[Split]Physics of collision and collapse - split from: Offer to the Truth Movement: L

[psikeyhackr]

WTC7 has to be the strangest obsession ever encountered in a conspiracy theory. I mean....

No one died
The only people affected are Silverstein and the Insurers

....what the hell?

Oh that's right! Curiosity doesn't have anything to do with science. How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane? Who cares? How do you build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level? Who cares?

We should have had that info withing SIX WEEKS of 9/11 and we still don't have it after SIX YEARS. Bazant's crush-down/crush-up is hilarious. When the top falling portion contacts the bottom intact portion two levels would be crushed at once so the energy involved in both crushes would slow the falling portion down. He does a lot of complicated math trying to rationalize a ridiculous assumption. He and Greening are birds of a feather.

Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2-- and this is under perfect conditions! This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly. Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor will still be moving at the original velocity, which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions-- particularly in the upwards direction. So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the "crush down" phase-- a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x189899

The main premise of the paper is that the upper portion of both towers acts like a piledriver crushing the lower portion as it falls until the upper portion hits the ground when it is crushed itself, in a future paper Dr Bazant calls this "crush down...crush up". It is reliant on the upper portion remaining as a rigid block that produces too much kinetic energy for the lower portion to offer any resistance.

They use a lot of mathematical equations to try and prove this theory, but they can be ignored because the premise that they are based upon is simply impossible. If two objects collide it is impossible for the weaker object to smash the stronger object while remaining largely undamaged itself.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=155

psik

 

[Belz...]

Oh that's right! Curiosity doesn't have anything to do with science.

The truth movement isn't curious. It simply doesn't understand. And that ignorance leads them to believe that they can play CSI and make up answers on the fly, like they do in mystery novels. That's not the way things work. Just because you don't know how the world works doesn't mean it's really, really simple.

How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane?

Well, aside from the obvious "CD" answer, there's fire, earthquakes, meteors, excessive snow deposit, etc. But you'd think structural damage from a nearby collapsing 110-storey building would also count.

How do you build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level?

The answer is: you don't. What's your point ?

We should have had that info withing SIX WEEKS of 9/11 and we still don't have it after SIX YEARS.

How ? You expect that information to just pop up on your computer ? Do you guys ever put any effort into anything ?

Bazant's crush-down/crush-up is hilarious. When the top falling portion contacts the bottom intact portion two levels would be crushed at once so the energy involved in both crushes would slow the falling portion down.

That's assuming nothing's feeding the collapse. Ever heard of a little thing called gravity ? Did you even do the calculations ?

He does a lot of complicated math trying to rationalize a ridiculous assumption.

Yes, those evil mathematics. Crunching numbers is hard on the brain. Why bother when you can just make up the answer you like !?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh that's right! Curiosity doesn't have anything to do with science. How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane?

That's the single stupidest false dilemma I have ever heard.

And speaking of curiosity, one thing I'm very curious about is how the controlled demolition of a 47-story building is done absent the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges that accompany every other controlled demolition ever done. Thousands of witnesses, television cameras, and other recording devices in the immediate area, and yet there is no record of this phenomenon that is typically heard for miles around.

Care to offer an explanation? Or does your "curiosity" not apply to questions that might challenge your predetermined beliefs?

 

[boloboffin]

An examination of what process theology is (David Ray Griffin's expertise) shows exactly why he's doing what he's doing.

Process theology is based on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Instead of reality being timeless and change only happening subordinate to permanent substances, process philosophy sees change as the cornerstone to reality. What something is becoming is far more important than what it is. In process philosophy, the mental snapshot we take of this changing, evolving world is the illusion.

The activation of potentialities is the true work of the catalysts of society. David Ray Griffin is now embarked on making his view of 9/11 real. With no objective base for reality, who cares about the facts of 9/11? What's important is what 9/11 has become, or what 9/11 is becoming. Since 9/11 has become one of the justifications for an immoral war (in his view), he can rob the war of this motivation -- he can fight evil itself -- by changing 9/11.

It doesn't matter that he is changing 9/11 into an lie in order to do so. His motive is pure, his end is pure. It is better for him that 9/11 become a tangled, unverifiable mess of an event than to be a clear motivation for war, because to him, that means the event is out of play. It is inert. He'd prefer it to be a powerful motiving force for the anti-war movement, but out of bounds works for him, too.

But something like 9/11 won't be an inert event in world history for hundreds of years. What David Ray Griffin actually is doing is mixing societal dynamite. By turning 9/11 into a tangled mess, there is no actual predicting what people will use it for. It isn't inert, but unstable. And an event with the motivating power 9/11 possesses must not become unstable. There is no telling what an unstable individual or mob convinced of David Ray Griffin's lies and inaccuracies might do.

