WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[johnny karate]

Where are NIST's calculations showing that once the collapse initiated it was inevitable? Why should NIST get away with making a statement without having to prove it?

Here's the problem you run into by taking that tack, sport:

See, the world at large accepts the "official version" of events. It is the Truthers that have something to prove. If you play the "I won't show my calculation if they won't show me theirs" game, all you are left with is uninformed speculation and personal incredulity, and the rest of the world will go on ignoring you.

But if you actually want to prove that 9//11 was an inside job and thus convince all of us unenlightened sheeple, you need to come with the science and math.

I just don't see what's so difficult about this. For years, you people have been making the claim that global collapse was not inevitable and yet not a single one of you has been able to demonstrate this.

Why not?

 

[Myriad]

Water running downhill is a something that we all have observed. There is nothing unique about that. A total-progressive collapse of a steel-frame high-rise is not a common event.

What does the uniqueness of the event have to do with anything? The laws of physics work anyhow. If you lived in the desert without TV and had never seen water running downhill before, water would still run downhill. The structural properties of steel have been known for a century; Newton's Laws have been known for several. There is no need to investigate a phenomenon that is a completely expected result based on that knowledge, even though the circumstances under which it was observed haven't occurred before.

NIST's mandate was not to educate the public, though it has greatly helped to do so as a side effect of carrying out its actual assignment.

Which type of collapse initiation are you referring to? Truss failure, column failure or something else. There is more mass beneath the impact zone than above. What causes it to start moving?

Gravity, acting on mass in accordance with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, creating a force we sometimes call weight. A net force on an object -- such as, weight that can no longer be counteracted by the supports pushing upward on it due to damage and weakening of those supports -- causes acceleration, in accordance with Newton's Third Law.

You write, "Once it starts moving, anything that's in its path is in trouble."

Apparently not. The upper block was able to plow through the lower block with minimal damage to itself, but then it self-destructs once it hits the rubble pile. Why didn't it continue to plow through the rubble pile?

You speak as if the rubble pile were just sitting there waiting for the building to fall onto it. The building continued to fall until it hit the concrete foundation of the "bathtub" structure, which is much less compressible than any inhabitable building. At that point the falling debris became rubble; any remaining intact structure was smashed by that impact.

Even the bathtub was "in trouble" according to some engineers who examined the aftermath, but it managed to survive.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh here we go...next question,,,"why didn't the top portion simply fall to the side like a tree that has been cut down?"

TAM

 

[Dr Adequate]

What happened after collapse intiation?

Er ... collapse.

They have videos on YouTube, you know.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It is after collapse initiation when most of the people in the towers were killed. NIST was tasked with explaining how and why the buildings were destroyed. They have yet to fulfill their obligations.

!!!!!!!!!STUNDIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And while we're at it, it's not someone firing a gun at another person that kills them, its the bullet hitting them. I'd like to see a defense use this argument in court.

Or maybe the initiation of the collapse was just a coincidence? LOL!!!!

 

[~enigma~]

oh Here We Go...next Question,,,"why Didn't The Top Portion Simply Fall To The Side Like A Tree That Has Been Cut Down?"

Tam

 

[e^n]

Well, here is an issue that I haven't heard explained yet. How did the upper block become separated from the lower block when the vast majority of the perimeter and core columns were still intact after the plane impact?

The initial perimeter column failure on the bowing side results in a loss of support on that side. Those perimeter columns will begin to fall and start exerting a tensile force on the walls and trusses connected to them. This redistributed force causes the upper section of the tower to tilt. This in turn causes a line of shear to develop on the adjacent sides of the tower which is actually visible in a few videos (I tried to find them but I don't have any to hand, let me know if you want me to find them)

It is after collapse initiation when most of the people in the towers were killed. NIST was tasked with explaining how and why the buildings were destroyed. They have yet to fulfill their obligations.

Could you quote NISTs task list and show which they have not fulfilled?

Where are NIST's calculations showing that once the collapse initiated it was inevitable? Why should NIST get away with making a statement without having to prove it?

NIST quotes Bazant. His model has since been refined further and still shows collapse progression. Please talk to Gregory Urich about this as he is a member of several Truth Movement groups. Perhaps you would have an easier time believing him.

 

[chillzero]

It is after collapse initiation when most of the people in the towers were killed.

I don't know if I have ever read anything as idiotic in my life.

How do you know when specific numbers of people were killed? Could it possibly be because before the buildings collapsed, people had floors to stand on, and no walls and ceilings crushing them? (That makes me sick to even type it). Don't you think most people would be killed in a collapse, than before it? What the hell else did you expect?

