WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[e^n]

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

Yeah sorry, but I have posted in many communities where people will attempt to ridicule their opponent. It has no bearing here, nobody is going to care what you think

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

This is technically breaking the rules, but I'm not going to report you because it's so pathetic that I want it to remain here as an example.

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

Let me remind you of the claim you made. R Mackey referred to a paper where they investigated dust concentration and contents. You claimed NIST didn't look for what they would have needed to to find evidence of CD. The paper however is nothign to do with NIST, so you refined NIST to equal "Official Story". Unfortunately a story cannot look for anything, a story is a narrative, a series of claims. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, and R Mackey has already explained why they did look for what you complained about.

Your ignorance seemingly has no bounds

I have yet to see you provide a single unique claim. You have directly lied, misquoted, taken out of context and plagiarised. You my friend, have not got a clue about the levels of debate expected here. Perhaps you could start telling us the towers fell at freefall speed.

 

[GregoryUrich]

?? 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.

This might be a language issue. Deflection = compression = 0.8m at the elastic limit. You still haven't answered the question.

 

[GregoryUrich]

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!

Read Greg Jenkins paper at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Blanchard's paper has no support for his statement. Therefore I trust Jenkins.

 

[Heiwa]

This might be a language issue. Deflection = compression = 0.8m at the elastic limit. You still haven't answered the question.

Haven't I? So provide your answer.

 

[pomeroo]

Haven't I? So provide your answer.

Your belief that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom part does not destroy the whole structure is an amazingly absurd error. When will you acknoweldge that you are completely wrong?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Haven't I? So provide your answer.

I think it would be more beneficial if you calculate it yourself. Most highschool students can do this. Some hints: F = ma. d = v(i) + 0,5 at^2. If you know the required acceleration (deceleration) you can calculate the force.

 

[beachnut]

Your belief that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom part does not destroy the whole structure is an amazingly absurd error. When will you acknoweldge that you are completely wrong?

With 9/11 truth members deficient in knowledge on 9/11, or nuts enough to sign petitions based on lies, and smug truthers making claims of "ample evidence". It is refreshing to read pure crazy ideas from a dyed in the wool CTer who can't do physics, and has failed analogies (as you posted). Don't forget the kids jumping on the bed; I have no idea what that was about.

 

[Heiwa]

I think it would be more beneficial if you calculate it yourself. Most highschool students can do this. Some hints: F = ma. d = v(i) + 0,5 at^2. If you know the required acceleration (deceleration) you can calculate the force.

So a solid mass m drops distance h 3.7 m due to gravity g and hits a spring that compresses another d = 3.7 m (and then decompresses). What is the force F required for this and the energy E involved? Using the basic physics formulas previously quoted by me you should know that F = 2E/d.
As E happens to be (h+0.5d)mg and h = d, you find that F = 3mg in this imaginary case.
No need to calculate velocities and decelerations - just keep an eye on the energies involved and their origins, displacements, etc. because energy E is just force F times displacement.
What can we learn from this? Well, e.g. if something drops on a spring, the spring compresses and when the energy applied is absorbed by the spring (and force F is acting on the one end of the spring - and a force -F has developed at the other end at max compression d) the spring decompresses and pushes the solid mass m back up d and almost h (because some energy is lost as heat/internal friction in the spring). It's a bounce! The mass applied will fly up again due to a new force - the decompression force!
It is exactly like a child jumping in a bed as described in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm that nobody has managed to debunk.
But you cannot really apply this basic physical phenomenon to WTC1 as mass m is not solid. Long before F is developed in the spring, a smaller force is applied on mass m that would be crunched into small pieces. That means that after contact the action after collapse initiation would soon be arrested.

Anybody believing (like NIST, Sunder, Bazant, Greening, Seffen etc.) that the WTC1 upper block is solid and impacting something springy is just a fool with no childhood and has never jumped in a bed.

In the solid NWO state jumping in beds is a security risk and anybody doing it is a potential terrorist.

 

[Heiwa]

Don't forget the kids jumping on the bed; I have no idea what that was about.

It seems most liers have short memory. See previous message.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It is exactly like a child jumping in a bed as described in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm that nobody has managed to debunk.
But you cannot really apply this basic physical phenomenon to WTC1 as mass m is not solid. Long before F is developed in the spring, a smaller force is applied on mass m that would be crunched into small pieces. That means that after contact the action after collapse initiation would soon be arrested.

