WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[tsig]

?? The spring just acts as a damper and its damping force F increases with elastic compression. This damping force is evidently transmitted to the top part that decelarates assuming that the lower spring damping force F will not destroy the upper part in the process. The spring is not deflected - just compressed in this thought example.
I suggest of course that the upper part is the first to be destroyed by the damping force at initiation as it is not very strong and damaged by fire.
But in my example the damping force is just friction between damaged parts.

Strangely neither NIST nor Bazant considers damping or friction to occur after initiation.

When the top part is arrested you need a big crane to lift it back in original position 3.7 m higher up. For that you need 40 kgs of diesel oil. All explained in my articles.

Do buildings float?

 

[tsig]

Please show where I have said "it looked like a CD". I have never said it, as far as I remember.

My problem is in not understanding how gravity simultaneously pulverized material by crushing it between floors and then ejected this material in one action.

Many people who will never be considered for the Stundies have commented on the unusually comprehensive pulverization of the buildings non-metallic contents and components.

GregoryUrich, above, states that "70-80% (estimate agreed on by Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti at STJ911 forum) of the debris ended up in the footprint."

Blanchard claims, citing photographic and video evidence, that 90% (if my memory serves me correctly) of the debris fell outside the buildings' footprints.

Arguments claiming the the CD hypothesis is supported by the fact that the buildings fell into the Towers' footprints are debunked by pointing out that most of it fell outside their footprints.

There are huge contradictions in the "collapse caused the pulverization" theory. Did the mass of the building fall inside or outside the buildings footprints? I don't see a consensus amongst the "experts".

Those who cover these gaping holes in their arguments by demanding evidence of CD are just putting up smokescreens to distract attention from their own weak theories!

So you are denying it looked like a CD?

 

[JihadJane]

@GlennB

You quoted me:

I requested "some pre-911 articles describing how collapsing high rise buildings routinely transform their contents into mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust". I accept that my "microscopic" characterisation was wrong but that isn't relevant to my request for articles describing how collapsing buildings routinely pulverize their contents.

You responded:

Then you're back in your "comfort zone", requesting evidence and comparables where none can possibly exist in order to bolster your delusional state.
No building of even remotely comparable size has ever collapsed from the top down in the manner of WTC1 + 2. Even major CDs have the contents stripped out prior to demolition.

There is something strangely fragmented about the threads on this forum. Perhaps it because of the pagination and the fact that the quote button eradicates the previously quoted extracts that the new highlighted quotes are responding to. This makes keeping track of past comments and accurate back-referencing awkward.

It was R.Mackey who originally claimed that the behaviour of the collapsing buildings was entirely expected. I asked him to back up his statement which he/she did, sort of!

You quoted me:

The Lioy et al. paper isn't such an article though you do seem to represent it as such. It is an artcle about the dust but not about how it was created.

You responded:

No it isn't. It's an article about some of the dust. Specifically lightweight, drifting dust sampled from under cover (significant fact) and at a distance (significant fact) from GZ. It was sampled in this way quite deliberately and is not at all representative of the general state of the non-metallic debris at GZ.

I know. It was R.Mackey who presented it as an explanation of the formation of WTC dust in general.

As far as I remember these dust samples were taken from under-cover locations because other dust had been rained on during the week before the samples were gathered, not for any other reason. Perhaps you know of other reasons, though.

I'm also interested to know more about how you arrived at your "delusional state" diagnosis. I've got to go now so you can take your time!

Also, do you or anyone else know of analyses of the pulverized material in the debris piles at GZ?

 

[JihadJane]

So you are denying it looked like a CD?

I see you are ignoring my request to you: "Please show where I have said 'it looked like a CD'", you hypocrite, but I'm in a generous mood so will answer the words you have mischievously put into my mouth.

It doesn't look like any traditional controlled demolition that I have seen in the flesh or on film. That why I never describe the Towers' destruction as a controlled demolition. It looks to me like the building that is being systematically blown to bits, three floors at a time. Perhaps that's what collapsing buildings look like but, as GlennB points out above, we have nothing similar to compare it to, either way.

With the physical evidence gone we can busy ourselves with our respective fantasies for ever. We can even computerize them. On a related topic, do you know how the old Russian economy was destroyed?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

With the physical evidence gone we can busy ourselves with our respective fantasies for ever. We can even computerize them. On a related topic, do you know how the old Russian economy was destroyed?

NIST details their examination of the World Trade Center structural members in NCSTAR 1-3C. Perhaps it would benefit your curiosity to read through it if you have not already done so. They provide analysis of perimeter columns that were directly impacted by the planes and examine the sheer failures in both column and connection accordingly. They also analyzed failure modes for columns above and below the impact zones. Most observed failures were in fact connection failures that resulted from shear forces exceeding the capacity of the connections to withstand them.

