject. None are idiots. But you can be sure that the physical principles and simple calculations involved are 100% correct. And quite difficult to debunk in a logical and polite manner. Many seems to get upset about that? Probably NWO physics quacks! Have they started their thread yet?

Using simple language doesn't make the problem itself simple. Common sense counts for exactly squat. Ask a layperson if you can light a piece of steel on fire. Their answer will be that of course you cannot. So it's non-combustible by definition then, right? Because it doesn't burn. So why the heck do both engineers and building codes insist that we apply fireproofing to it? It's not like it's going to catch on fire . . .

 

[Dumb All Over]

Heiwa, who reviewed your paper and what scholarly journal was it published in?

Thanks,
DAO

 

[DC]

did NIST ever provide calculations and analysis to the "Collapse initiation = Global Collapse" claim?

 

[Heiwa]

ETA: Two other comments.
(1) You are assuming that the resisting force, which you haven't calculated, is greater than the force of gravity. How can you possibly know that when you haven't calculated it?
(2) When one ship crashes into another, I'm not entirely surprised that the collision is self-arresting, because there's no significant gravitational force driving it. In this respect, the collapse of the Twin Towers is fundamentally different.

Dave

(1) But I calculate the (static) resisting force/stress in the columns before collapse! <30% yield stress = very safe. After collapse initiation and misalignment the static stress in the columns at top of the lower structure is zero and no big loads are really put on the columns after that during the later local failures. Loads can then only be transmitted to the columns via locally damaged floors with plenty of weak parts that will fail and absorb energy ... and that is why further collapse will soon be arrested. The lower columns cannot be damaged by the upper block parts dropping down as the lower columns are not impacted by anything.

(2) In ship collisions the driving force is provided by an engine via a propeller accelerating water = very similar to gravity actually. Same principles.

Heiwa

 

[Dog Town]

From the "article":

"The writer once had a plastic garden table with four legs. Guests and the writer BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground. The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse on the dog below the table due to this impact - as they should according to latest NWO physics. But it was before 911."



You know, seriously, parody threads should end up in humor or something. I'm not saying that it isn't funny (kind of like the knucklehead with the cinder blocks and the fire) but c'mon!

Bold Stundied, 16.5 should have, but did not. So I win!

 

[beachnut]

Ha, ha, ha. So when the upper block misses the primary load structure (columns) of the lower structure below and instead hits air and a weak floor it increases the power of the impact.

Is this some type of NWO physics? Pls, start a new thread about it.

Your lack of knowledge of physics is repeated so often it hurts. Stop messing up so bad, your kids deserve better.

 

[Drudgewire]

So I write my article for children and normal people interested in the subject. None are idiots.

Keep reaching for that rainbow, my man.

 

[T.A.M.]

it seems that outside JREF the no-claimers are more respected.

no, I would say inside trutherland they are MORE RESPECTED, and here at JREF less. The other 99.999% of the word doesn't know of them, or care about them.

TAM

 

[Hokulele]

Take the critique any way you wish, sir. As long as everyone understands the absurdity of the notion that "speaking out" against NIST results in professional repercussions, then I've successfully made my point.

Heck, I have posted at least one criticism of NIST NCSTAR on this forum, as have a few others including R.Mackey, and have yet to suffer any professional repercuss . . .

Hang on, someone's at the door.

 

[DC]

no, I would say inside trutherland they are MORE RESPECTED, and here at JREF less. The other 99.999% of the word doesn't know of them, or care about them.

TAM

99.999%?

are you in denial?

 

[Viper Daimao]

99.999%?

are you in denial?

World population is about 6.6 billion. Let's way way overestimate and suppose there are 1 million truthers. That would be .015%
So he's pretty accurate, especially since there aren't anywhere close to a million truthers.

 

[funk de fino]

did NIST ever provide calculations and analysis to the "Collapse initiation = Global Collapse" claim?

In simple terms

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Heck, I have posted at least one criticism of NIST NCSTAR on this forum, as have a few others including R.Mackey, and have yet to suffer any professional repercuss . . .

Hang on, someone's at the door.

Don't answer. It's just Wolfman stalking you again.