WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[DC]

You're missing the point. You can make FEA simulations of lots of things, but that's not the question. The question is: what value does FEA have for a particular system? The collapse of the WTC towers was a highly nonlinear event. Trying to recreate this is impossible. You could use various methods to get a "feel" for the behavior of the system (i.e. Monte Carlo) but you cannot expect to produce a sequence that replicates the actual collapses. The best you might hope for is some understanding of how similar various iterations proceed.

well my point is actually, that it will be far more represantive than those elementary calculations, wich assumptions already contradict observed things.

i do know that you cannot perfectly recreat those collapses. but for sure you can make it alot more realistic than Bazant et all did.

 

[DC]

and here something about my belive of NISt modeling the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

 

[AZCat]

well my point is actually, that it will be far more represantive than those elementary calculations, wich assumptions already contradict observed things.

i do know that you cannot perfectly recreat those collapses. but for sure you can make it alot more realistic than Bazant et all did.

If you can produce a better model then I applaud you, but remember that more data points does not necessarily produce a better result. There's a reason we have an Ideal Gas Law.

 

[Dave Rogers]

and here something about my belive of NISt modeling the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

I wasn't questioning whether NIST modelled the building. Does it suggest anywhere in this document that they originally planned to model the collapse beyond initiation?

Dave

 

[Architect]

Well, put your money where your mouth is. Let's see it.

I seem to recall that we're still waiting for your list, so forgive me for not holding my breath.

 

[DC]

I wasn't questioning whether NIST modelled the building. Does it suggest anywhere in this document that they originally planned to model the collapse beyond initiation?

Dave

The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

but they did not say explicit beyond initiation, indeed the contrary. what i kinda find strange, when you already have spend so much work in the model.

but oc, when you assume once the collapse is initiated there is no way to stopp it, then you have not much reasons to run some simulations.
but for some reason they decided to prove that with elementary calculations.
that makes me skeptical about the investigation.

 

[DC]

Well, put your money where your mouth is. Let's see it.

I seem to recall that we're still waiting for your list, so forgive me for not holding my breath.

well i seem to recall that i still wait for a WTC7 report from NIST.
when will put NIST their money where their mouth is?


PS: they atleast get money.......

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

Humanoid,

Good point, but then, if the building doesn't fall from height what does it do?

If you are asking me what it did then I would say the top part of Building 1 came straight down almost as though being dropped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys

the above portion of Building 2 started tilting over to one side but then broke apart and collapsed straight down along with the rest of the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTutneLXup0&feature=related

Neither of these scenarios are what I would expect. I have absolutely zero expertise in this matter but I have heard the arguements made by architects and a physicist (you know who). Their arguemnts make perfect sense to me.

I would expect that if they had really collapsed due to structural damage coupled with the fact that fire had caused the metal to lose a lot of its strength then the top of Building 1 would have tilted toward the damaged area much like Building 2 did, and then it would have gradually broke off to the side. Both Towers were 110 floors. The laws of entropy should have caused the uneven damage to break away toward one certain direction. In the case of Building 2, it actually starts to do this as expected but then instead of breaking away to the side it blows apart and the rest of the tower implodes in on itself crushing the remaining 80 to 90 stories.

Can you give a sequence of events for the start of the collapse, up until the point where pancaking starts to occur?

There was no pancaking. Even NIST has ruled out this theory in lieu of an unspecified global collapse theory.

Or at least a sequence of events that explains the collapse in your view?

I believe the central collumns were first blown just as reported by Willie Rodriguez and other witnesses have testified. This could have been achieved using truck bombs. As the strain of the buildings started pulling the damaged sections downward other timed devices were detonated in a controlled fashion most likely using superthermate (thermite mixed with sulfer and mixed with explosive compounds like RDX). Just as it is certainly technically possible at least in theory to demolish any building regardless of its size using cd, I think it is theoretically possible to set charges on unused floors and in the interior sections of the tube structure around the 47 massive support collumns. In typical cd not every floor is rigged.

