WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[pomeroo]

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!

Your "analysis" of what happens when the top third of a building is dropped from a height of two miles onto the bottom part was staggeringly inept and insanely WRONG. When will you acknowledge your egregious error?

 

[pomeroo]

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!

{snip-mindless drivel}

But, but, according to you, nothing can possibly sink: the force pushing up always cancels out the force pushing down--right?

 

[Toke]

Pomeroo, I think I found the teoretical basis for Heiwas assumption.
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/gravity.htm

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, I think I found the teoretical basis for Heiwas assumption.
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/gravity.htm

Hilarious stuff. Sadly, I regularly encounter assertions no less idiotic made by people who aren't kidding. Sigh.

 

[Heiwa]

Pomeroo, I think I found the teoretical basis for Heiwas assumption.
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/gravity.htm

No, that is the NWO/NIST/Bazant theory you are linking to. 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,"

Seasick?

 

[tsig]

No, that is the NWO/NIST/Bazant theory you are linking to. 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,"

Seasick?

So god smacked down downtown NYC. He's better than King Kong.

 

[Heiwa]

Your "analysis" of what happens when the top third of a building is dropped from a height of two miles onto the bottom part was staggeringly inept and insanely WRONG. When will you acknowledge your egregious error?

Your imaginary example of a two miles drop is egregious and you must have misunderstood the matter. Read my articles again with a correct analysis of what should have happened after collapse initiation and try to debunk that. I know it is difficult. Many Americans seem to have lost their critical senses of reality after 9/11.

 

[GregoryUrich]

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!

You are correct, there was no freefall. The upper part accelerated at approximately 0.7g. Then the force required to stop the upper part is still 8.5mg N. Your assertion that there is no impact is however totally unsupported.

You are ignoring the fact that the lower block is incapable of providing a force which will destroy or stop the upper block. How could it? Is the upper part of the lower block stronger than the lower part of the upper block? If so, how much stronger and how do you support this conclusion?

 

[tsig]

Your imaginary example of a two miles drop is egregious and you must have misunderstood the matter. Read my articles again with a correct analysis of what should have happened after collapse initiation and try to debunk that. I know it is difficult. Many Americans seem to have lost their critical senses of reality after 9/11.

Why should I care about your analysis? I can't see why your opinion should bear any weight at all. Your credibility went sailing down the rivers with the floating twin towers.

You said they float.
You said the top should bounce off the bottom.
you said the top would stick into the bottom by friction
you said the top would slide off the bottom

 

[JihadJane]

What happened to the physical evidence?

.... if you wish to have a look

Thanks for link.

To conclusively establish what happened to the Towers would require reconstruction of different areas of interest. The pitifully small amount of steel bequeathed to NIST forced the investigators to rely on simulated reconstructions based on "data" mostly intuited from photographs and videos.

Best guesses, scientifically speaking.

 

[Heiwa]

You are correct, there was no freefall. The upper part accelerated at approximately 0.7g. Then the force required to stop the upper part is still 8.5mg N. Your assertion that there is no impact is however totally unsupported.

You are ignoring the fact that the lower block is incapable of providing a force which will destroy or stop the upper block. How could it? Is the upper part of the lower block stronger than the lower part of the upper block? If so, how much stronger and how do you support this conclusion?

Did the complete upper block accelerate at 0.7g? How could it? Did all supporting columns in the initiation zone fail ... and disappear simultaneously?
Evidently not. No, the failing parts should still be connected to the upper block and the lower structure and requiry energy to be deformed allowing a downward displacement of the upper block.

At this stage after initiation (topic!) most of the energy released is absorbed by the deformations of the columns (not seen on any videos of course).

So when would 'free fall' start?

Anyway, assuming the upper block contacts the lower structure with a total force F, evidently a total reaction force -F is also applied to the upper block.

So the simple question is, will F destroy the lower structure or will -F destroy the upper block?

Actually F consists of many part Fs as there should be plenty of contacts.

So you have to look at every contact point and analyse what happens.

So, REPEAT, at every contact point a part F is transmitted to the lower structure and a part -F to the upper block.

