WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[pomeroo]

You have not read my articles. The upper block does not destroy a section of the tower. On all videos it is destroyed before that.

But if the upper block had dropped down and contacted the structure below, the upper block would have been destroyed then, too.

Why? The upper block is not very strong. Being on top it is the lightest and weakest part of the whole tower.

What rubble are you talking about? No rubble is produced when the upper block drops down.

And a layer of rubble? What is below this layer? Something solid? What? A floor?

And what compacts the rubble layer? The upper block? But it has imploded! or it is still intact and its lowest floor compacts?

So how can the rubble layer grow? In thickness?

Rubble is, I understand, bits of broken stone, rock, brickwork, steel pieces, furniture, whatever! Mostly rubbish.

After initiation, was a layer of rubble suddenly produced by the upper block? But how? Where did it come from?

It cannot destroy solid columns of a steel tower. A layer of rubble will just drop by anything as solid as a steel column. No friction, no damages, no global collapse.

Sorry, anybody suggesting that a layer of rubble of increasing thickness destroyed the towers must have a mind of rubbish.

I thought Bazant suggested that it was something really solid and indestructible that crushed down the towers! But now you say it was a layer of rubble!

Rubbish.

Speaking of rubbish, you made the insane claim that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure. You are ridiculously WRONG. When will you acknowledge your egregious error?

 

[pomeroo]

You have not read my articles.

Your articles have been shown to be incompetent and worthless.

{snip-insane gibberish}

Sorry, anybody suggesting that a layer of rubble of increasing thickness destroyed the towers must have a mind of rubbish.

I thought Bazant suggested that it was something really solid and indestructible

You have been caught lying again.

that crushed down the towers! But now you say it was a layer of rubble!

Rubbish.

You are an incompetent fraud.

 

[Jwheelz]

Why? The upper block is not very strong. Being on top it is the lightest and weakest part of the whole tower.

Heiwa, pretend for this question that the lower part is only 1 story tall.

What would happen to that lower part when the upper block fell on top of it?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, pretend for this question that the lower part is only 1 story tall.

What would happen to that lower part when the upper block fell on top of it?

All described in my article. It does not matter if the lower structure is only one storey tall or 95. There are local failures in both parts and energy is absorbed. As the lower part is only 1 storey, the ground will soon assist and absorb energy (plenty) and the destruction will be arrested very quickly. Little energy is released.

I imagine that most of the upper block will then remain intact - only its bottom part will be subject to local failures. No push-up that will destroy the upper part will take place.

The situation changes if you destroy the lower part - 1 storey - with, e.g. CD and permit the upper block to free fall. No energy is thus absorbed by the 1 storey below. It seems to be a small building upper block, so the upper part is not very strong and will then be fully destroyed in contact with the ground as expected by CD.

 

[JihadJane]

It is stated in the NIST report why there is a scarcity: the steel in the areas of interest no longer had their identifying markings on them. Without those markings it is imopossible to determine where exactly it came from.


Oh good! Maybe you'll be the first truther ever to calculate how much explosives would be necessary to do what you claim was done. Then explain why there were no audible explosions consistent with such powerful explosives.

Or are you a Judy Wood space beam proponent? Then you just need to calculate the power of said space beam (or DEW if you prefer).

Then maybe you'll see why such an assertion is ridiculous on its face. But truthers run from these questions as if their lives depended on it, I suspect you'll be no different.

So what will it be, will you answer or will you run away?

Thanks for the information re scarcity of physical evidence.

It would be helpful if you stated where in the NIST report this is stated and what miraculous force achieved this widespread removal of stamped identifying markings. In the context of this article the entire building is an "area of interest". There are, of course, other ways of identifying components, such as from their relative dimensions, signs of exposure to fire etc.

Elsewhere the NIST report states that "the remains of the towers were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."

NIST Draft Report on the Twin Towers,
Chapter 2,
'The Account of World Trade Center 1'.

---------------

For future reference, WildCat, you should know that I don't normally respond to posts peppered with careless generalisations about the supposed collective psychology of "truthers" such as in your comment below. You appear strangely keen to fit me into your predefined stereotypes. Replace the word "truthers" in your comment below, with "blacks", "women", "rednecks"," Arabs" or any other group you can slot someone into to make it permissible to abuse them, and perhaps you can understand why I perceive such remarks as aggressive, misinformed bigotry and therefore do not normally respond to them.