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

There is a massive amount of evidence for this. Go on the internet and watch videos of the actual event. As many as you can find. Was there a row of stacked up cement bases at the ground zero site? There were not. Take a good look at the positively massive dust clouds that travelled for miles. According to engineer Mike King and many other scientists, the dust was pulverized very finely:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

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?

Of course I understand your arguement: a ton of dirt weighs the same as a ton of bricks. If you dropped two pounds of pennies on my head from three feet over my head it would hurt but probably wouldn't kill me. If you dropped a two pound hammer onto my head from three feet it would probably do more damage. The reason is because the force of the hammer is concentrated to all one destructive area that would strike me at once. The pennies would not all contact my head at the very same time or the very same place.

I am trying to both share my dawning perspective with the hope we can meet in the middle somewhere.

That is always a possibility if we listen to each other.

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

Yes it is.
Cheers.

 

[CHF]

But Heiwa is a fullblown no-planer (no planes at all were used, those were "photoshopped in"), so I'd guess he believe explosives were used.

OMG

Are you serious?

 

[Heiwa]

Can you show me a video of this? Preferably one at an angle where the entire upper part of the tower isn't completely obscured by smoke. Thanks.

Hm ... you haven't read my article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ), have you? The one we discuss, you know! It is all there! And for simplicity I copy some frames of various videos to show how the upper block marked as a green box (or with reference lines) implodes/shortens/telescopes into itself (or what you call it?) prior to any buckling of wall columns, removal of same, free fall during 0.8-0.9 seconds, 'impact' or start of destruction of structure below due to this indestructible upper block dropping. None of these alleged events are seen! And evidently the upper block cannot be seen later. It has disappeared. Indestructible? But according to Bazant & Co it is still there, an intact, solid, upper block, that drives the collapse due to gravity! Why do Bazant & Co propose such outrageous lies? Apollo20 is supposed to clarify that on this thread! Or maybe he is withdrawing his paper from ASCE publication?

Of course, many others have published similar observations on the Internet. Easy to find! My maybe new contribution is some observations about collapse arrest after local failures and local displacements of failed parts. Enjoy!

 

[Heiwa]

double post

 

[DGM]

Yeah Heiwa loves the woo!

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Essay Missing Wreckage 9/2/06: "There is clear (negative) evidence that no hijacked airplanes were involved in 911:

1. There should be considerable amount of airplane wreckage found at the crash sites but there was very little.

2. No damaged parts of the alleged four airplanes involved in 911 have been found anywhere at or in vicinity of the crash sites. The authorities have not presented any such identified parts as evidence of an airplane crash at the various sites.

3. Some alleged airplane parts were actually found in vicinity of crash sites but apparently do not belong to the airplanes suggested to have been involved in the events.

4. The proposal by the authorities that most wreckage parts were destroyed due to fire and explosion is incorrect as there was not enough energy (J) involved in alleged crashes to 'evaporate' complete airplanes and wreckage parts. No airplane in history has ever 'evaporated' at a crash.

5. There have been 10,000's of airplane crashes in the world since aviation took off around 1910 and at every crash there was plenty of wreckage. 911 is the first and only time when four airplanes have crashed on the same day without leaving any wreckage ... at all! What a coincidence! ..." http://911blogger.com

Woo goes very deep with him, Check out his "Estonia investigation".
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm

 

[pomeroo]

Heiwa knows that the minute he puts forth his own explanation he'll get torn to shreds, so he will not ever do that. He'll dodge and he'll claim it to be off-topic. But Heiwa is a fullblown no-planer (no planes at all were used, those were "photoshopped in"), so I'd guess he believe explosives were used.

And Heiwa, again, no its not off-topic and no, you don't get to define what goes and what doesn't just because you started the thread. But I know you'd like to, its the only way you can keep dodging the fact that you have no plausible explanation to why the towers fell, not in layman's terms nor otherwise. You just have your own vivid imagination.