Evidently the weakest part at contact break; when a column contacts a floor, the floor breaks, when a floor contacts a column, the floor breaks, when a column contacts another column head on, nothing breaks, but the columns slip off one another and hit a floor or nothing (air outside the structure). So nothing can really break the columns at first contact or 'impact'. And when a floor impacts a floor nothing happens according NIST (you can stack many floors on top of one another according NIST, disregarding that the columns have already damaged the floors before stacking starts! You cannot stack a floor on a damaged floor.

Evidently the lower structure provides plenty of part forces -F that destroys the upper block.

Only fools suggesting that the upper block is one solid, rigid mass, assume otherwise. They assume it is just one big F that cannot be stopped (by another big -F). But the upper block is mostly air, 95%, furniture, windows and decorations, 2% and floors 2.8% and 0.2% columns. It cannot provide a big F. It is like a big bale of cotton dropping down on the structure below. And the lower structure is also like a big bale of cotton! If they really were bales of cotton the top one would bounce on the lower structure. Now they were not bales of cotton but air + floors + columns actually quite similar.

So many part -Fs produced by the lower structure (the columns) will destroy and stop parts (floors) of the upper block. When the upper block is part destroyed and the partly damaged parts are rubbing against one another FRICTION does the rest = arrest the destruction.

So the answer to your last question is clear. Yes, many parts of the top of lower structure (the columns) are stronger than the biggest part (the bottom floor) of the upper block. How much stronger? Answer - enough to destroy the upper block bottom floor!

Surprise? According Bazant - it is the bottom floor of the upper block that destroys the complete structure below - crush down. And I suggest that floor is the first to be destroyed by the lower structure.

Who is right? Me? But then Bazant must be wrong.

Come on! Debunk me!

 

[Toke]

Come on! Debunk me!

Your teori give the same result for drops of 3,7m and 2 miles.

There debunked, Happy?

 

[JihadJane]

Very simple stuff

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."

In one side of my mouth and out the other. I have never accused you of misleading me. Perhaps you have a conscience after all .

911 has allowed scientist-activists to abandon principles of uncertainty for 100% conviction that they are right, despite offering only hypotheses and untested theories as "proof" of their rectitude. Investigations now work backwards towards their single, foregone conclusions, using malleable virtual reality to get them there.

In this post, above, we are asked, accompanied our patronising host, a silly propagandistic Godzilla and some (nudge, nudge, wink wink ) "typical 911 denialists" (geddit?), to believe that three dust samples are enough to prove that nothing about the Towers' behaviour was in any way unexpected.

It is interesting that Lioy himself misinterpreted his own data to make reassuring noises about what would, instead, become a massive public health disaster.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To conclusively establish what happened to the Towers would require reconstruction of different areas of interest. The pitifully small amount of steel bequeathed to NIST forced the investigators to rely on simulated reconstructions based on "data" mostly intuited from photographs and videos.

Absolute certainty of the detailed collapse mechanism would require all that, true, but it's a non sequitur to claim that as a result we are completely ignorant of how the towers collapsed. Certain collapse initiation mechanisms can be ruled out quite trivially; these include explosives, nuclear devices and energy beams from space. Others rely on postulates that have never been verified in practice, in particular thermite. The NIST mechanisms for collapse have the advantage that they are based on the application of known physical laws to the known structure of the buildings and that they agree with all the observed features of the buildings' behaviour up to the point of collapse initiation and beyond. To put it differently, maybe they are a best guess, but they're a good best guess, and as such they're far superior to any of the truth movement's guesses.

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

Under-cover agents

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.

I have but still can't find any other reason than the weather.

R.Mackey has authoritatively assured us, anyway, that talking about a "lightweight bias" is a certain sign of ignorance and typical denialism, probably of several unpleasant varieties. Giant lizards may also be lurking.

Acceptalists aren't supposed to have such thoughts.

 

[beachnut]

[/color]



I have but still can't find any other reason than the weather.

R.Mackey has authoritatively assured us, anyway, that talking about a "lightweight bias" is a certain sign of ignorance and typical denialism, probably of several unpleasant varieties. Giant lizards may also be lurking.

Acceptalists aren't supposed to have such thoughts.