Holy.... did you just compare the collapse initiation of the towers to a child jumping on a bed!? Maybe I should jump on my bed from the roof on my house and see if the bed that I've slept on for the last 4 years can support my dynamic weight! Nevertheless, beds, ships, and buildings are totally different things... my main point in this response follows below...

Anybody believing (like NIST, Sunder, Bazant, Greening, Seffen etc.) that the WTC1 upper block is solid and impacting something springy is just a fool with no childhood and has never jumped in a bed.

I suggest you stick to your engineering profession in ship design. I'll assume you're reasonably competent in that area (and hope you actually are), however evaluation the structural performance of buildings is certainly not your strong suit as is apparent by your thinking that the columns would flawlessly slice through floor slabs unaffected like a knife through butter.

In the solid NWO state jumping in beds is a security risk and anybody doing it is a potential terrorist.

Well in that case you'll be paying for my replacement bed when I jump on it from my roof and fall right through the matress and framing

 

[GregoryUrich]

So a solid mass m drops distance h 3.7 m due to gravity g and hits a spring that compresses another d = 3.7 m (and then decompresses). What is the force F required for this and the energy E involved? Using the basic physics formulas previously quoted by me you should know that F = 2E/d.
As E happens to be (h+0.5d)mg and h = d, you find that F = 3mg in this imaginary case.
No need to calculate velocities and decelerations - just keep an eye on the energies involved and their origins, displacements, etc. because energy E is just force F times displacement.
What can we learn from this? Well, e.g. if something drops on a spring, the spring compresses and when the energy applied is absorbed by the spring (and force F is acting on the one end of the spring - and a force -F has developed at the other end at max compression d) the spring decompresses and pushes the solid mass m back up d and almost h (because some energy is lost as heat/internal friction in the spring). It's a bounce! The mass applied will fly up again due to a new force - the decompression force!
It is exactly like a child jumping in a bed as described in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm that nobody has managed to debunk.
But you cannot really apply this basic physical phenomenon to WTC1 as mass m is not solid. Long before F is developed in the spring, a smaller force is applied on mass m that would be crunched into small pieces. That means that after contact the action after collapse initiation would soon be arrested.

Anybody believing (like NIST, Sunder, Bazant, Greening, Seffen etc.) that the WTC1 upper block is solid and impacting something springy is just a fool with no childhood and has never jumped in a bed.

In the solid NWO state jumping in beds is a security risk and anybody doing it is a potential terrorist.

I think the energy should be (h+d)mg which gives us F = 4mg.

Regardless, now we are getting somewhere. What happens when d = 0.8m (which is roughly the actual elastic limit of the bottom part of WTC1)?

We get E = (3.7 + 0.8)mg; F = 2 x 4.5mg/0.8; F = 11.25mg.

Do you see the problem with this result? There is no possible way that the lower spring can provide this force. The safety factor would need to be 11.25 for the lower part to be able to survive.

ETA: Why would the upper part be more likely to break than the lower part? All impact damage and fire weakening was primarily below floor 98. I think the lower part has two advantages which may compensate somewhat. First, it is more difficult to dissociate the floor downward (joist seats) rather than upward (bolts only) as in the top part. Nonetheless both floors probably are dissociated from the structure immediately upon impact leaving the columns unshored. Second the columns are slightly stronger (10% if I remember correctly). Being that the impact and heat damage was probably close the 20%, I think the lower part would fail first.

 

[tsig]

It seems most liers have short memory. See previous message.

I agree and you've used that spring analogy before.

Do buildings float?.

 

[DC]

Do buildings float?.

some do

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://www.journalofcommerce.com/images/archivesid/24970/300.jpg[/qimg]

some do

They are not floating. See the piers at the rear and front?

 

[Heiwa]

I think the energy should be (h+d)mg which gives us F = 4mg.

Regardless, now we are getting somewhere. What happens when d = 0.8m (which is roughly the actual elastic limit of the bottom part of WTC1)?

We get E = (3.7 + 0.8)mg; F = 2 x 4.5mg/0.8; F = 11.25mg.

Do you see the problem with this result? There is no possible way that the lower spring can provide this force. The safety factor would need to be 11.25 for the lower part to be able to survive.

ETA: Why would the upper part be more likely to break than the lower part? All impact damage and fire weakening was primarily below floor 98. I think the lower part has two advantages which may compensate somewhat. First, it is more difficult to dissociate the floor downward (joist seats) rather than upward (bolts only) as in the top part. Nonetheless both floors probably are dissociated from the structure immediately upon impact leaving the columns unshored. Second the columns are slightly stronger (10% if I remember correctly). Being that the impact and heat damage was probably close the 20%, I think the lower part would fail first.

