WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?
- Thread starter tanabear
- Start date
tanabear
Critical Thinker
It might be helpful for a moment to pause and ask the debunkers what they agree with regarding the collapse of WTC1 and 2. The goal of the official explanations is to explain how the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires caused the towers to be destroyed. So they have offered various scenarios/theories to explain this. How did the structural damage and fires lead to each tower's demise? Maybe the initiating event was truss failure. The trusses broke free from the perimeter columns and the floors pancaked down on each other. Or maybe it was column failure. The columns buckled/snapped and the upper block crushed the lower block in a pile-driver like effect.
Each of the explanations is merely an attempt to explain how the buildings could have collapsed.(i.e. the planes hit the towers and I need to find some explanation for how these buildings came down) These explanations do not explain what actually did happen to the towers. For that to occur each collapse model would have to be able to explain the behavior of the towers after initiation.
Was the pancake collapse theory based on empirical evidence or was it just a made-up explanation to justify the official story? It would seem to be the latter. As S. Shyam Sunder stated, "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." This is why the NOVA documentary showed computer animation of the floors pancaking instead of actual video tape evidence.
So what about the current pile-driver explanation that is premised on column failure? NIST believes inward bowing of the perimeter columns initiated the collapse. But according to Shyam Sunder the columns would have had to snap. As he stated, "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."
However in the documentary, Building on Ground Zero, when they show the columns snapping they once again use computer animation instead of actual video/photographic evidence. Why?
Here you can watch an excerpt
What about the 3.7 meter fall of the upper block onto the lower block? Was this something that Bazant/Greening used in their model because it was actually observed or is it merely a hypothetical assumption they made up?
What about the crush-down/crush-up hypothesis? Is their actual evidence that this occurred or is this just another assumption used to support their pre-existing conclusion?
In other words, how many of the assumptions can be supported by the evidence?
You spend this entire thread, not to mention your entire posting history here, feigning an interest in getting answers to your questions -- questions that reveal a simply monumental gift for confusion, and an utter dearth of expertise.
And then you come out and make a proclamation like this.
I've already explained to you, in this thread, patiently, endlessly, that we already have models, of collapse, initiation, etc., the whole nine yards. I've explained that all of this is consistent with the evidence, including video, recovered pieces, structural models, different formulations. All, obviously, to no effect.
You are way past the point of Irreducible Delusion, and in keeping with that tradition, all I am obligated to do at this point is remind you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry for wasting your time.
As you endlessly cross and re-cross the same terrain, hearing and ignoring the same explanations from the same experts, do you ever feel that you've taken leave of your senses? I mean this as a serious question.
Your imaginary conspiracy is utter nonsense. It could not possibly exist. For years, you and your fellow liars have advanced one silly, bogus argument after another, only to see them all shot down in flames. How much more of your life are you prepared to waste on this stupid fantasy?
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Buildings don't float.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Heiwa - have you conducted this experiment yourself? Yes or no.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
You know, if he had actually done it, one wouldn't expect him to be bashful about it.
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 405
Heiwa, your site says that Bazant and Seffen assume a free fall collapse for the first few moments. This is only true for Bazant and Zhou(2002).
Seffen, and Bazant's more recent models, do not include even one fraction of a second of free fall. Both models include an upward force* corresponding to column resistance. This force is never zero, even after the column has buckled, in other words, lost stability and load bearing capacity.
Collapse need not initiated by removal of supports, but rather loss of stability of one floor, so again, there is a non zero force acting against gravity at all times. Why, then, would you say that they assume free fall?
Bazant has also clarified this explicitly in a discussion of his paper, which was briefly discussed in this thread. hopefully the link on Bazant's website is working by now.
from the paper:
ETA:
Also note Seffen equation 14, this gives the initial velocity for the crush front and also serves as an initial condition for the differential equation.
*For a derivation of column's resistive force as a function of shortening, see bazant and zhou appendix 3.
