What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

[Heiwa]

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

I have read subject article by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB below) in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008), with great interest and would like to make the following observations:
There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.
BLGB suggests that upper part C drops on the lower structure of WTC1 – part A – that collapses. During collapse a layer of debris is formed – part B. What happens using the BLGB model is easily calculated by simple calculations.

1. Weight and Density of part C

Near the top, the specific mass (of WTC1) (mass per unit height) μ = 1 020 000 kg/m or 1 020 ton/m according BLGB. With a storey height 3.6 m, the weight of a storey is 3 672 ton. Assuming the upper part C is 53 m high (14.7 storeys), total weight of part C above the initiation zone for collapse is 54 060 tons. Part C is supposed to drop down and cause collapse of part A. Part A is quite similar structural wise to part C.

Using a floor area of 4 000 m² the volume of part C is 212 000 m3, thus the uniform (which it is not) density of the upper part C is 0.255 ton/m3 or 255 kg/m3 according BLGB. It is not very much! Reason is that there is plenty of air inside a storey structure.


2. Density of Rubble – part B

The known typical (sic) density (sic) of rubble, μc = 4 100 000 kg/m or 4 100 ton/m according BLGB. The density of this rubble is then exactly 1 025 kg/m3 (as the floor area is 4 000 m²), which is the density of salt water (that ships float in).

Thus, when one typical storey of WTC1 is homogeneously crushed according BLGB, it becomes 0.896 m high. As it was originally 3.6 m high it has been compressed 75.1%


3. Initiation of Collapse – the first Crush – Formation of Part B

Thus at initiation – part C – 54 060 tons (actually the lowest floor of part C) – crushes the uppermost storey of part A, the lower structure of WTC1 and compresses it into a 0.896 m thick layer of debris/rubble that becomes part B. Air/smoke is ejected sideways.
This layer, part B, is resting on what’s left of part A or actually the top floor of what remains of part A. This compression takes place at increasing velocity. Only air is ejected sideways out. The weight of the rubble - 3670 tons - is uniformly distributed on the floor below - 918 kg/m² - and the floor should be able to carry that weight according NIST FAQ.
What about the part C and its 54 060 tons? Is it acting on the debris layer part B? Not really - part C is intact and only its bottom floor is in contact with part B. The columns of part C are now not in contact with the columns of part A below due to this layer of debris, but let's assume that part C columns crushes the columns below as suggested by BLGB, so that destruction can continue!

The roof line has then dropped 2.704 m!


4. The second Crush – Part B doubles in Thickness

Then the part C + part B (the layer of debris) crushes the second uppermost floor of part A and compresses it into another 0.896 m thick layer of debris that is added to part B. Part B is thus 1.792 m high or thick after two floors of part A have been crushed. The part C columns now crush the columns of part A again (how?) so that the destruction can continue.

The roof line has then dropped 5.408 m! The velocity is increasing. More air/smoke is ejected sideways but only from the storey being crushed.

And so on!

5. The Displacement of the Roof Line of Part C during Destruction

According to paper The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis by Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January, 2009 (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf ) and careful observations there we now know that the roof line of part C dropped (displaced downwards) 35 m in 3.17 seconds at increasing velocity. This drop is also verified by BLGB.

Every time a storey is crushed, part C drops 2.704 m and an 0.896 m layer of debris is formed according BLGB, and the part C columns also destroy the columns below - how is not clear as there is a thick layer of rubble – part B in between!

Thus, when the roof line has dropped 35 m, 12.94 storeys, total height 46.6 m (!) of part A have been crushed and have been replaced by an 11.56 m thick layer of debris – part B. 46.6 m of columns of part A have been crushed at perimeter and core, the latter being mixed in the debris. I assume the wall columns are dropping down to ground outside the building.

MacQueen/Szamboti believe that only 9 (or 9.72) storeys have been crushed after 3.17 seconds, but according BLGB it should be 12.94 storeys! MacQueen/Szamboti forget that there should be an 11.56 m thick layer of debris below the upper part C, when its roof line has dropped 35 m!

6. Verification of Parts A and B using Video Recordings of the Destruction

Regardless – does anybody see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris – part B – on any video of WTC1 destruction after a 35 m drop of the upper part of WTC1, part C according BLGB? Or that 46.6 m of wall columns have disappeared?