Are you wanting your post to prove you are not an engineer? Are you a 9/11 truth expert, with the same amount of evidence to support your failed ideas as the entire truth movement; 0?

What did happen after collapse initiation is the topic, what in the world is the topic you think you are posting to?

You politically charge fantasy rant is not even interesting. Do you need help?

What are your ideas on the topic; the thread topic?

The US consumes a quarter of the world's oil production.

Oil prices are high because producton has lost its elasticity.

"Steal" is your word, not mine. Anglo/US imperial interests seek to control the countries that own the oil so that they can then steal the profits. It used to be called Colonialism. Now it's called "Spreading Democracy", a kind of military missionary position.

Did oil lubricate the Towers' "progressive collapse"?

I see, oil has something to do with 9/11! Oh noes, it fueled the terrorist jets! Wowzer.

Democracy? Oh, yes, it is just for the Colonies, no Democracy for you! Was Democracy the collapse mechanism after initiation, is that your big smoking fantasy?

Are you sure this is on topic?

Jane!
The Topic! Albeit from a no evidence, fact-less, truther.

... Since the people here at JREF believe in consensus science as opposed to the experimental method, maybe now they can come to a consensus regarding what happened to the towers after collapse initiation. So offer your best explanation for what happened after collapse initiation?

Jane's answer -

Oil prices are high because producton has lost its elasticity.

Yes Jane sometimes elasticity is an engineering term, producton, is just a ton of produc; the real answer to Tanabear classic truther question is....

It Fell!

 

[JihadJane]

Read Greg Jenkins paper at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Blanchard's paper has no support for his statement [90% of debris landed outside Towers' footprints]. Therefore I trust Jenkins.

Blanchard supports his statement with photographic and video evidence, just like NIST.

Earlier, on this thread, I was berated for not believing that every piece of steel was forenscially examined and catalogued. Now I am urged to believe that there isn't even a consensus on where the debris landed. Doesn't seem very forensic to me.

 

[tsig]

Blanchard supports his statement with photographic and video evidence, just like NIST.

Earlier, on this thread, I was berated for not believing that every piece of steel was forenscially examined and catalogued. Now I am urged to believe that there isn't even a consensus on where the debris landed. Doesn't seem very forensic to me.

The consensus is it hit the ground right where gravity put it. If you don't think it was gravity fine but gravity always wins.

 

[JihadJane]

Was Democracy the collapse mechanism after initiation ...?

Are you wanting your post to prove you are not an engineer? Are you a 9/11 truth expert, with the same amount of evidence to support your failed ideas as the entire truth movement; 0?

What did happen after collapse initiation is the topic, what in the world is the topic you think you are posting to?

I was responding to an acceptalist poster who asked for possible motives for performing a controlled demolition. My highly condensed list mentioned Peak Oil and resource-hungry empires. This pushed Pomeroo's buttons. I responded to Pomeroo. It was all about collapse initiation.

911 was political whichever way you look at it.

You politically charge fantasy rant is not even interesting. Do you need help?

See above.

What are your ideas on the topic; the thread topic?

See above, in thread.

I see, oil has something to do with 9/11! Oh noes, it fueled the terrorist jets! Wowzer.

Oil politics?

Democracy? Oh, yes, it is just for the Colonies, no Democracy for you! Was Democracy the collapse mechanism after initiation, is that your big smoking fantasy?

Are you sure this is on topic?

I lost your Democracy plot a bit here. See above.

 

[halfempty]

You're still not on topic, JihadJane. This thread is about what caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and any evidence 9/11 "Truthers" have for CD. Your hypothesis about the reasons why the U.S. government would want to bring them down has nothing to do with this topic and is -not to mention- hilarious. I wrote this on a thread the other day but like the U.S. people demand a really good reason to invade any country. What was the "Pearl Harbor-like" event that drove us into Iraq in 1991? Oh right. It's not like the American people got any more vigilant or smarter in the ten years in between, so the U.S. government didn't need to bother with any of this. I could go on and on but then I wouldn't be on topic.

So, in sum, if you'll present us with some empirical evidence of a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on September 11th, that would be swell. Any little piece will do.