WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[X]

E=mgh (take a physics course and stop making yourself look undereducated)

Ahem.

E = mgh + 0.5mv²

 

[Kent1]

NIST publicly discarded the pancake collapse hypothesis with the publication of their FAQ in August of 2006. It states,

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

When people speak of the upper block destroying the lower block, then this is the pile-driver explanation. Shyam Sunder stated,

"the entire top of the building came down, pretty much in freefall.."

How is this consistent with pancaking?

People who agree with the official story have had a hard time accounting for the squibs that appear beneath the demolition wave. So they have attempted to create some simple analogies to explain them. His piston analogy is in no way consistent with the pancake collapse hypothesis causing the squibs. These squibs were emerging from floors that were not pancaking, so he needed to come up with a different analogy to explain them. As well, NIST really does not go beyond collapse initiation. They don't have to because Bazant has already shown that the collapse once started would be global. Zdenek Bazant stated in a recent paper,

"In the structural engineering community, one early speculation was that, because of a supposedly insufficient strength of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which lost stability only later. This hypothesis,
however, was invalidated at NIST by careful examination of the photographic record..."

But if you believe it was a pancake/piledriver collapse, then which floors pancaked and which did not? You should be able to tell by observing the photographic and video record of the collapse.

It is relevant from a scientific standpoint because if the assumption is that inward bowing of the perimeter columns initiated the collapse, then the dynamics after initiation should appear similar to what happened to the towers on 9/11. How do we know this to be the case? We don't. How would the dynamics of a collapse look different between truss failure, column failure or controlled demolition?

Yes I've already stated the 2006 faq was reference to the initiation.
You seem not to read my posts. NIST long since discarded pancake collapse before the 2006 faq. You again just described the initiation.
I have no problem with Sunder's pancake terminology. Maybe you should complain to Sunder. I have no problem with his statement "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
I don't understand why you can't have pancaking, when floors are smashing upon one another.

You stated: "His piston analogy is in no way consistent with the pancake collapse hypothesis causing the squibs."
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I have no problems with his piston analogy and the current NIST hypothesis.
I don't understand why you are telling me "NIST really does not go beyond collapse initiation" when we are clearly discussing NIST's comments beyond collapse initiation.
I don't know why your posting Bazant's reference to collapse initiation. I don't believe there was an empty framed tube. Part of the upper block telescoped into the the lower and the outer walls pealed like a banana.
I can't tell you all of the floors that pancaked nor do I need to. I also don't have a magical camera that can see through the dust cloud until the collapse sequence ended. When NIST is discussing the photographic record it is in reference to the bowing and snapping of the columns showing that there was not an pancake initiation.

 

[bje]

A 9/11 Debunker states, "the towers were not destroyed via explosive charges from the top down."

A 9/11 Truther responds, "Okay, but if it were true, how would the collapse of each tower look different from what was actually observed?"

A word of advice, Tanabear. Don't ask questions if you are unwilling to listen to the answers.

 

[Heiwa]

I know this is hopeless, but the engineers and scientists have decided that you are unworthy of their continued attention, so I--someone who knows nothing about engineering--will allow myself to be tutored by you.

Let's imagine a very tall building, say, 110 stories high. We magically remove the 109th floor and the 110th floor drops onto the 108th. You contend, I assume, that the 110th becomes the new 109th and a "new equilibrium" has been established. So far, so good.

Now, let's magically remove the 80th floor. Floors 81 through 110 drop onto the 79th floor. You're saying that this is the same thing? Really? Are you seriously arguing that dropping thirty floors onto a floor designed to support the single floor directly above it won't crush the whole structure?

You think the same "new equilibrium" would be established as in the first instance?

Please--enlighten me.

It is all explained in the link.

Re the magic removal of the 80th floor you mention, it's like the magician's trick to quickly pull away a table cloth (one floor) with things on it (30 floors of a building!) from a table (the 79 floors of building below). The things on the cloth remains in position on the atble with the cloth removed. They just dropped down on the table below. No crushing the table.

On 911 the trick was adjusted so that the the table (the 79 floors of building below) would self-destruct. If you watch the videos, it is quite clear.

Enlightened?

 

[Heiwa]

That is about the stupidest bit of purported engineering I have ever read in my entire life.

If you have a slump in a building damaged as this one was, and with a considerable segment of the perimeter walls softened, ripped out, and otherwise compromised what happens is that the material that falls in to the floor below pushes out on the walls, snaps, the ordinary 5/8" bolts that attach the floor trusses to the perimeter columns and slides the very narrow clip the truss rests on out from under the lip of the truss. And that makes the next floor fail in turn. It only takes a deflection of about 2' outward to make this happen and less if the floors where the event started are already slumping due to softening by the fire.

I suspect the thing is beyond your capabilities, but if you want to have it explained to you in some detail, just ask and many of us here can help you learn.

What material falls in (?) to the floor below? Air?

Why does it push out on the walls?

