WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[DC]

#1:
To my understanding the ground impact greening is referring to is the final moment when all the accumulated debris of the collapse strikes the ground, an entire buildings worth of rubble coming to an almost immediate stop as it hits the ground.

From what I gather you seem to be saying that your understanding of the ground impacts is that they are falling debris seperate to the collapsing building. Am I correct in my understanding of your interpretation of the ground impacts?

#2
"The seismic signal for this first stage is small, as would be
expected, since kinetic energy is being transmitted to the ground only through the steel
support structure" - Greenings own interpretation... It seems reasonable to me, what else would account for these readings which directly correlate to the first stages of collapse?

there will be seismic movement from the upper floors impacting the lower floors, but there will be also seismic movements from the parts tha fall to the ground and miss the lower floors.

 

[beachnut]

This is funny; watching 9/11 truth struggle to understand where 96 TONS of TNT (KE realeased 400,000,000,000 joules) energy came from to destroy the WTC.

Don't trip. Or was it 137 TONS of TNT (576,000,000,000 joules) energy released in each tower. Physics, where is it when 9/11 truth needs it?

7th year, and the gravity of the lack of evidence has not set in for the new truthers.

 

[DC]

i think atleast 50% of the perimeter steel columns will fall next to the tower, and not provide KE to the collapse, they will have consumed energy till the point they fail.
Also the mass that is "converted" to dust particles, after consuming energy the created dust will not provide KE to the collapse.

and when you have a solid undestructable upper falling block, oc you dont loose much energy, but when you make it more realistic, and first have crushing up for a good part of the upper falling tower part, you will loose energy and mass.

 

[DC]

beachnut and his TNT

 

[Humanoid]

Humanoid,

Thank you for your politeness. It is appreciated. please allow me to present my layman speculations on your question.

Cheers!

1) I think G. None of the above does because 'falling from height' carries the implication that it was weight that was freefalling downward. This might be true had all the perimeter and all the 47 support collumns been severed completely and at the same time at that level. As we know not all or even most of the perimeter collumns were severed, nor were all of the support collumns completely severed at the level of impact.

Good point, but then, if the building doesn't fall from height what does it do? I still can't quite visualize what is being suggested here. Can you give a sequence of events for the start of the collapse, up until the point where pancaking starts to occur? Or at least a sequence of events that explains the collapse in your view?

Cheers

2)A

Hm, I would say that not taking into account wind resistance, all options are more or less the same as it still involves the same mass acting under the same force of gravity. Taking into account wind resistance, it seems to me that only the dust based scenario would offer significantly reduced momentum, not that I am an authority on this kind of thing... it just seems to be common sense... but then, what causes the top levels to turn to dust? I can't quite picture it happening. Rubble, maybe... Dust seems far fetched but again I am open to a rational reason.

3)F (When you think about it this supports the theories that are advanced by Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, and other Truthers who say the collapses couldn't have thoroughly pulverized all the buildings into dust in a manner in which it did yet still have the mass to crush the larger in tact, structurally sound sections of the buildings below the impact zones.)

I'm not here to deny truthers political views or support them, I just want to get to the bottom of how, actually, the towers collapsed.

Where is the evidence that the buildings were pulverized to dust?

I think the answer to this question is A but I feel that it bears absolutely no comparrison to the situation regarding the collapse of the Towers. Its comparing apples and oranges.

True, but would it make a difference if you dropped a ton of dirt, a ton of bricks or a ton of skyscraper pieces on top of something? It would still have a ton of stuff crashing on top of it... Probably a naive assumption but still, I am trying to both share my dawning perspective with the hope we can meet in the middle somewhere.

At least we can agree the buildings fell down - thats a start hey?

What happened next is the mystery we intend to find the truth about.

 

[DC]

buildings were pulverized to dust?

i think thats a stupid strawman that is used by some truthers.

like the collapse was initiated because the steel melted.

just wrong. while i do have my problems with the %tages given by NISt and Bazant about lost of structural integrity. but i do not exactly know the compositions of the steel used.