And does anybody believe that an upper part C with density 255 kg/m3 can produce an 11.56 m thick layer of debris in 3.17 seconds? Only BLGB suggests so, but there is no evidence for it.

This layer of debris should then be moving at a velocity of >20 m/s. Only air/smoke should be ejected from the next storey below being crushed, where more debris is formed.


7. Situation when Part C Roof Line has dropped 100 and 200 m

Now – when part C has dropped 100 m and 37 storeys have been crushed, the layer of debris – part B – should be 33 m thick on top of which a 53 m high part C should be visible (forgetting the mast). 133 m of walls should be missing! You do not need differential equations to calculate this. Simple math suffices!

An when part C has dropped 200 m and 74 storeys of WTC1 have been crushed, the layer of debris should be an impressive 66 m thick with part C still riding on top of it.

Imagine a layer of debris - density 1.025 ton/m3 - 66 m high. Over 4 000 m² floor area it is almost a big cube of 264 000 tons of rubble!! On top of which part C - 54 060 tons float. Part C is 53 m high! Add the rubble - part B - and we have a moving mass that is 119 m high when the part C roof line has dropped 200 meters.

Below this 119 m high pile, a storey of part - floor 37 - is just being crushed. How the columns of part C - 66 m above floor 37 can crush the columns there is not clear. 266 m of walls should also be gone. There are another 36 storeys still to crush! About 133 m of WTC1 remains to be crushed. Can it be seen?

Evidently not.

Conclusion

Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the BLGB model wrong.

 

[dtugg]

Nobody believes a word that you say after your pizza box, matchbox, bathroom scale, sponge, and kids jumping on beds "experiments." You may very well "win" yet another Stundie.

You should either give up, or give your "evidence" to somebody that can do something about it. Have you approached the authorites and media in France or Sweden or wherever the hell you live with your "experiments"? If not, why the hell not? You are apparently sitting on evidence of one of the worst crimes, and biggest stories of all time. If you did, how long did they laugh in your face?

 

[Heiwa]

Nobody believes a word that you say after your pizza box, matchbox, bathroom scale, sponge, and kids jumping on beds "experiments." You may very well "win" yet another Stundie.

You should either give up, or give your "evidence" to somebody that can do something about it. Have you approached the authorites and media in France or Sweden or wherever the hell you live with your "experiments"? If not, why the hell not? You are apparently sitting on evidence of one of the worst crimes, and biggest stories of all time. If you did, how long did they laugh in your face?

Actually the post is a copy of Discussion to Paper sent to Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder, Editor, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, yesterday.

Ross B. Corotis is kindly requested to publish this Discussion to Paper in his Journal of Engineering Mechanics to stimulate the discussion around the findings of Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB) and whether they are really relevant to explain the destruction of WTC1.

Having applied the findings of BLGB to pizza boxes, sponges and kids jumping on mattresses in beds, etc, I have always found that they do not apply to them. I think it is a conspiracy theory: So why should they apply to WTC1? NIST thinks they apply, I do not.

Reason is simply that we do not see on any video what BLGB postulates happen, e.g. that part C - a structure with density 0.18 - like a sponge - initiates a 'collapse' where, after a while, there is a 66 meter thick layer of rubble - density 1.025 - part B, etc, with the sponge - part C - riding on top.

BTW, this sponge - part C - is 53 meters tall! It should have been seen for 13 seconds - the time of the ride down. But it is not there!

And neither is this 66 meters thick layer of rubble - part B! Why?

Because below this part B we should see air ejected from part A - the structure below. I do not see that, either.

Etc, etc. I look forward to a serious discussion about these observations.

 

[dtugg]

It is impossible to have a serious discussion with you because you have no idea what you are talking about.

I would be shocked if you actually got anything published in a professional journal. And thanks for giving me Dr. Corotis's name. I will be sure to let him know about the crap you spew on this forum. It should give him a good laugh.

 

[240-185]

1. Weight and Density of part C

Near the top, the specific mass (of WTC1) (mass per unit height) μ = 1 020 000 kg/m or 1 020 ton/m according BLGB.

"kg/m" is not mass, this is a crappy unit which doesn't exist, so:

With a storey height 3.6 m, the weight of a storey is 3 672 ton.

is wrong.