Why does it not push out of the windows?

2'? Two feet? So something on the floor pushes on the walls without breaking the windows and the walls deflect two feet outward?

Have you discussed this with a CD company?

 

[GlennB]

This I do at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . When parts fail and displace due to gravity, they seek a new equilibrium.

If I get drunk tonight and fall down the ravine at the bottom of our garden, then I too will be seeking a "new equilibrium".

Regrettably, I would estimate that my "new equilibrium" would be at the bottom of the ravine. It's very steep indeed.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It is all explained in the link.

Re the magic removal of the 80th floor you mention, it's like the magician's trick to quickly pull away a table cloth (one floor) with things on it (30 floors of a building!) from a table (the 79 floors of building below). The things on the cloth remains in position on the atble with the cloth removed. They just dropped down on the table below. No crushing the table.

Your comparison to the magician trick with the table is rather bizarre... how exactly does that address the scenario he sat forth?

I gather that this is the whole 1/5 of a tower vs. 4/5 all over again... there were a number of local failures preceding the total collapse (Floors sagging, perimeter columns showing signs of distress). The proportion claim is irrelevant if the floors cannot arrest the collapse, any momentum lost is regained in a successive drop...

If you want to begin asking why the perimeter columns gave out, you'd best start seeing whether or not the connections were capable of resisting the forces applied to them, as many of the failures in the exterior columns during the collapse came apart where they were weakest, the connections

On 911 the trick was adjusted so that the the table (the 79 floors of building below) would self-destruct. If you watch the videos, it is quite clear.

No, it's not clear to me that anyhing is 'self-destructing' what I see is a building undergoing a complete chain-reaction collapse.

Have you an answer to post #81?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3816274&postcount=81

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It is all explained in the link.

Re the magic removal of the 80th floor you mention, it's like the magician's trick to quickly pull away a table cloth (one floor) with things on it (30 floors of a building!) from a table (the 79 floors of building below). The things on the cloth remains in position on the atble with the cloth removed. They just dropped down on the table below. No crushing the table.

On 911 the trick was adjusted so that the the table (the 79 floors of building below) would self-destruct. If you watch the videos, it is quite clear.

Enlightened?

 

[phunk]

I wonder how all these experts can see what happens behind a cloud of dust. Any ideas?
So you saw 15 floors of WTC1 fall 12 ft? I didn't. Not seen on any video.

If you didn't see them fall 12 feet, are they still hovering there now?

The 12 feet in question is simply the first 12 feet of the fall that's seen in every single video of the collapse.

 

[X]

Your comparison to the magician trick with the table is rather bizarre... how exactly does that address the scenario he sat forth?

I gather that this is the whole 1/5 of a tower vs. 4/5 all over again... there were a number of local failures preceding the total collapse (Floors sagging, perimeter columns showing signs of distress). The proportion claim is irrelevant if the floors cannot arrest the collapse, any momentum lost is regained in a successive drop...

If you want to begin asking why the perimeter columns gave out, you'd best start seeing whether or not the connections were capable of resisting the forces applied to them, as many of the failures in the exterior columns during the collapse came apart where they were weakest, the connections




No, it's not clear to me that anyhing is 'self-destructing' what I see is a building undergoing a complete chain-reaction collapse.

Have you an answer to post #81?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3816274&postcount=81

Grizzly, do you remember back when you said something to the effect of "nobody believes steel can never fail"?
And I commented that you haven't met Heiwa yet?
Keep that in mind, when you try to reason with him.

At least this table analogy is better than his picnic table one.
Pity the search isn't working.

 

[Heiwa]

If you didn't see them fall 12 feet, are they still hovering there now?

The 12 feet in question is simply the first 12 feet of the fall that's seen in every single video of the collapse.

?? Link or photos, pls. On all videos linked to in my articles no 12 feet fall is seen. Hollywood missed it?

 

[BenBurch]

?? Link or photos, pls. On all videos linked to in my articles no 12 feet fall is seen. Hollywood missed it?

You are a freaking liar, because even other "truthers" see it.

 

[phunk]

?? Link or photos, pls. On all videos linked to in my articles no 12 feet fall is seen. Hollywood missed it?

Really? So the towers are still standing in whatever world you're living in?

 

[Myriad]

?? Link or photos, pls. On all videos linked to in my articles no 12 feet fall is seen. Hollywood missed it?

I've been trying to understand what Heiwa means by this bizarre claim since he first made it.

The only thing I can think of, he's looking for the upper block to fall one story and then stop, after which a collapse "initiated" by that fall begins.

Heiwa, you don't see a 12-foot fall because once it starts falling it never stops until it hits the ground. You see a 1300-foot fall instead.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tanabear]

And today consensus agrees,mostly, what causes "fever" and how to treat it. Does that mean that women facing childbirth should not trust their doctors, because mostly they rely on facts other have deduced?

I think Crichton's point isn't more complicated than "Just because a lot of people say something is right, doesn't mean they are right", which is more or less a pretty basic statement.