WildCat: "It's astounding that a self-proclaimed researcher could be so astonishingly ignorant of the construction of the towers.

But frankly, astounding ignorance is typical of truthers."

There are many small details about the Towers' construction that are unknown. NIST researchers, for example, admit to not knowing such basic facts as "which type(s) of gypsum wallboard were used to enclose the core columns" ibid, Chapter 6.

You are somewhat premature with your sweeping, somewhat macho judgements and, for some reason, appear overly hungry for material with which to feed your "truther" stereotype. What is the purpose of this stereotyping?


Note that the technically minded Newton's Bit is only confident enough of the Towers' construction details to state that "The core probably wasn't braced" (#775). He/she does not know for certain either. Do you also find him/her "astonishingly ignorant"? Do you also find such ignorance typical of 911 Osama bin theory believers?

I will address enquiries about explosives, about which, contrary to your beliefs, I have asserted nothing, later in the day.

If you wish me to respond to any further of comments of yours you will need to adopt a more dispassionate and scientific approach to the subject under discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Toke]

I describe the towers' "collapse" as "apparently explosive disintegration" because it better describes their depicted transformation into very fine dust and broken steel in mid air, much of it hurled horizontally at high speeds.

How would you rig explosives to detonate right above and below the moving contact zone between upper and lower part of tower?

Remember, the firemen had trouble with their radios so you would need wiring between charges.
Wires can be broken by airplanes and fire.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for the information re scarcity of physical evidence.

It would be helpful if you stated where in the NIST report this is stated and what miraculous force achieved this widespread removal of stamped identifying markings. In the context of this article the entire building is an "area of interest". There are, of course, other ways of identifying components, such as from their relative dimensions, signs of exposure to fire etc.

No, there isn't other ways to identify the steel after the identifying markers were burned off. Relative dimensions only go so far.

Elsewhere the NIST report states that "the remains of the towers were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."

NIST Draft Report on the Twin Towers,
Chapter 2,
'The Account of World Trade Center 1'.

It would help if you would actually identify which NIST document you're referencing.

For future reference, WildCat, you should know that I don't normally respond to posts peppered with careless generalisations about the supposed collective psychology of "truthers" such as in your comment below. You appear strangely keen to fit me into your predefined stereotypes. Replace the word "truthers" in your comment below, with "blacks", "women", "rednecks"," Arabs" or any other group you can slot someone into to make it permissible to abuse them, and perhaps you can understand why I perceive such remarks as aggressive, misinformed bigotry and therefore do not normally respond to them.

No dice JihadJane. If there's a truther whose entire basis for their beliefs doesn't boil down to "It doesn't look right to me and Bush/Cheney are evil and they suck" I haven't seen them yet. Nearly 7 years after 9/11 and not a single truther has published a paper in a real science journal despite their claims that the scientific facts are on their side. Why do you suppose that is? Do you think that every single engineering journal is in on the coverup, or is it because the truthers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to science? Oh, the truth movement leaders do have books, dvds, coffee mugs, t-shirts, etc etc to sell you though! Is this the way science is done, by selling coffee mugs?

WildCat: "It's astounding that a self-proclaimed researcher could be so astonishingly ignorant of the construction of the towers.

But frankly, astounding ignorance is typical of truthers."

And you proved that by your claims of diagonal cross-bracing in the towers.

There are many small details about the Towers' construction that are unknown. NIST researchers, for example, admit to not knowing such basic facts as "which type(s) of gypsum wallboard were used to enclose the core columns" ibid, Chapter 6.

It doesn't really matter, because it's largely irrelevant. What is known is the basic design, and it sure as hell doesn't include cross-bracing of the core columns.

You are somewhat premature with your sweeping, somewhat macho judgements and, for some reason, appear overly hungry for material with which to feed your "truther" stereotype. What is the purpose of this stereotyping?

3 years here listening to truthers parrot the same misinformation and outright lies, while refusing to acknowledge a single fact that proves them wrong. And you are living up to that stereotype quite well, thank you.

Note that the technically minded Newton's Bit is only confident enough of the Towers' construction details to state that "The core probably wasn't braced" (#775). He/she does not know for certain either. Do you also find him/her "astonishingly ignorant"?