It will be fascinating and hilariously funny to see Heiwa cling to his no-plane insanity after Ace Baker's encounter with Steven Wright is aired.

 

[pomeroo]

Hm ... you haven't read my article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ), have you? The one we discuss, you know! It is all there! And for simplicity I copy some frames of various videos to show how the upper block marked as a green box (or with reference lines) implodes/shortens/telescopes into itself (or what you call it?) prior to any buckling of wall columns, removal of same, free fall during 0.8-0.9 seconds, 'impact' or start of destruction of structure below due to this indestructible upper block dropping. None of these alleged events are seen! And evidently the upper block cannot be seen later. It has disappeared. Indestructible? But according to Bazant & Co it is still there, an intact, solid, upper block, that drives the collapse due to gravity! Why do Bazant & Co propose such outrageous lies? Apollo20 is supposed to clarify that on this thread! Or maybe he is withdrawing his paper from ASCE publication?

Of course, many others have published similar observations on the Internet. Easy to find! My maybe new contribution is some observations about collapse arrest after local failures and local displacements of failed parts. Enjoy!

Why do you keep asking people who are much more intelligent and know vastly more than you to read your paper? Your paper is incompetent rubbish that has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Zorglub]

OMG

Are you serious?

He is serious. Heiwa have on several occasion praised the skill of Socialworker and his infamous No-plane-it-was-edited-in-real-time-live-television. To my knowledge Heiwa hasn't denounced his belief in photoshopped planes.
He, Heiwa, has also said that the unfortunate jumpers, jumped from the towers, not because of the raging fires, but because they saw the photoshopped planes in TV and thought they were in peril. According to Heiwa there were only small local fires in the towers.
Nutcase or driven by a political agenda, hiherto uknown to mankind? Beats me.

 

[CHF]

Heiwa,

for the sake of amusement I've decided to take a trip into your universe. Yup, I went to NASA, got my ticket, boarded the shuttle and now here I am in whatever universe you call home.

Now that I'm in a place where reason and logic do not apply, I'm gonna agree with you that the top block of the WTC "dissapeared." Yup, it just "dissapeared." *Poof* into thin air. Gone. No more.

So....now that we've agreed on that, tell me.....what, in your opininion, caused this to happen?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hm ... you haven't read my article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ), have you? The one we discuss, you know! It is all there! And for simplicity I copy some frames of various videos to show how the upper block marked as a green box (or with reference lines) implodes/shortens/telescopes into itself (or what you call it?)

I ask for a video of the upper block disappearing without smoke obscuring the upper block and you show me a picture of the upper block being totally obscured by smoke.

Is reading comprehension really that hard for you?

 

[X]

Humanoid,

If you are asking me what it did then I would say the top part of Building 1 came straight down almost as though being dropped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys

the above portion of Building 2 started tilting over to one side but then broke apart and collapsed straight down along with the rest of the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTutneLXup0&feature=related

Neither of these scenarios are what I would expect. I have absolutely zero expertise in this matter but I have heard the arguments made by architects and a physicist (you know who). Their arguments make perfect sense to me.

I would expect that if they had really collapsed due to structural damage coupled with the fact that fire had caused the metal to lose a lot of its strength then the top of Building 1 would have tilted toward the damaged area much like Building 2 did, and then it would have gradually broke off to the side. Both Towers were 110 floors. The laws of entropy should have caused the uneven damage to break away toward one certain direction. In the case of Building 2, it actually starts to do this as expected but then instead of breaking away to the side it blows apart and the rest of the tower implodes in on itself crushing the remaining 80 to 90 stories.

Alright, I can understand why you think this. You are not the first to think this, and I doubt you will be the last to do so.
However, the proposition that the upper section should tip over and fall down like a tree belies a lack of understanding of structures. Nothing wrong with that, nobody knows everything, even I am not a structures guy (talk to Architect or Newton's Bit or Apollo20 or GregoryUrich). Follow along with me and I'll show you why such a thing would not have happened in a skyscraper like WTCs ! and 2.