Seffen, and Bazant's more recent models, do not include even one fraction of a second of free fall. Both models include an upward force* corresponding to column resistance. This force is never zero, even after the column has buckled, in other words, lost stability and load bearing capacity.
Collapse need not initiated by removal of supports, but rather loss of stability of one floor, so again, there is a non zero force acting against gravity at all times. Why, then, would you say that they assume free fall?
Bazant has also clarified this explicitly in a discussion of his paper, which was briefly discussed in this thread. hopefully the link on Bazant's website is working by now.
from the paper:
ETA:
Also note Seffen equation 14, this gives the initial velocity for the crush front and also serves as an initial condition for the differential equation.
*For a derivation of column's resistive force as a function of shortening, see bazant and zhou appendix 3.
Last edited:
Because you have 0.75 cubic metres of rags, paper, carpets etc ignited by diesel and petrol and contained by inflamable plywood (with holes in it). This is no BBQ.
And you have 1.5 tonnes of water suspended over this on thin steel legs. The structure's stability depends on the accuracy of your welding. Get those legs a few degrees out of true and the structure is already seriously compromised even before the fire. Weaken the (1mm thick) legs with poor welding , ditto.
And you are proposing that children do this. You would no doubt be arrested. If they are your own children they might well be taken into care.
Even having them in close attendance would probably be illegal.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,228
There is a scarcity of photographs of the Towers under construction. Both these photos appear to show some diagonal bracing.
.......whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg
[Sorry unable to post urls yet..these are 2 of the best known of the few images available of the Towers under construction]
This is a photo of the lower floors. Do you have evidence that these diagonals weren't used in higher floors?
.......whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_large.jpg
Is your schoolboy insult "duh" your supporting evidence?
Do you have documentary evidence showing the "'girders' being obliterated by the collapsing tower or that the "core remaining columns were all but unbraced, hence elastic buckling"? Where, late in the "collapse", columns are seen falling over with their beams severed is there evidence that this severing was caused by falling debris?
Free fall collapse for the first few moments? No, I do not write like that. Pls quote properly. Bazant proposes crush-down and Seffen some magic dynamic overloading, both implying some sort of free fall of the upper block (no collapse yet) and impact as initiation of destruction (apart from local failures due to heat and previous damages setting the WTCs on fire).
I, on the other hand suggest, that the first local failures after initiation (the topic) and contact say 0.8 seconds later (not seen of course) should be just local damages to the floors of both upper block and lower structure. Thus the top floor of the lower structure gets entangled with the bottom floor of the upper block and start to rub against each other ... and energy is absorbed.
Then the second floors of both upper block and lower structure are damaged and get entangled and double energy is absorbed due friction.
And so on, the third floors get entangled much more energy is absorbed due to friction. Now there is rubbing between total six floors and the energy absorbation due friction increases dramatically.
The local failures do not initiate any further release of potential energy except the local hinging down of floors, i.e. a very small addition.
Bazant, Seffen and, of course, NIST ignore friction as the main force to arrest the destruction.
Unfortunately I do not see my scenario developing during the destruction. I see the upper block being destroyed (unknown cause) first and second I see huge amounts of rubble and debris being created and thrown out from the lower structure starting from top where the upper block is then missing!
This cannot, in my opinion be caused by gravity, as explained in my articles. Gravity would just cause the local failures I describe and no rubble or debris. And friction would arrest further destruction quickly. Bazant and Seffen ignore local failures and friction. Actually, their theories are just one-dimensional (1-D) with no relation to reality.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,228
And no, pussycat, I'm not referring to the structure supporting the cranes.
So I think we can safely assume by this time that Heiwa has not done the experiment, never will do the experiment, and hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.
Which means that everything else he says can also be taken with a pinch of salt.
Bananaman.
Which means that everything else he says can also be taken with a pinch of salt.
Bananaman.
Last edited:
And .....
Given that the steel plate that forms the "table top" (later to become the base of the water tank) is only 5mm thick, how feasible would it be to weld 20mm diameter steel tubes to this in such a way that it stands true? Presumably it would have to be fabricated upside-down and then flipped over? I see what I believe are called jigs involved, to get stuff lined up, and I don't think they're in the budget. The flipping over could prove tricky?