David Ray Griffin is close to the end of his career and his life. Evidently, he wants to go out with a bang.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Now that is funny!

First you say this:

they can play CSI and make up answers on the fly, like they do in mystery novels.

Then you say this:

earthquakes, meteors, excessive snow deposit, etc.

I didn't see much snow in the 9/11 videos so at best you are no better than the Truthers. What was the magnitude of the earthquake in New York on 9/11?

But you'd think structural damage from a nearby collapsing 110-storey building would also count.

The obvious problem with that is the damage would come from one side and should be visible in the videos and should cause the structure to fall toward or away from the source of the applied force, not straight down.

We should have had that info withing SIX WEEKS of 9/11 and we still don't have it after SIX YEARS.

How ? You expect that information to just pop up on your computer ? Do you guys ever put any effort into anything ?

Two of the most famous buildings in the world are destroyed and you don't think the authorities could have gotten that information in SIX WEEKS and engineers at schools and companies all over the country would not have wanted to know it?

Sure, this required no effort whatsoever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

 

[Hokulele]

An examination of what process theology is (David Ray Griffin's expertise) shows exactly why he's doing what he's doing.

Process theology is based on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Instead of reality being timeless and change only happening subordinate to permanent substances, process philosophy sees change as the cornerstone to reality. What something is becoming is far more important than what it is. In process philosophy, the mental snapshot we take of this changing, evolving world is the illusion.

The activation of potentialities is the true work of the catalysts of society. David Ray Griffin is now embarked on making his view of 9/11 real. With no objective base for reality, who cares about the facts of 9/11? What's important is what 9/11 has become, or what 9/11 is becoming. Since 9/11 has become one of the justifications for an immoral war (in his view), he can rob the war of this motivation -- he can fight evil itself -- by changing 9/11.

It doesn't matter that he is changing 9/11 into an lie in order to do so. His motive is pure, his end is pure. It is better for him that 9/11 become a tangled, unverifiable mess of an event than to be a clear motivation for war, because to him, that means the event is out of play. It is inert. He'd prefer it to be a powerful motiving force for the anti-war movement, but out of bounds works for him, too.

But something like 9/11 won't be an inert event in world history for hundreds of years. What David Ray Griffin actually is doing is mixing societal dynamite. By turning 9/11 into a tangled mess, there is no actual predicting what people will use it for. It isn't inert, but unstable. And an event with the motivating power 9/11 possesses must not become unstable. There is no telling what an unstable individual or mob convinced of David Ray Griffin's lies and inaccuracies might do.

David Ray Griffin is close to the end of his career and his life. Evidently, he wants to go out with a bang.

I learned something new (process theology). It is a good day. Thanks boloboffin!

 

[boloboffin]

You're welcome! However, I'm sure that there are a lot more variables and subtleties to both process philosophy and theology. That's a very, very simplistic statement of a basic core of the discipline.

I wonder if we can get caveat/disclaimer tags for JREF, just like the spoiler and rant tags?

 

[Hokulele]

You're welcome! However, I'm sure that there are a lot more variables and subtleties to both process philosophy and theology. That's a very, very simplistic statement of a basic core of the discipline.

Understood. Basically, your post gave me a phrase I can use to look stuff up the next time I am in the library. Seeing as how I will be on the road a lot starting next week, having a new mental toy to play with is a good thing.

I wonder if we can get caveat/disclaimer tags for JREF, just like the spoiler and rant tags?

Probably, I can think of several good uses for it. Maybe start a thread in Foum Management?

 

[Belz...]

I didn't see much snow in the 9/11 videos so at best you are no better than the Truthers. What was the magnitude of the earthquake in New York on 9/11?

Let me help you with that.

You said this:

How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane?

I took it as a question of how a (read: any) building could collapse without being hit by an airplane AND not be a demolition. Since you probably believe that 1 and 2 WTC were also demolished, your question seems dishonest, but I let that slide.

What IS funny is that I simply answer your question with a list of possibilities, some of which were NOT present on 9/11, but that is irrelevant to your question. Of course, what's telling is that you ignore the possibilities that WERE.

The obvious problem with that is the damage would come from one side and should be visible in the videos

Well, it was. So I don't see your problem here.

and should cause the structure to fall toward or away from the source of the applied force, not straight down.

Says who ? How did you come to that conclusion ?

Once you've answered this, perhaps you can also tell me how you can say with a straight face, presumably, that 7 WTC fell "straight down".

Two of the most famous buildings in the world are destroyed and you don't think the authorities could have gotten that information in SIX WEEKS and engineers at schools and companies all over the country would not have wanted to know it?

I was refering to YOU. Why don't YOU try to get the specs of the building ? How do you expect to actually have them in your possession if you don't work for it ?