He's only confused about what you were claiming, not about cross-bracing which he knows didn't exist. Such cross-bracing would have made it difficult to get into the elevators and stairways, don't you think? Do you think people ducked under crosbracing members to access the elevators?

Do you also find such ignorance typical of 911 Osama bin theory believers?

Ah, still living up to the stereotype! Will you be claiming a video shows a "fat Osama" next?

I will address enquiries about explosives, about which, contrary to your beliefs, I have asserted nothing, later in the day.

You certainly did make such a claim! Remember when you said "I describe the towers' "collapse" as "apparently explosive disintegration" because it better describes their depicted transformation into very fine dust and broken steel in mid air, much of it hurled horizontally at high speeds."? It's common for the truthers to claim that pulverized concrete and horizontal ejections were the result of explosives. But in real CD the explosives do no such thing, as it would be completely unnecessary. And even the small CD charges used in a real CD are extremely loud - loud enough to be heard from miles away. There's not a single video of the event that have audible explosions - except those faked by "truthers". Explosions powerful enough to pulverize an acre of concrete and send columns weighing tons flying 300 feet would be incredibly loud, loud enough to be heard 50 miles away. They would also send debris flying upwards - and there is no debris flying upwards in any video of the day. If you're going to claim steel disintegrated into dust in mid-air you are in Ace Baker and Judy Wood territory, and as we all know there is no evidence for such a ridiculous claim.

If you wish me to respond to any further of comments of yours you will need to adopt a more dispassionate and scientific approach to the subject under discussion.

Thanks.

Whenever you're willing to discuss the science go right ahead. So far all you've don is parrot the same arguments from incredulity we've all heard for several years.

 

[tsig]

I am glad that you have started construction! The weights of the parts were chosen to be handled by two persons.
You start to weld the four 75 cms tubes to the table top on flat ground at the corners. Welding leg length is 1-2 mm. And then you weld the spandrels between the tubes. Then you turn the table upright on a solid floor. Reason that the legs are 75 cms is to get the correct slenderness ratio (between spandrels).
Then you tack weld the first tank 5 mm wall on top of the table. It needs some temporary support and then you tack weld the second wall to the table top and the first wall. Now, these two walls support themselves. So it is easy to fit the remaining walls. Then complete the welding - leg lenght 1-2 mm at all joints. Not very difficult.
But it can be simplified. In lieu of the four 5 mm walls fit a steel cage above and line it with a tarpaulin and fill it with the correct amount of water. In that case put a layer of insulation material between the tarpaulin and the table top so the tarpauline will not be damaged later by heat. The objective is simply to be able to load the table so that the legs are compressed to 0.3 yield. I chose 5 mm walls of a water tank as I am used to handle plates like that. The welding is easy. To use water as the weight seems the easiest.
The table will easily carry double the weight (stress in legs then 0.6 yield) but then you have to increase the tank.
I realize that you clever guys can improve on the model. Pls advise your progress.

Guess you missed the part were the columns were bolted together.

Have you ever burnt a rod for pay?

 

[pomeroo]

Is there a reason why I'm the only one calling attention to Heiwa's lunatic claim that dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure? I mean, how is it possible to debate specifics of physics and engineering with someone who--how to put this delicately?--kind of misses certain things?

 

[tsig]

In my comment on page 19 (#760) I quoted NIST President, Dr. William Jeffrey, who said:

“The scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster led to the following approach:..."

It is interesting that he doesn't explore why there is a scarcity of physical evidence. If sufficient steel had been preserved to reconstruct sections of the Towers then we would have conclusive proof of what happened to them and the world would be spared endless threads like this one! Without this physical evidence there can only be inconclusive hypotheses.

I describe the towers' "collapse" as "apparently explosive disintegration" because it better describes their depicted transformation into very fine dust and broken steel in mid air, much of it hurled horizontally at high speeds.

Gravity does that.

Ever see water after a bad dive?

 

[cmcaulif]

You have not read my articles. The upper block does not destroy a section of the tower. On all videos it is destroyed before that.

if you look at the video Frame by frame, you see very little crush up occurring. Gregory Urich made a really nice frame by frame version of the collapses, you should ask him for it.