F = 11.25mg is correct when compression is 0.8 m in our imaginary example and evidently the upper block cannot apply that force to the lower structure without breaking itself before = there is no impact possible = that assumption to the contrary by NIST and Bazant is wrong and the total strain energy of the structure is of no importance!

You (and NIST, Bazant & Co) should ask what forces applied to the upper block would destroy it, when there is no impact.

As described in my articles it is the forces (loads/energy) transmitted via the intact parts of the columns (primary structure) of both upper block and lower structure to the secondary structure of the top and bottom structures (floors) that are important. These forces destroy only the floors and after a while you would expect further destruction to be arrested by friction between these locally failed parts (the floors).

Similar things happen all the time at collision contacts between two structures and should have happened at WTC1 on 9/11 after initiation. The smaller upper block cannot destroy the bigger lower structure. It is quite basic. The energy released when the upper block displaces down is quite small - apart from no impact, there is no free fall - and would be consumed by local failures and friction. No rubble would have been produced at all.

So these fountains of rubble we see on all videos of WTC1/2 destructions after initiation on 9/11 are clear signs of the smoking gun in action = LCDs at the core at regular floor intervals. Quite a spectacular show ... but the upper block dropping cannot be held responsible for it. The upper block should have stopped up top after initiation.

Try to debunk that conclusion using proper physics and not this NWO physics proposed by NIST and Bazant!

 

[Heiwa]

[qimg]http://www.journalofcommerce.com/images/archivesid/24970/300.jpg[/qimg]

some do

OT but actually all buildings on land float ... on the ground. Without ground and force applied by the ground to keep the building in place, they would sink to the centre of the earth. Luckily the ground is quite solid in most cases to maintain equilibrium but sometimes not, e.g. the Tower of Pisa.

If the ground is very soft, you must make the building basement extra strong and tight so it does not sink! And you must load the building so that it does not heel over due to the soft ground. There are many examples of buildings that have sunk. It takes time of course because FRICTION is high in the ground. Sometimes the FRICTION becames zero (landslides, earthquakes) and the building sails away.

In Holland many houses have watertight cellars so that they float at floodings, etc.

My recommendation is to check the ground (soil) prior construction of a building.

 

[GlennB]

...
The smaller upper block cannot destroy the bigger lower structure. It is quite basic...

This comes as a huge relief to me.

Now I know that if my (large, brick) chimney stack ever collapses and falls onto the house then the "bigger lower structure" (the house) will arrest its fall and we'll all be perfectly safe. Friction will do the trick, it appears.

I might go up there and coat the stack with something really sticky, though. You can't be too careful

 

[Toke]

F = 11.25mg is correct when compression is 0.8 m in our imaginary example and evidently the upper block cannot apply that force to the lower structure without breaking itself before = there is no impact possible = that assumption to the contrary by NIST and Bazant is wrong and the total strain energy of the structure is of no importance!

I get it, any calculation showing buildings breaking are impossible and irrelevant.

I wonder why I wear safety shoes at work, the skin of my feet should be able to stop any impact.

How does this principle apply to electric schock, will my newfound understanding let me touch wires without danger?

 

[tsig]

OT but actually all buildings on land float ... on the ground. Without ground and force applied by the ground to keep the building in place, they would sink to the centre of the earth. Luckily the ground is quite solid in most cases to maintain equilibrium but sometimes not, e.g. the Tower of Pisa.

If the ground is very soft, you must make the building basement extra strong and tight so it does not sink! And you must load the building so that it does not heel over due to the soft ground. There are many examples of buildings that have sunk. It takes time of course because FRICTION is high in the ground. Sometimes the FRICTION becames zero (landslides, earthquakes) and the building sails away.

In Holland many houses have watertight cellars so that they float at floodings, etc.

My recommendation is to check the ground (soil) prior construction of a building.

The mental picture I have is of houses in Holland bobbing about in a flood or the Twin Towers sailing majestically down the river.

Tell me Heiwa do they have to use anchors or are they free to move about the country?

 

[Toke]

Be very careful about sealing your house against a flood.
When the water gets too far up the doors, the weight of the house will rest on the floors not the foundation.
Your floors will crack upwards.
(depending on building style)