Sure, this required no effort whatsoever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

My, oh, my. Another youtube freak. Someone should tape a person reading the NIST report and post it on Youtube. Maybe that'd end the twoof movement.

 

[uk_dave]

My, oh, my. Another youtube freak. Someone should tape a person reading the NIST report and post it on Youtube. Maybe that'd end the twoof movement.

Nah........ Southpark, remember?

 

[slyjoe]

psikeyhckr:
You posted the following to refute the Bazant paper.

...

Now, Bazant should be doing collision calculations using two equal masses, as the two floors that initially collide are similar masses! But as far as I can tell, the model he uses the complete mass of the upper tower here, which will give a much faster final velocity, in order to obtain a rapid collapse time and a complete crush-down.In reality, floor A colliding with floor B at velocity V should result in a final velocity of V/2-- and this is under perfect conditions! This halving of momentum would slow down any collapse greatly. Now, I should note that for a real world collapse, the analysis would get complicated as, after the initial collision of floors, the floors above the first collided floor will still be moving at the original velocity, which will lead to more floor-by-floor collisions-- particularly in the upwards direction. So there should be a great deal of crush UP during the "crush down" phase-- a fact that Bazant et al completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x189899

....

psik

Can you point out the basic errors in the above quote that you pasted? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing the physics of collapse.

 

[gumboot]

Oh that's right! Curiosity doesn't have anything to do with science. How does a 47 story building collapse straight down without being hit by an airplane? Who cares? How do you build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and how much concrete to put on every level? Who cares?

We should have had that info withing SIX WEEKS of 9/11 and we still don't have it after SIX YEARS. Bazant's crush-down/crush-up is hilarious. When the top falling portion contacts the bottom intact portion two levels would be crushed at once so the energy involved in both crushes would slow the falling portion down. He does a lot of complicated math trying to rationalize a ridiculous assumption. He and Greening are birds of a feather.

I hate to burst your little fantasy bubble, but the reality is determining the specific mechanics of the building collapses was never high on the priority list in the wake of 9/11. Other matters were overwhelmingly more important - trying to find survivors for starters. Then recovering the remains of victims, securing evidence, finding out who did it, preventing more attacks, and getting some old fashioned revenge.

The general public just don't care specifically how the buildings fell. Sorry. It's not important in the big scheme of things. I know you think it is. It's your "smoking gun". It's what "blew the whole thing open". But you're wrong. It's just not.

 

[quicknthedead]

An examination of what process theology is (David Ray Griffin's expertise) shows exactly why he's doing what he's doing.

Process theology is based on the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Instead of reality being timeless and change only happening subordinate to permanent substances, process philosophy sees change as the cornerstone to reality. What something is becoming is far more important than what it is. In process philosophy, the mental snapshot we take of this changing, evolving world is the illusion.

The activation of potentialities is the true work of the catalysts of society. David Ray Griffin is now embarked on making his view of 9/11 real. With no objective base for reality, who cares about the facts of 9/11? What's important is what 9/11 has become, or what 9/11 is becoming. Since 9/11 has become one of the justifications for an immoral war (in his view), he can rob the war of this motivation -- he can fight evil itself -- by changing 9/11.

It doesn't matter that he is changing 9/11 into an lie in order to do so. His motive is pure, his end is pure. It is better for him that 9/11 become a tangled, unverifiable mess of an event than to be a clear motivation for war, because to him, that means the event is out of play. It is inert. He'd prefer it to be a powerful motiving force for the anti-war movement, but out of bounds works for him, too.

But something like 9/11 won't be an inert event in world history for hundreds of years. What David Ray Griffin actually is doing is mixing societal dynamite. By turning 9/11 into a tangled mess, there is no actual predicting what people will use it for. It isn't inert, but unstable. And an event with the motivating power 9/11 possesses must not become unstable. There is no telling what an unstable individual or mob convinced of David Ray Griffin's lies and inaccuracies might do.

David Ray Griffin is close to the end of his career and his life. Evidently, he wants to go out with a bang.

You hit the nail on the head with that one, boloboffin...and you drove it deep into the wood--excellent piece!

Thanks.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I hate to burst your little fantasy bubble, but the reality is determining the specific mechanics of the building collapses was never high on the priority list in the wake of 9/11. Other matters were overwhelmingly more important - trying to find survivors for starters. Then recovering the remains of victims, securing evidence, finding out who did it, preventing more attacks, and getting some old fashioned revenge.

trying to find survivors for starters.

I said SIX WEEKS not two days. After two weeks there wouldn't be any survivors. And it is not like the people qualified for analyzing the collapse were likely to be good rescue workers. Yeah, they figured they had lots of time alright. Like 411 days to start the investigation.