Assuming the upper part C is 53 m high (14.7 storeys),

You mustn't assume, you must calculate the exact high.

total weight of part C above the initiation zone for collapse is 54 060 tons.

How did you calculate that?

Part C is supposed to drop down and cause collapse of part A. Part A is quite similar structural wise to part C.

How do you define the part A?

Using a floor area of 4 000 m²

Why?

the volume of part C is 212 000 m3

How did you calculate that?

, thus the uniform (which it is not) density of the upper part C is 0.255 ton/m3 or 255 kg/m3 according BLGB. It is not very much!

You don't have any clue of what you are talking about. A 1 m^3 concrete block with such a volumic mass *is* much.

Reason is that there is plenty of air inside a storey structure.

Because WTC 1&2 were *office* buildings, not full blocks on concrete or steel.

The known typical (sic) density (sic) of rubble, μc = 4 100 000 kg/m or 4 100 ton/m according BLGB.

Moving on with your fallacious unit...

The density of this rubble is then exactly 1 025 kg/m3 (as the floor area is 4 000 m²),

No. You deliberately chose an arbitrary area of 4.000 m²

which is the density of salt water (that ships float in).

Ships can float everywhere.

Thus at initiation – part C – 54 060 tons (actually the lowest floor of part C) –

How did you calculate that?

crushes the uppermost storey of part A, the lower structure of WTC1 and compresses it into a 0.896 m thick layer of debris/rubble that becomes part B. Air/smoke is ejected sideways.

Prove it.

The weight of the rubble - 3670 tons -

You still haven't learned the difference between weight and mass.

is uniformly distributed on the floor below - 918 kg/m² -

Prove these.

Is it acting on the debris layer part B? Not really - part C is intact

No.

and only its bottom floor is in contact with part B.

Prove it.

The columns of part C are now not in contact with the columns of part A below due to this layer of debris, but let's assume that part C columns crushes the columns below as suggested by BLGB, so that destruction can continue!

The bolded part shows that you already have your own conclusions so you can distort the facts and your crazed theory can match with your ignorance.

The roof line has then dropped 2.704 m!

How did you calculate that?

Then the part C + part B (the layer of debris) crushes the second uppermost floor of part A and compresses it into another 0.896 m thick layer of debris that is added to part B. Part B is thus 1.792 m high or thick after two floors of part A have been crushed.

How did you calculate that?

The part C columns now crush the columns of part A again (how?) so that the destruction can continue.

Prove it.

The roof line has then dropped 5.408 m! The velocity is increasing. More air/smoke is ejected sideways but only from the storey being crushed.

How did you calculate that?

According to paper The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis by Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January, 2009 (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf )

This is not a reliable source.

and careful observations there we now know that the roof line of part C dropped (displaced downwards) 35 m in 3.17 seconds at increasing velocity. This drop is also verified by BLGB.

How did you calculate that?

Every time a storey is crushed, part C drops 2.704 m and an 0.896 m layer of debris is formed according BLGB

No. You chose arbitrary datas.

, and the part C columns also destroy the columns below - how is not clear as there is a thick layer of rubble – part B in between!

Be clear: is it Part B or A?

Thus, when the roof line has dropped 35 m, 12.94 storeys, total height 46.6 m (!) of part A have been crushed and have been replaced by an 11.56 m thick layer of debris – part B. 46.6 m of columns of part A have been crushed at perimeter and core, the latter being mixed in the debris.

How did you calculate that?

I assume the wall columns are dropping down to ground outside the building.

No, prove it.

MacQueen/Szamboti forget that there should be an 11.56 m thick layer of debris below the upper part C, when its roof line has dropped 35 m!

How did you calculate that? Prove it.

Regardless – does anybody see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris – part B – on any video of WTC1 destruction after a 35 m drop of the upper part of WTC1, part C according BLGB? Or that 46.6 m of wall columns have disappeared?

Prove it.

And does anybody believe that an upper part C with density 255 kg/m3 can produce an 11.56 m thick layer of debris in 3.17 seconds? Only BLGB suggests so, but there is no evidence for it.

Do the calculations.

This layer of debris should then be moving at a velocity of >20 m/s. Only air/smoke should be ejected from the next storey below being crushed, where more debris is formed.

It should, but it didn't.