NIST was tasked with explaining how and why the buildings were destroyed. They have yet to fulfill their obligations.

Again, why is there any significance to the actual collapse of the building after it has begun? The importance and relevance is to what happened that made the towers collapse in the first place. Why do you place any importance on the final part of the scenario after the main event is over?

 

[Kent1]

Of course, pancaking is not the cause. The cause of a pancake collapse is considered to be truss failure. Shyam Sunder made those statements to Popular Mechanics when the pancake collapse explanation was widely accepted. Later they discarded this idea. As Shyam Sunder later stated they saw no evidence of pancaking in any of the videos or photographs that they have. In other words, the official explanation changed. Brent Blanchard has even stated that the floors were not pancaking.

This is in error again. Shyam Sunder made the statement regarding pancaking in 2005 when discussing the so called squibs during the collapse. He was not discussing the initiation. The Sunder quote you provide here is in reference to initiation. If you search other comments here, you can see others have discussed this common mistake. The NIST report was released later in the same year as the article in Popular Mechanics, however NIST had abandoned the pancake initiation back in 2004 as shown in their reports. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/nist/nyt_1020towers.html
Again please re-read my post. The floors showed it happened.

Honestly I don't know what Brent Blanchard is trying to say with regards to "literally" or "general visual description". I don't understand his comments enough to really agree or disagree.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, perhaps you could answer post 10 for me?

OK, it was adressed to tanabear. Nist was apparently asked to describe the WTC destructions and decided that a description of the Tower designs(?), initial damages due to terrorist actions (by whom??) and consequential damages due to fires until initiation were sufficient. 10 000 pages for that. Not bad. All of it is quite good except some photos of buckled walls that are fakes. The rest I have nothing against. Evidently all that effort - 10 000 pages - does not explain the destructions that followed:

Therefore comes the famous Nist finale:

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

It is all nonsense of course.

Buckled columns! No evidence (except the faked photos of some deformed walls at unknown time)! Downward movement of the building mass above! No evidence of any kind, of course. Would have taken 0.8 seconds to move this mass and release potential energy, but Hollywood could not produce it. Nist could not even produce a number of that mass and why all of it would suddenly move and release potential energy.
And there is no evidence that this unknown amount of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure.
What structure are they talking about? Anyway, Nist cannot produce the amount of strain energy that can be absorbed by any structure.
Even worse - there is no evidence of any kind that the potential energy released was actually applied to the unknown structure in question. Gravity does not work like that. Etc, etc.

I have a feeling that honest (but inexperienced) Nist engineers produced the 10 000 pages report and that then that some criminals added the two sentences finale and forced the senior Nist engineers to sign the whole thing. Only two extra lines added - no big deal? Will help your careers. Scientific crimes nevertheless. Very serious.

 

[applecorped]

OK, it was adressed to tanabear. Nist was apparently asked to describe the WTC destructions and decided that a description of the Tower designs(?), initial damages due to terrorist actions (by whom??) and consequential damages due to fires until initiation were sufficient. 10 000 pages for that. Not bad. All of it is quite good except some photos of buckled walls that are fakes. The rest I have nothing against. Evidently all that effort - 10 000 pages - does not explain the destructions that followed:

Therefore comes the famous Nist finale:

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

It is all nonsense of course.

Buckled columns! No evidence (except the faked photos of some deformed walls at unknown time)! Downward movement of the building mass above! No evidence of any kind, of course. Would have taken 0.8 seconds to move this mass and release potential energy, but Hollywood could not produce it. Nist could not even produce a number of that mass and why all of it would suddenly move and release potential energy.
And there is no evidence that this unknown amount of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure.
What structure are they talking about? Anyway, Nist cannot produce the amount of strain energy that can be absorbed by any structure.
Even worse - there is no evidence of any kind that the potential energy released was actually applied to the unknown structure in question. Gravity does not work like that. Etc, etc.

I have a feeling that honest (but inexperienced) Nist engineers produced the 10 000 pages report and that then that some criminals added the two sentences finale and forced the senior Nist engineers to sign the whole thing. Only two extra lines added - no big deal? Will help your careers. Scientific crimes nevertheless. Very serious.

 

[GregoryUrich]

...
Therefore comes the famous Nist finale:

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."
...

It's not nonsense, but it is completely unsupported

 

[BenBurch]

It's not nonsense, but it is completely unsupported

And utterly uncontroversial.

Obvious stuff usually is!