But if the upper block had dropped down and contacted the structure below, the upper block would have been destroyed then, too.

Why? The upper block is not very strong. Being on top it is the lightest and weakest part of the whole tower.

already explained

What rubble are you talking about? No rubble is produced when the upper block drops down.

already explained

And a layer of rubble? What is below this layer? Something solid? What? A floor?

And what compacts the rubble layer? The upper block? But it has imploded! or it is still intact and its lowest floor compacts?

already explained

So how can the rubble layer grow? In thickness?

yes, as more floors fail, more floors collect in the so called rubble layer.

Rubble is, I understand, bits of broken stone, rock, brickwork, steel pieces, furniture, whatever! Mostly rubbish.

which has mass, velocity, and thus kinetic energy

After initiation, was a layer of rubble suddenly produced by the upper block? But how? Where did it come from?

already explained

It cannot destroy solid columns of a steel tower. A layer of rubble will just drop by anything as solid as a steel column. No friction, no damages, no global collapse.

It doesn't need to strike a column, NCSTAR1-6 documents that all it takes is 33 MJ of KE to destroy all of the truss seats on one floor, thus causing loss of lateral support and stability.

Sorry, anybody suggesting that a layer of rubble of increasing thickness destroyed the towers must have a mind of rubbish.

I thought Bazant suggested that it was something really solid and indestructible that crushed down the towers! But now you say it was a layer of rubble!

Rubbish.

Please quote exactly where I said a layer of rubble of increasing thickness destroyed the towers. The rubble merely provides a KE boost which makes arrest even more unatainable.

You claimed the upper block must have been destroyed, I pointed out that, by examining the forces on the rubble layer in dynamic equilibrium, the force in the upper block is much less than the force in the lower. I made no such claim as you say I did.

You are wasting my time by repeating yourself without addressing what I have actually said, and now you attempt to put words in my mouth.

 

[cmcaulif]

Is there a reason why I'm the only one calling attention to Heiwa's lunatic claim that dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure?

uhhhhhhh what?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Is there a reason why I'm the only one calling attention to Heiwa's lunatic claim that dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure? I mean, how is it possible to debate specifics of physics and engineering with someone who--how to put this delicately?--kind of misses certain things?

I saw it. It is lunacy. Which is one reason why I generally don't engage with him much anymore. He's not all there.

 

[R.Mackey]

Is there a reason why I'm the only one calling attention to Heiwa's lunatic claim that dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure? I mean, how is it possible to debate specifics of physics and engineering with someone who--how to put this delicately?--kind of misses certain things?

To be honest, virtually everything he says is equally ridiculous from an engineering perspective. That example may be the most obvious to a non-expert, but I decided any "debate" with him was impossible a long, long time ago.

 

[Toke]

Is there a reason why I'm the only one calling attention to Heiwa's lunatic claim that dropping the top third of a building two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure? I mean, how is it possible to debate specifics of physics and engineering with someone who--how to put this delicately?--kind of misses certain things?

I did notice post 166, and yes debating with Heiwa has to cross reality bubbles, and are unlikely to yield anything sensible.


I an still curius as to how Jihadjane imagine rigging the towers.

 

[JihadJane]

No, there isn't other ways to identify the steel after the identifying markers were burned off. Relative dimensions only go so far.

How were these markers, stamped into steel, "burned off"? Even if the fires in the buildings were hot enough to melt steel (which not even NIST hypothesises) it is the structure below the fire zones that would need to be studied to reveal the mechanics of the buildings' "collapse".

And you proved that ["astounding ignorance is typical of truthers"] by your claims of diagonal cross-bracing in the towers.

My very limited claim about cross-bracing was correct. I linked to a photograph in which half a dozen braced frames are visible and another in which there also appear to be a couple of diagonal braces. I never claimed anything more than what is visible in these photos.