9-11 Commission Comparisons ... 411 days later ...

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9
Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7

psik

 

[R.Mackey]

I said SIX WEEKS not two days. After two weeks there wouldn't be any survivors. And it is not like the people qualified for analyzing the collapse were likely to be good rescue workers. Yeah, they figured they had lots of time alright. Like 411 days to start the investigation.

9-11 Commission Comparisons ... 411 days later ...

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9
Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7

I answered a similar question for Sizzler on the first page. Your premise is wrong. The FBI investigation, among others, began immediately, not 411 days after the attacks. The 9/11 Commission is neither the only nor the most important investigation. Its purpose was different and not so time-sensitive -- indeed, serving as an investigation of government performance, it naturally integrated other investigations and would have had to wait for many conclusions regardless of when it started. I fail to see any relevance to its commencement date.

 

[gumboot]

trying to find survivors for starters.

I said SIX WEEKS not two days. After two weeks there wouldn't be any survivors. And it is not like the people qualified for analyzing the collapse were likely to be good rescue workers. Yeah, they figured they had lots of time alright. Like 411 days to start the investigation.

9-11 Commission Comparisons ... 411 days later ...

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9
Days until an investigation was ordered into the Kennedy assassination: 7

psik

Search and Rescue operations at the WTC weren't stopped until two months after the attacks, and even when they did stop FDNY personnel were so angry about it they fought with NYPD officers over it.

Regarding investigations, we were talking specifically about investigating the building collapses. The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate the building collapses, and to the best of my knowledge no building collapses were investigated as a result of either the Pearl Harbor attack or the Kennedy Assassination.

If you want to talk investigations in general, the FBI commenced their criminal investigation into 9/11 on the day of the attacks. As far as investigating the building collapses, FEMA and the ASCE initiated their studies on September 12, the day after the attacks. They conducted their first site visit on October 7th - immediately after FEMA USAR teams stopped looking for survivors.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Days until an investigation was ordered into the Pearl Harbour attack: 9

Yes, AN investigation was ordered 9 days after the Pearl Harbor attack.

But not THE investigation. Where is the investigation studying why a destroyer was lifted out of the water and onto dry land by a torpedo that exploded ACROSS THE HARBOR?!? That didn't even HIT the destroyer! That can't happen! Why wasn't the FBI called in?

We're STILL waiting for that investigation!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Tons of WHAT?

If you want to talk investigations in general, the FBI commenced their criminal investigation into 9/11 on the day of the attacks. As far as investigating the building collapses, FEMA and the ASCE initiated their studies on September 12, the day after the attacks. They conducted their first site visit on October 7th - immediately after FEMA USAR teams stopped looking for survivors.

FEMAs investigation was really curious too.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

On page 9 they have a map material hurled from the towers and they have X's showing where exterior columns were hurled. But they don't specify the weights of those connected columns. There was a section near the Winter Garden leaning against the AmEx tower. Pictures of it look like it has to be more than 6 wall panels connected together. But all FEMA has is an X with no weight. Plus they say the steel in the tower was all marked so it should have been possible to determine where on the building it came from. So with the weight and the starting and ending locations it should have been possible to determine the amount of energy necessary to get it there. But we don't even have the weight.

Some investigation!

SIX YEARS later we don't even have an "accurate" table of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE one every level of the towers. And the core column basement data in Urich's spreadsheet has to be wrong. Why can't the NIST tell us the number and weight of each type of perimeter wall panel? They admit there were only 12. Not counting the corner panels of course.

psik

 

[lapman]

FEMAs investigation was really curious too.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

On page 9 they have a map material hurled from the towers and they have X's showing where exterior columns were hurled. But they don't specify the weights of those connected columns. There was a section near the Winter Garden leaning against the AmEx tower. Pictures of it look like it has to be more than 6 wall panels connected together. But all FEMA has is an X with no weight. Plus they say the steel in the tower was all marked so it should have been possible to determine where on the building it came from. So with the weight and the starting and ending locations it should have been possible to determine the amount of energy necessary to get it there. But we don't even have the weight.

Some investigation!

SIX YEARS later we don't even have an "accurate" table of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE one every level of the towers. And the core column basement data in Urich's spreadsheet has to be wrong. Why can't the NIST tell us the number and weight of each type of perimeter wall panel? They admit there were only 12. Not counting the corner panels of course.

psik

This table of weights is an absolute requirement to clear NIST and the government of any criminal actions because?

 

[Belz...]

SIX YEARS later we don't even have an "accurate" table of TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE one every level of the towers.

You'd think that the amount of it would make the whole thing longer to investigate, wouldn't you ? But no, you seem to think that Columbo should've shown up and wrapped this case in under a few hours.