 

[tanabear]

Here's the problem you run into by taking that tack, sport:

See, the world at large accepts the "official version" of events. It is the Truthers that have something to prove. If you play the "I won't show my calculation if they won't show me theirs" game, all you are left with is uninformed speculation and personal incredulity, and the rest of the world will go on ignoring you.

That was the point I made in my original post. The people here at JREF believe in consensus science as opposed to the experimental method. The educated world at one time largely accepted Aristotle's belief that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects. Then an upstart scientist named Galileo attempts to test this concept experimentally. Known as the falling bodies experiment, it showed in the absence of air resistance, the speed of a falling body is independent of its weight. What is the best way to determine scientific truth, an opinion poll or the experimental method?

The initial perimeter column failure on the bowing side results in a loss of support on that side. Those perimeter columns will begin to fall and start exerting a tensile force on the walls and trusses connected to them. This redistributed force causes the upper section of the tower to tilt. This in turn causes a line of shear to develop on the adjacent sides of the tower which is actually visible in a few videos (I tried to find them but I don't have any to hand, let me know if you want me to find them)

The perimeter columns begin to fall or fail? What is happening to the core columns as the upper section of the tower begins to tilt?

Could you quote NISTs task list and show which they have not fulfilled?)

NIST stated that one of the objectives of their investigation was to determine:

"why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

NIST stated in a response to a Request for Correction issued by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement,

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Therefore, they have yet to meet their objectives. As well, they are still working on WTC7.

I don't know if I have ever read anything as idiotic in my life.

How do you know when specific numbers of people were killed? Could it possibly be because before the buildings collapsed, people had floors to stand on, and no walls and ceilings crushing them? (That makes me sick to even type it). Don't you think most people would be killed in a collapse, than before it? What the hell else did you expect?

Yes, that is what I would expect. If the towers had not collapsed the death toll would have been much lower.

Again, why is there any significance to the actual collapse of the building after it has begun? The importance and relevance is to what happened that made the towers collapse in the first place. Why do you place any importance on the final part of the scenario after the main event is over?

Why is there any significance to collapse initiation then? If they don't go beyond collapse initiation then they can't tell us why the collapse was global as opposed to merely a local event.

This is in error again. Shyam Sunder made the statement regarding pancaking in 2005 when discussing the so called squibs during the collapse. He was not discussing the initiation. The Sunder quote you provide here is in reference to initiation. If you search other comments here, you can see others have discussed this common mistake. The NIST report was released shortly after the article in Popular Mechanics. Again please re-read my post. The floors showed it happened.

Honestly I don't know what Brent Blanchard is trying to say with regards to "literally" or "general visual description". I don't understand his comments enough to really agree or disagree.

Where does Shyam Sunder say that it is in regards to initiation? He stated, "...we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have. Suddenly the columns snapped, and, as a result, the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall, because kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge."

The truss failure is the initiating event for the supposed pancake collapse hypothesis, not pancaking itself. As well, how can pancaking be interpreted from Ryan Mackey statement, "After a few floors collapse, the upper block is riding on a cushion of debris, and relatively smooth behavior is guaranteed...It will quickly become larger than the upper block, and it is responsible for most of the crushing."

If there is a separation between the upper and lower block and a cushion of debris is responsible for most of the crushing then how is this a pancake collapse. A pancake collapse is one floor falling on top of the floor beneath it.

 

[John Blonn]

That was the point I made in my original post. The people here at JREF believe in consensus science as opposed to the experimental method. The educated world at one time largely accepted Aristotle's belief that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects. Then an upstart scientist named Galileo attempts to test this concept experimentally. Known as the falling bodies experiment, it showed in the absence of air resistance, the speed of a falling body is independent of its weight. What is the best way to determine scientific truth, an opinion poll or the experimental method?

You're still on about this?

Leaving aside the poor history and philosophy of science lesson, please tell me: what do you mean by "consensus science?"

 

[~enigma~]

If they don't go beyond collapse initiation then they can't tell us why the collapse was global as opposed to merely a local event.

Can you show with some credible data (not opinion) that the collapse, sans explosives or thermite, should have been local. If not, then why are you pissing in the wind?

 

[Kent1]

Where does Shyam Sunder say that it is in regards to initiation? He stated, "...we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have. Suddenly the columns snapped, and, as a result, the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall, because kinetic energy that was unleashed was just huge."

The truss failure is the initiating event for the supposed pancake collapse hypothesis, not pancaking itself. As well, how can pancaking be interpreted from Ryan Mackey statement, "After a few floors collapse, the upper block is riding on a cushion of debris, and relatively smooth behavior is guaranteed...It will quickly become larger than the upper block, and it is responsible for most of the crushing."