You can locate the relevant FAQ right here if you wish to have a look

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm not suggesting that you were trying to mislead me but you do misrepresent the contents of the paper. I do not speculate on possible reasons for this, though your loose understanding of the word "explanation" is, once again, highlighted.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I neither misled you nor misrepresented the contents of the paper. Again, you simply don't understand it.

The article ( Lioy et al.) does not give an explanation of the dust contents, as you claim, but a description (This "explanation" word seems a bit sticky for you! See my post #983, page 25). The paper does not investigate or explain the process which formed the dust though mentions, in passing "the previously unseen degree of pulverization of the building materials." It simply accepts the collapse theories offered by other studies and examines the dust for its possible health ramifications.

Yes, it does. It defines the different classes of dust found, and identifies their origin in the structure prior to collapse.

Regarding the "process," that process is called "gravity." If you demand a reference for that, perhaps you should seek Newton's Principia, or else review the Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening paper, which treats crushing during collapse through energetics.

It takes no great leap of logic to understand that collapsing buildings crush some of their materials, and regarding the "previously unseen nature of pulverization," the WTC Towers by virtue of their height alone had more potential energy per kilogram than any structure collapse in history. Very simple stuff.

It doesn’t define the average particle size or the proportion of dust that derives from concrete and does not address the possibility of explosive residues. It is questionable how representative the small number of samples are, anyway, due to their locations which bias the samples towards lightweight contents.

Yes, it does define the portion of dust that derives through concrete, and it contains no explosive residue, a result that is itself significant. Regarding the "lightweight bias," you are again speaking from ignorance. The particle size is such that all dust is in the Stokes flow regime, and its specific gravity is irrelevant. This is part of the experimental design. You cannot attempt to throw out this data with such a stupid excuse -- this is a typical denialist tactic.

I requested "some pre-911 articles describing how collapsing high rise buildings routinely transform their contents into mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust". I accept that my "microscopic" characterisation was wrong but that isn't relevant to my request for articles describing how collapsing buildings routinely pulverize their contents. The Lioy et al. paper isn't such an article though you do seem to represent it as such. It is an artcle about the dust but not about how it was created.

As I stated, your original question was wrong -- the high-rise did not transform all of its contents into "mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust." Only a portion was so transformed, a portion that is biased towards certain materials. That is what the Lioy paper proves. You totally missed the point.

Regarding the fraction that was so transformed, again, the process is gravity and impact. The Lioy paper proves that there's nothing unusual about the dust so created. Had some other factor been at play, like bombs, exotic incendiaries, Godzilla, whatever, the dust populations would have been different, because in that case the phenomenology of dust creation would have been different as well -- explosives would preferentially create dust in rigid materials or even structure, by virtue of their placement and effect; exotic incendiaries would preferentially fracture water-bearing materials like concrete and probably contribute to the plume themselves. Since neither of these things is found, this proves that dust is due to crushing alone, and that observation is consistent with the "official story."

 

[roundhead]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I neither misled you nor misrepresented the contents of the paper. Again, you simply don't understand it.



Yes, it does. It defines the different classes of dust found, and identifies their origin in the structure prior to collapse.

Regarding the "process," that process is called "gravity." If you demand a reference for that, perhaps you should seek Newton's Principia, or else review the Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening paper, which treats crushing during collapse through energetics.

It takes no great leap of logic to understand that collapsing buildings crush some of their materials, and regarding the "previously unseen nature of pulverization," the WTC Towers by virtue of their height alone had more potential energy per kilogram than any structure collapse in history. Very simple stuff.



Yes, it does define the portion of dust that derives through concrete, and it contains no explosive residue, a result that is itself significant. Regarding the "lightweight bias," you are again speaking from ignorance. The particle size is such that all dust is in the Stokes flow regime, and its specific gravity is irrelevant. This is part of the experimental design. You cannot attempt to throw out this data with such a stupid excuse -- this is a typical denialist tactic.



As I stated, your original question was wrong -- the high-rise did not transform all of its contents into "mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust." Only a portion was so transformed, a portion that is biased towards certain materials. That is what the Lioy paper proves. You totally missed the point.

Regarding the fraction that was so transformed, again, the process is gravity and impact. The Lioy paper proves that there's nothing unusual about the dust so created. Had some other factor been at play, like bombs, exotic incendiaries, Godzilla, whatever, the dust populations would have been different, because in that case the phenomenology of dust creation would have been different as well -- explosives would preferentially create dust in rigid materials or even structure, by virtue of their placement and effect; exotic incendiaries would preferentially fracture water-bearing materials like concrete and probably contribute to the plume themselves. Since neither of these things is found, this proves that dust is due to crushing alone, and that observation is consistent with the "official story."

Mackey, your statement is in fact deceptive, and not forthcoming.


"Since neither of these things is found"

Even little kids know that one must in fact look under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning to find the presents.