To start with, you mention the tilt. The first question you need to ask, before assuming the tilt should continue, is what caused it?
I'm not referring to the damage from planes and fires. In order for the top part of WTC2 to tilt, one side of it had to descend. This is a necessary condition. I'm sure you can understand that the other side could not lift, so it is required that one side drop.
And now you have a tower that is collapsing. The sections around the inside of the tilt are being crushed.
As a consequence of this, the horizontal cross-sectional area of the segment will decrease, causing it to fall inside the lower section (since the actual cross-sectional area is now at an angle).
As you might imagine from this scenario, there is a lot going on in the building right now. The tower is already heavily damaged by fire and impact. Now there is damage coming from the collapsing side.
Now, let us look at the conditions required for the upper section to topple.
The centre of mass of the block would have to be outside the footprint of the lower section. That requires a lot of lean.
But go back to the mechanism of the leaning. The more the tower leans, the more damage is done.It''s never going to reach that point. Long before it does, the damage of the collapsing section is going to overwhelm the entire structure, and then it's coming straight down, exactly as observed.
The tower simply can't resist the tilting upper section long enough for the section to topple over the side.

Gumboot made a very good post about the collapse, which I've linked below. It might explain things better than I could.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2184128&postcount=85

There was no pancaking. Even NIST has ruled out this theory in lieu of an unspecified global collapse theory.

I don't actually know what the current status on pancaking is. I think that is was one of the initiating events, but did not/is not known to have occurred in the ensuing global collapse.

I believe the central columns were first blown just as reported by Willie Rodriguez and other witnesses have testified. This could have been achieved using truck bombs. As the strain of the buildings started pulling the damaged sections downward other timed devices were detonated in a controlled fashion most likely using superthermate (thermite mixed with sulfur and mixed with explosive compounds like RDX). Just as it is certainly technically possible at least in theory to demolish any building regardless of its size using cd, I think it is theoretically possible to set charges on unused floors and in the interior sections of the tube structure around the 47 massive support columns. In typical cd not every floor is rigged.

Then why are no explosions heard in the videos? Explosives have a rather telling sound. I would think the concussions would be heard. And detected on the seismographs.

There is a massive amount of evidence for this. Go on the internet and watch videos of the actual event. As many as you can find. Was there a row of stacked up cement bases at the ground zero site? There were not. Take a good look at the positively massive dust clouds that traveled for miles. According to engineer Mike King and many other scientists, the dust was pulverized very finely:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

This does not support your hypothesis of the building being pulverized into "dust".

 

[adoucette]

I don't actually know what the current status on pancaking is. I think that is was one of the initiating events, but did not/is not known to have occurred in the ensuing global collapse.

Other way round.

NIST showed that the collapse did not begin (as FEMA initially suggested) by multiple floors falling (i.e. pancaking, thus removing the lateral restraint and allowing the perimeter columns to bend inward).

But, as the collapse progressed, the collapse became fairly symmetrical and thus floors clearly pancaked, which NIST mentions several times in their report and is also evident in some of the debris (like the "meteorite"), and from the predominance of the truss seats that failed downward below the collapse zone.

Arthur

 

[Heiwa]

I ask for a video of the upper block disappearing without smoke obscuring the upper block and you show me a picture of the upper block being totally obscured by smoke.

Is reading comprehension really that hard for you?

Not at all. I can read and I have eyes. Look again - no smoke/dust below the upper block! And no damages there of any kind. At the first picture there is no smoke/dust of course - only random fires in the upper block. At the second picture there is only smoke/dust around the lower part of the upper block (now 20 meters shorter) but no smoke/dust below so you can clearly see the structure below, which I refer to.

The smoke/dust must have been produced by the upper block imploding/getting shorter. Clear evidence that the upper block is not solid, etc. That's my point. + clear thinking of course.

Now, when you have studied my article, do you still think Bazant & Co are basing their papers on real observations?