If there is a separation between the upper and lower block and a cushion of debris is responsible for most of the crushing then how is this a pancake collapse. A pancake collapse is one floor falling on top of the floor beneath it.

Because if you read the article you can see its clear. Also NIST departed from the pancake theory in 04.

NARRATOR:
But, as they studied the minute details of the collapse, they made a remarkable discovery, one that would not only provide a final verdict on the trusses, but would completely revise previous theories of how the towers fell.

In 2002, NOVA depicted a scenario envisioned by many experts at the time, that the truss connections failed in the extreme heat, causing the floors to fall onto one another, precipitating the collapse.

SHYAM SUNDER: When you did it previously, you showed that the floors actually pancaked, and we did not see any evidence of pancaking in the videos or photographs we have."

Also again see previous posts. Repeating Sunder's statements a third time doesn't help your case.
I thought it was clear. Again I've stated in the debris pile, many floors were smashed and compacted into each other, showing that pancaking indeed happened.
"we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/ See Demo Dave.
As for Mackey's statements, I don't understand the problem.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Leaving aside the poor history and philosophy of science lesson, please tell me: what do you mean by "consensus science?"

Believing the stuff in physics textbooks, I think.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The perimeter columns begin to fall or fail? What is happening to the core columns as the upper section of the tower begins to tilt?

Architecturally, and structurally speaking the structure fails... That's exactly what happens in any collapse....

It is after collapse initiation when most of the people in the towers were killed. NIST was tasked with explaining how and why the buildings were destroyed. They have yet to fulfill their obligations.

FAIL
Utterly false, collapse isn't the only killer, people tend to have this inability to 'breath' when smoke fills the air, something you flat out either forgot or ignored. Were you there? Where you inside the upper portions of either tower to see these people? Assertions like that aren't very bright.

Had the towers continued to stand for any reason, these fires were still out of control, the exits were destroyed, do you think the fires would have stopped at the impact zones? Do you think the smoke wouldn't have any side effects? If the collapse never happened in the first place the death toll could very well have been all the same.

Yes, that is what I would expect. If the towers had not collapsed the death toll would have been much lower.

The exits in the north tower were all severed, and only a lucky few managed to find stairwell A in the south tower. Tell me this if you ever find that people can magically survive smoke inhalation over a period of an hour to an hour and a half.

Why is there any significance to collapse initiation then? If they don't go beyond collapse initiation then they can't tell us why the collapse was global as opposed to merely a local event.

If one floor can't stop a 15 to 30 story block of tower from falling after traveling downwards 12 ft at the acceleration of gravity, the tower falls another 12 ft, the next floor cannot handle that load and yields... so the upper section falls another 12 ft, and so on, and so on... I'm not a physicist but the fact that any momentum 'lost' from the resistance of a a single floor is regained from a successive drop, tells me that the collapse wasn't about to slow down... Any body who works well in physics knows this and can explain it in far better terms... Again, what is there for NIST to explain? The collapse progression is pretty clear to me...

 

[pomeroo]

OK, it was adressed to tanabear. Nist was apparently asked to describe the WTC destructions and decided that a description of the Tower designs(?), initial damages due to terrorist actions (by whom??) and consequential damages due to fires until initiation were sufficient. 10 000 pages for that. Not bad. All of it is quite good except some photos of buckled walls that are fakes. The rest I have nothing against. Evidently all that effort - 10 000 pages - does not explain the destructions that followed:

Therefore comes the famous Nist finale:

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

It is all nonsense of course.

Buckled columns! No evidence (except the faked photos of some deformed walls at unknown time)! Downward movement of the building mass above! No evidence of any kind, of course. Would have taken 0.8 seconds to move this mass and release potential energy, but Hollywood could not produce it. Nist could not even produce a number of that mass and why all of it would suddenly move and release potential energy.
And there is no evidence that this unknown amount of potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure.
What structure are they talking about? Anyway, Nist cannot produce the amount of strain energy that can be absorbed by any structure.
Even worse - there is no evidence of any kind that the potential energy released was actually applied to the unknown structure in question. Gravity does not work like that. Etc, etc.

I have a feeling that honest (but inexperienced) Nist engineers produced the 10 000 pages report and that then that some criminals added the two sentences finale and forced the senior Nist engineers to sign the whole thing. Only two extra lines added - no big deal? Will help your careers. Scientific crimes nevertheless. Very serious.

You were exposed as an ineducable incompetent by real engineers and physicists. Are you really brazen enough to trot out your thoroughly discredited rubbish again? How many threads demonstrating your ineptitude do we need?