 

[Humanoid]

Incidentally I am leaning to the dust being a non issue, none of the load bearing structures were made from materials which could produce dust. All the interior and exterior cladding was merely decoration, with only minimal structural concerns wasn't it? Thats the impression I've gotten from all the various descriptions of the structure, but maybe someone intimately familiar with the structure could clarify this once and for all.

To my mind, if anything, the gyprock, drywall, and outer cladding would have added only minimal structural benefits to the steel frame, which if taken away would have a minimal impact on the overall strength... The bulk of the collapse was fueled by the force of steel falling on steel wasn't it?

 

[Humanoid]

there will be seismic movement from the upper floors impacting the lower floors, but there will be also seismic movements from the parts tha fall to the ground and miss the lower floors.

Aren't these events more or less lost in the readings due to the overall noise and rumble, i.e. just drops in the ocean? Or are there significant recorded seismic impulses which coincide with large portions falling away? And when does this first significant mass miss?

If these "misses" fell freely to the ground, then they would impact the ground only a moment before the rest of the collapsing structure would they not? So if there is recorded seismic data it should show a significant spike equivalent to say, a quarter or a third of the top section's mass having free-fallen about 110 floors to the ground - followed closely by the final impact of the rest of the tower.

Does this evidence exist?

 

[DC]

when 2 floors made out of concrete fall oneachother, there will be concrete dust, also if you brake them normally with a caterpillar, there is an amount of dust from the concrete.

in the case of 2 on eachother falling concrete floors the KE will be used to creat that dust, Greenings even provided a formula to calculate the particle size.

on 9/11 we had actually not concrete falling on concrete, between the 2 concrete floors we have steel trusses and metal (where the concrete was put on) we also have all the content between them, chairs, desks carpet etc.

but on impact the floors will brake and prodice dust, i have no doubts about that, only the ammount and particle size is debated i think. and oc the used energy to have this dust created.

and without doubt we saw alot dust and smoke on 9/11.

 

[DC]

i do not belive that the buildings collapsed in freefall, i would not even want to call it near freefall, becuase i think its more than double of freefall.

i think the collapses endured about 16- 20 seconds, and total collapse including remaining steel beams, needed up to 30 seconds.

the energy for seismic movements is not that significant i think, but there was seismic data recorded, and this seismic data has to roughly fit the collapse calculations.
thats why i think the total time "consumtion" in the collapse has to be included in the calculations.

time and seismic data are 2 given that have to be included in the calculations.

 

[beachnut]

So I missed an option: Steel framework completely intact, concrete pulverised?

But... I must be getting my wires crossed because I thought that the critical, load bearing structures were all made of steel, with gyprock (drywall) cladding for decoration...

Drywall was fireproofing, 3 inches.

The dust was mostly insulation, and drywall.

 

[Heiwa]

Then where did it go? Did it go up? Sideways?

The only way I can see it went, is down. Onto the floors below. Falling. Dropping. Accelerating under gravity, either as a solid lump or small pieces it would not make much difference, unless only one thing I can see as an exception would be the concrete and steel being pulverized to a floury powder - but how would such an act be accomplished? I have yet to see any explosive capable of silently and completely pulverizing rock AND STEEL into a fine powder... So, the rubble must have gone down, explosion or no explosion.

Or wait, are you saying that the upper block xylophoned upwards on the floor below??? OH I get it now...

Interesting theory... I'll think about it some more and can you please still answer my multi choice quizz above? Cheers

Re quizz - answers (1-4) are G. (re 1-3 - if anything falls it can only be on the uppermost, single floor of the structure below, re 4 my safety helmet may get scratched).

The famous upper block consists in layman's terms of 280+ very strong vertical primary structure load bearing columns (interconnected by spandrels and core horizontal beams), 12-15 thin floors (mostly concrete) hanging on the columns (on an angle bar + 2 vertical bolts not to slide off) , a roof (with some hat trusses), a mast (and misc. (furniture, human beings, insulation, pipes, ducts, elevators, etc.)).