Nist has made it a habit of not looking for anything under the tree , and in fact removed the tree altogether.

Almost as if they were already aware of what was there, without looking.

 

[GlennB]

As far as I remember these dust samples were taken from under-cover locations because other dust had been rained on during the week before the samples were gathered, not for any other reason. Perhaps you know of other reasons, though.

Yes I do. But only because I've read the report with a reasonable degree of care and attention.
I suggest you do the same.

 

[e^n]

Mackey, your statement is in fact deceptive, and not forthcoming.

"Since neither of these things is found"

Even little kids know that one must in fact look under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning to find the presents.

Nist has made it a habit of not looking for anything under the tree , and in fact removed the tree altogether.

Almost as if they were already aware of what was there, without looking.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the acronym NIST anywhere in R Mackey's post, perhaps you could point it out to me.

 

[roundhead]

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the acronym NIST anywhere in R Mackey's post, perhaps you could point it out to me.

"Official story"= NIST report

 

[johnny karate]

Nist has made it a habit of not looking for anything under the tree , and in fact removed the tree altogether.

Almost as if they were already aware of what was there, without looking.

roundhead, do you think NIST behaved in this manner because they are cowards the way you think the FDNY are cowards, or do you think NIST was in on it from the beginning?

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, your statement is in fact deceptive, and not forthcoming.


"Since neither of these things is found"

Even little kids know that one must in fact look under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning to find the presents.

Nist has made it a habit of not looking for anything under the tree , and in fact removed the tree altogether.

Almost as if they were already aware of what was there, without looking.

Total idiocy.

Dr. Lioy and his team were looking specifically for a characterization of the dust. They gathered their own evidence sufficient to do so.

NIST did not "remove" anything, and this study was conducted before the NCSTA was even approved.

If you are incapable of following a discussion, stay out of it entirely, and under no circumstances are you in any position to call anyone else a liar.

 

[e^n]

"Official story"= NIST report

Then your post makes absolutely no sense. How can an "official story" fail to look for things?

 

[tsig]

I see you are ignoring my request to you: "Please show where I have said 'it looked like a CD'", you hypocrite, but I'm in a generous mood so will answer the words you have mischievously put into my mouth.

It doesn't look like any traditional controlled demolition that I have seen in the flesh or on film. That why I never describe the Towers' destruction as a controlled demolition. It looks to me like the building that is being systematically blown to bits, three floors at a time. Perhaps that's what collapsing buildings look like but, as GlennB points out above, we have nothing similar to compare it to, either way.

With the physical evidence gone we can busy ourselves with our respective fantasies for ever. We can even computerize them. On a related topic, do you know how the old Russian economy was destroyed?

So you have never seen a building that collapsed due to structural damage but you know it wouldn't look like TC1&2. Where did you acquire this knowledge that can't be known?

The evidence is not gone just denied.

 

[tsig]

Mackey, your statement is in fact deceptive, and not forthcoming.


"Since neither of these things is found"

Even little kids know that one must in fact look under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning to find the presents.

Nist has made it a habit of not looking for anything under the tree , and in fact removed the tree altogether.

Almost as if they were already aware of what was there, without looking.

So NIST was in on it? How about all the others on site?

Most outgrow a belief in Santa.

 

[pomeroo]

The feeling's mutual!

Yes, your ignorance is truly spectacular. Many people ask this question of rabid ideologues who are inconvenienced by it without ever getting a coherent answer. I don't anticipate a better result, but I enjoy making such types squirm:

Some of us have noticed that oil prices are pretty high, a result of the explosive expansion of the economies of China and India. The U.S. certainly isn't "stealing" any oil in Iraq or anywhere else. Your "resource-hungry empire" fantasy looks very, very stupid. Are we going to start stealing oil anytime soon?

 

[PhantomWolf]

"Official story"= NIST report

That's interesting, eariler TanaBear was claiming that the Bazant paper was the official Story. Perhaps you CTs should get togther and descide exactly which of the many papers and reports on 9/11 should be the "offical story" cause as far as I understand it, none of them are, they all just add to the overall picture.

 

[JihadJane]

So you have never seen a building that collapsed due to structural damage but you know it wouldn't look like TC1&2. Where did you acquire this knowledge that can't be known?

The evidence is not gone just denied.

Please show where I have said "it looked like a CD".

 

[GlennB]

Please show where I have said "it looked like a CD".

It looks to me like the building that is being systematically blown to bits, three floors at a time.

But, of course, perhaps you're playing with words in that, technically, "a CD" is not quite the same as "being systematically blown to bits"

 

[roundhead]

Then your post makes absolutely no sense. How can an "official story" fail to look for things?

This has to be the funniest post i have ever read in my life.


That last sentence is a classic. It must be that to slurp on Jref, you have to be 8 years old or younger.


Seriously, how can an official story fail to look for things?


Your ignorance seemingly has no bounds