Then .. how feasible is it to lift 60kg steel plates and weld them to this "table top" - one by one - to form the tank? Would the contraption not tip over or collapse around the weld when the first plate is welded on? It strikes me that the way to do it would be to weld up the 4 tank plates into a box and lower them down onto the "table top", to keep the whole thing strong and stable. But this amounts to 240kg of steel, which would require heavy lifting equipment and several people, I'd imagine.
Pehaps an engineer here could comment on the consequences of getting the legs even a few degrees out of true? Or warped during the welding of the "spandrels"
Although I know nothing about steel fabrication, I'm beginning to wonder if Heiwa is even a welder by trade. But I could have got it all wrong about the construction issues here. Just guessing, based on many years of improvising d-i-y jobs.
The two photos you posted appear to show exactly this.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,228
The photos show some diagonal bracing of the core structure seperate from the crane supporting structure.
in this picture, for example I can see six diagonal braces:
.........whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg
Perhaps they were helping to support the cranes and later removed. Do you have evidence that they were?
Building the test tower is not that easy, you need a good welder and a workshop.
Once i had the plates cut out and the edges ground to shape, I would place the bottom plate on the ground under the workshop crane. I would then place the 4 plates on the edges and tack them together.
Next step is to locate the ships welder and get him to make the full weld, he has better chances of getting it waterproof than me.
I would need to weld some eyes on to turn it over again, and weld the legs on.
The legs would be very close to vertical, if the angle is off you try again.
We usually dimention steel work onboard by adding a factor 1,5 for possible errors in workmanship, and a factor 10 for ignorance of structoral engineering
It normaly ammounts to looking at what was made from the yard and then add a bit.
Does anybody know if this contraption has any relevance to wtc1&2 ?
To me it looks unlikely, why 75cm and not 4m?
Once i had the plates cut out and the edges ground to shape, I would place the bottom plate on the ground under the workshop crane. I would then place the 4 plates on the edges and tack them together.
Next step is to locate the ships welder and get him to make the full weld, he has better chances of getting it waterproof than me.
I would need to weld some eyes on to turn it over again, and weld the legs on.
The legs would be very close to vertical, if the angle is off you try again.
We usually dimention steel work onboard by adding a factor 1,5 for possible errors in workmanship, and a factor 10 for ignorance of structoral engineering
It normaly ammounts to looking at what was made from the yard and then add a bit.
Does anybody know if this contraption has any relevance to wtc1&2 ?
To me it looks unlikely, why 75cm and not 4m?
There is a huge amount of information about the WTC structure in the NIST reports, via: http://wtc.nist.gov/
Jane, you might find that sometimes people here seem to be lacking in patience. This is because all of these issues have been discussed countless times. The "search" facility here can be useful, as can researching via the InterWebThingy.
Just strolling in and demanding "do you have evidence they were (removed)" will probably get people ratty, mainly because you can find out the construction method for yourself.
Evidently. Happens all the time!
Building the test tower is not that easy, you need a good welder and a workshop.
Once i had the plates cut out and the edges ground to shape, I would place the bottom plate on the ground under the workshop crane. I would then place the 4 plates on the edges and tack them together.
Next step is to locate the ships welder and get him to make the full weld, he has better chances of getting it waterproof than me.
I would need to weld some eyes on to turn it over again, and weld the legs on.
The legs would be very close to vertical, if the angle is off you try again.
We usually dimention steel work onboard by adding a factor 1,5 for possible errors in workmanship, and a factor 10 for ignorance of structoral engineering
It normaly ammounts to looking at what was made from the yard and then add a bit.
Does anybody know if this contraption has any relevance to wtc1&2 ?
To me it looks unlikely, why 75cm and not 4m?
Thanks for that.
But I think the relationship to WTC1+2 lurks somewhere in the darker recesses of Heiwa's deluded brain.
Please don´t elaborate.