It is evidently not of uniform density, solid, rigid, indestructible, only one mass or force, etc, etc, as assumed by Bazant, Greening, Seffen & Co. If the upper block were of uniform density or specific gravity, it would be 0.18 (tons/m3) or like a bale of straw or a straw mattress. Not surprising that straw men uses it!

You must agree that, if you drop a straw mattress on something, nothing much happens? Unless you are a retired professor that publishes a scientific (sic) report two days after 911 inventing fairy tales based on suspect assumptions (soon to be clarified by co-writer Apollo2?).

But I agree - if you drop a straw mattress gravity will affect it.

Now, the question is if the straw mattress will destroy steel columns and pulverize concrete floors hanging between the columns of a structure below? I doubt it very much as described in my articles. I think any partial collapse due to local failures will be arrested fairly quickly. Thus answers G.

Where did the straw mattress go? It seems it first implodes (is compressed) before anything happens to the structure below. Then there is a big cloud of smoke or dust around the straw mattress, hm the upper block ... and when it is cleared the straw mattress is gone! It must have imploded in many small parts.

Many persons have asked my opinion what actually caused the demolition of the structure below! Evidently it was not the straw mattress dropping down from the sky, as I try to explain in layman's terms in this thread. So it must have been something else! You tell me!

I am in the safety (at sea) business, not house demolition business. But of course, if you do exactly the opposite of what I recommend, then you may sink a ship and kill people aboard (and ensure that a false accident investigation report is produced by the authorities - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm - to get away with murder. Very popular reading these days!).

 

[CHF]

How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation, Heiwa?

 

[DC]

How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation, Heiwa?

How's it coming with that official gravity driven progressive collapse explenation?

is Bazant's paper reviewed on 31.03.2008 the final cut or will there be more 2nd 3th and 4th editions?

 

[CHF]

How's it coming with that official gravity driven progressive collapse explenation?

After several peer-reviewed papers I'd say it's going quite well.

Back to my question...How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation?

Are any of you intellectual titans even going to attempt it or do you know better than to try?

 

[DC]

when everything is going like planned, i will start in about 2-3 weeks with debunking some of Bazant's nonsence from his latest paper.
or i get convinced by my own work that it is indeed not nonsence.


im not 100% sure of the outcome yet.
cause actually they did prove it with calculations. and i will try to debunk it with FE sim.

i dont understand why crushing up and crushing down cannot happen at the same time, or atlest i dont get it why its not starting with crush up first, like in the videos.

this will be my first point to debunk, next i will try to debunk the claim by Greenings that only 4 floors under the impacted floor will be affected.

but i fear most JREFers will not accept those debunkings if they will be debunkings.
when it will backup Bazants and greenings claims, im sure your happy to accept it

 

[X]

It is difficult for me to understand or perceive how and why the building would collapse in a manner that is different than what you were describing. Your theory is a lot more plausible and informative than NIST's copout stating that global collapse is then inevitable without reference to any specific collapse sequence. (What the heck were they talking about in those 10,000 pages if they completely failed to outline or even provide theories for collapse sequences after the collapse had been initiated?)

From http://wtc.nist.gov/:

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.​

(bolding mine)


In other words, NIST focused on what caused the collapse. It looked at initiating factors. The report demonstrated that once collapse initiated, the total collapse of the towers was inevitable. But a detailed analysis of the full collapse would have provided no information for improving building codes, which was NISTs focus.
There are many other reputable works that look into the collapse too, all
of which agree the collapse was inevitable given the impact damage, fires and gravity.

See also:
About NIST
NIST FAQ
NIST FAQ Supplement

 

[Heiwa]

Back to my question...How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation?

Are any of you intellectual titans even going to attempt it or do you know better than to try?

Answer is in message #752 8th line from bottom.

Pls read all messages from me to participate in this thread created by me.

 

[CHF]

Let's try again: How's it coming with that collapse / demolition explanation?

That doesn't mean "pretend to understand what Bazant or Greening did and then critique it."

It means present your own explanation for what happened.

 

[CHF]

Answer is in message #752 8th line from bottom.

Heiwa, "it must have been something else! You tell me!" is NOT an explanation.

Try again.