You certainly did make such a claim! Remember when you said "I describe the towers' "collapse" as "apparently explosive disintegration" because it better describes their depicted transformation into very fine dust and broken steel in mid air, much of it hurled horizontally at high speeds."? It's common for the truthers to claim that pulverized concrete and horizontal ejections were the result of explosives. But in real CD the explosives do no such thing, as it would be completely unnecessary. And even the small CD charges used in a real CD are extremely loud - loud enough to be heard from miles away. There's not a single video of the event that have audible explosions - except those faked by "truthers". Explosions powerful enough to pulverize an acre of concrete and send columns weighing tons flying 300 feet would be incredibly loud, loud enough to be heard 50 miles away. They would also send debris flying upwards - and there is no debris flying upwards in any video of the day. [ note from JJ: Some photos and videos do show debris describing an upward arc] If you're going to claim steel disintegrated into dust in mid-air you are in Ace Baker and Judy Wood territory, and as we all know there is no evidence for such a ridiculous claim."

My comment referred to the explosive, mushrooming appearance of the Towers' demise. I am not a military expert. I do not know what can turn carpets and furniture into microscopic dust or what process corroded steel at high temperatures. Nor do you. The physical evidence that could prove what happened to the Towers has been destroyed. Everything, therefore, is conjecture; somewhat pointless, eternal conjecture. You suggest that I am going to claim that the steel disintegrated into dust. This supposed claim is also your own invention, not mine.

I know next to nothing about explosives but do know that a lot of money is spent on finding better and better ways to blow things up. It is, therefore, not inconceivable that the Towers were blown up without us knowing how exactly it was done. What is the point of asking "truthers" to calculate necessary quantities of explosives without being able to know what kind of explosive might, hypothetically, have been available to the unknown perpetrators? We live in very dangerous times of global energy depletion and the fuel-poor US is using all means necessary to secure future fuel for its indespensable war machinery.


Well documented, ignored warnings and obstructed pre-911 al Qaeda investigations already prove US government complicity. The CD debate is a red herring. Perhaps the Towers were just badly built on the cheap or badly designed as would befit such ostentatious icons of capitalism and modernity. Perhaps they were indeed bombed again. Perhaps their extraordinary disintegration was an unexpected a shock to whoever orchestrated the attacks as they were to almost everyone else.

By the way, controlled demolition charges that I have heard did not make loud bangs but sharp cracks that wouldn’t have been heard “miles away”. The Towers made a lot of noise on their way to the ground, as one would expect, however they came down. Witnesses described a roar like thousands of passing express trains.


Note to Toke:

It is still not clear why some firefighters' radios didn't work on 911 so their performance is not necessarily relevant to hypothetical radio-controlled explosives. See:

http://www.firefighterradiofailure.com/index.html


@ funk de fino

Coming soon!

 

[Newtons Bit]

How were these markers, stamped into steel, "burned off"? Even if the fires in the buildings were hot enough to melt steel (which not even NIST hypothesises) it is the structure below the fire zones that would need to be studied to reveal the mechanics of the buildings' "collapse".

What makes you think that these marks were stamped into the steel and not just painted on?

My very limited claim about cross-bracing was correct. I linked to a photograph in which half a dozen braced frames are visible and another in which there also appear to be a couple of diagonal braces. I never claimed anything more than what is visible in these photos.

In what degree? Do you seriously think that the core was comprised of braced frames on all floors?

 

[R.Mackey]

My comment referred to the explosive, mushrooming appearance of the Towers' demise. I am not a military expert. I do not know what can turn carpets and furniture into microscopic dust or what process corroded steel at high temperatures. Nor do you. The physical evidence that could prove what happened to the Towers has been destroyed. Everything, therefore, is conjecture; somewhat pointless, eternal conjecture.

And there is the core mistake made by the entire Truth Movement.

Yes, we do know these things, and none of the features you describe above are in any way unexpected. Tens of thousands of pages have been written in explanation. Your ignorance does not apply to us.

 

[rwguinn]

And there is the core mistake made by the entire Truth Movement.

Yes, we do know these things, and none of the features you describe above are in any way unexpected. Tens of thousands of pages have been written in explanation. Your ignorance does not apply to us.

The world in a paragraph
Nominated!

 

[Norseman]

Perhaps their extraordinary disintegration was an unexpected a shock to whoever orchestrated the attacks as they were to almost everyone else.

Maybe not a shock, more like a pleasant surprise to Osama bin Laden:

According to a translated transcript issued by the Pentagon, bin Laden says the attacks on the World Trade Center did more damage than expected. "...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower," he says, according to the transcript. "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."

Source:Pentagon Releases Bin Laden Videotape - U.S. Officials say Tape Links Him to Sept. 11 Attacks