But that doesn't mean that just because a lot of people say something is right, means that its wrong. To know if its right or wrong you have to either reproduce the entire process, or do as much research as you deem neccessary to make a reasonable well-founded assumption. Granted, it will be an assumption, but it can be a more or less well-founded one.

Notice what Michael Crichton said, "In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results." If someone doubted the validity of a certain scientific theory or the results of a famous scientific experiment, then they would need to obtain their own results that could be reproduced by others. If a scientist wishes to persuade a skeptic, he does not need to say, "See, the world at large accepts this explanation." All he needs to do is present the evidence to him. If a scientist appeals only to the consensus, but never to the evidence, then that is consensus science. If scientific doctrines became popular merely due to which scientist was the best snake-oil salesmen, then there would be no scientific progress at all.

You write, "And today consensus agrees,mostly, what causes "fever" and how to treat it."

Well, what about the consensus regarding what causes ulcers and how to treat them? Doctors, until very recently, tended to think that stress or certain genes caused ulcers. The best they could do for their patients was to tell them to stop smoking, don't eat spicy foods and reduce your stress levels. These recommendations by doctors and the medical community at large never had much success in curing ulcers. Then along came a couple of people who disagreed with the medical consensus regarding ulcers, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. They believed that ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection named, Helicobacter pylori. They set out to prove it. I'll let Barry Marshall tell his story,

"Long before Robin Warren and I took to the stage in Stockholm we were decried as scientific heretics, branded as fakes and frauds by members of our profession. For years established wisdom dictated that peptic ulcers were caused by stress - indeed they were worn as a badge of success by many professionals who took their doctors advice to lay off spicy food, eat very small meals, avoid worry and anxiety, spend up big on antacids and in many cases submit to the surgeon's scalpel for a staggering array of surgical solutions... I would be proud if I could say that our first international publicity was in a prestigious publication such as the National Enquirer, but I would be lying - it was actually in a Florida supermarket tabloid called The Star...It was not until 1994 - 12 years after Robin and I first made the connection between H. pylori and ulcers - that the powerful US National Institutes of Health accepted the bacterial causation of ulcers."

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Medicine. I wonder why it was so controversial? It was in agreement with the Germ Theory of Disease. Nevertheless, results matter not consensus.

How many demolition companies today use fire and impact damage to demolish steel-frame high rises? Has the crush-down / crush-up hypothesis of Bazant been tested on any steel-frame high rises? What are the results?

Maybe the idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings, even WTC1 and 2, will no longer be controversial one day as well.

 

[beachnut]

...

Maybe the idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings, even WTC1 and 2, will no longer be controversial one day as well.

Maybe all people will be super stupid one day, suspend rational thought and join 9/11 truth; I doubt it. Many people have a working knowledge of physics and can understand the stored energy in the WTC is = mgh. Why does 9/11 truth lack that insight?

9/11 truth ideas are failed, dead, and debunked. One day the last 9/11 truther will gain knowledge, understand the real world, and see 9/11 truth as the fraud it is.

You lack evidence, and I doubt ignorance will set in so others will fail to understand 9/11. The small minority of 9/11 truth experts holds at less than 0.0001 percent. Why has 9/11 truth fail so miserably?

 

[pomeroo]

It is all explained in the link.

Re the magic removal of the 80th floor you mention, it's like the magician's trick to quickly pull away a table cloth (one floor) with things on it (30 floors of a building!) from a table (the 79 floors of building below). The things on the cloth remains in position on the atble with the cloth removed. They just dropped down on the table below. No crushing the table.

On 911 the trick was adjusted so that the the table (the 79 floors of building below) would self-destruct. If you watch the videos, it is quite clear.

Enlightened?

Uh, no. You are a spectacular incompetent.

Think again--r-e-a-l hard. You are saying that dropping thirty floors onto a floor designed to support one floor won't crush the structure. Think hard.

 

[pomeroo]

Do you understand that this guy claims to be an engineer?

 

[bje]

You lack evidence, and I doubt ignorance will set in so others will fail to understand 9/11. The small minority of 9/11 truth experts, holds at 0.0001 percent and less. Why did 9/11 truth fail so miserably?

I always notice that 9/11 Truthers like Tanabear become irritated when skeptics point out the fact that all they do is regurgitate the Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale regarding the events of 9/11.

 

[John Blonn]

Maybe the idea that explosive charges can destroy buildings, even WTC1 and 2, will no longer be controversial one day as well.

I find it ironic how in one breath you slam 'consensus science' as problematic, but in the next breath hope that the opinions of 9/11 truthers on such issues as CD will become a new scientific...consensus.

You are being self-contradictory. As is Crichton when he writes (as I wrote in an earlier post) that one strives for reproducible results, not consensus. Well who is doing the reproducing? And how do we know when that replication has been 'done right?' Consensus. Again. It cannot be escaped.