Now – when part C has dropped 100 m and 37 storeys have been crushed, the layer of debris – part B – should be 33 m thick on top of which a 53 m high part C should be visible (forgetting the mast).

Prove it.

133 m of walls should be missing! You do not need differential equations to calculate this. Simple math suffices!

You don't have any clue of what you are talking about. We are talking about a tower fragilized after a plane impact and massive fires, and you don't know how a building behas when it collapses.

An when part C has dropped 200 m and 74 storeys of WTC1 have been crushed, the layer of debris should be an impressive 66 m thick with part C still riding on top of it.

How did you calculate that? Prove it.

Imagine a layer of debris - density 1.025 ton/m3 - 66 m high. Over 4 000 m² floor area it is almost a big cube of 264 000 tons of rubble!! On top of which part C - 54 060 tons float. Part C is 53 m high! Add the rubble - part B - and we have a moving mass that is 119 m high when the part C roof line has dropped 200 meters.

How did you calculate that? Prove it.

Below this 119 m high pile, a storey of part - floor 37 - is just being crushed. How the columns of part C - 66 m above floor 37 can crush the columns there is not clear. 266 m of walls should also be gone. There are another 36 storeys still to crush! About 133 m of WTC1 remains to be crushed. Can it be seen?

Evidently not.

How did you calculate that? Prove it.

Conclusion

Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the BLGB model wrong.

No. You just made unproven fantasies.

 

[funk de fino]

Part C is supposed to drop down and cause collapse of part A. Part A is quite similar structural wise to part C.

Part A is a floor. The floor was not designed to hold the weight of part C falling on it so it gave way. When this gave way the support for the columns was no longer there and the building collapsed.

Very simple, even for your grandchildren.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Pizza boy's back delivering more crap?

 

[Heiwa]

1. "kg/m" is not mass, this is a crappy unit which doesn't exist, so:


2. is wrong.


3.You mustn't assume, you must calculate the exact high.


4. How did you calculate that?


5. How do you define the part A?


6.Why?


7.How did you calculate that?


8.You don't have any clue of what you are talking about. A 1 m^3 concrete block with such a volumic mass *is* much.


9.Because WTC 1&2 were *office* buildings, not full blocks on concrete or steel.


10. Moving on with your fallacious unit...


11.No. You deliberately chose an arbitrary area of 4.000 m²


12.Ships can float everywhere.


13.How did you calculate that?


14.Prove it.


15.You still haven't learned the difference between weight and mass.


16.Prove these.


17.No.


18.Prove it.


19.The bolded part shows that you already have your own conclusions so you can distort the facts and your crazed theory can match with your ignorance.


20.How did you calculate that?


21.How did you calculate that?


22.Prove it.


23.How did you calculate that?


24.This is not a reliable source.


25.How did you calculate that?


26.No. You chose arbitrary datas.


27.Be clear: is it Part B or A?


28.How did you calculate that?


29.No, prove it.


30.How did you calculate that? Prove it.


31.Prove it.


32.Do the calculations.


33.It should, but it didn't.


34.Prove it.


35.You don't have any clue of what you are talking about. We are talking about a tower fragilized after a plane impact and massive fires, and you don't know how a building behas when it collapses.


36.How did you calculate that? Prove it.


37. How did you calculate that? Prove it.

38. How did you calculate that? Prove it.


39.No. You just made unproven fantasies.

1. Funny unit is that of BLGB!
2. BLGB data!
3. BLGB data!
4. BLGB data!
5. As BLGB - the lower section
6. Because floor area of WTC1 is 4000 m².
7. Floor area times height of part C.
8. Density is weight divided by volume.
9. Agree
10. Let's move on!
11. No - acccording BLGB density of rubble is 1.0125 ton/m3
12. Yes
13. Simple math - BLGB agrees. They suggest 53 000 ton.
14. According BLGB this happens! I doubt it.
15. Replace weight with mass if you are confused.
16. Mass of rubble divided by floor area! Simple math.
17. According BLGB you are wrong.
18. BLGB data.
19. According BLGB the columns of part C contacts columns of part A even if there is a thick layer of rubble - part B - in between. Confusing! I agree.
20. Floor height minus thickness of rubble.
21. Every time a storey is crused the layer of rubble becomes 0.896 m thicker.
22. BLGB data! They suggest it.
23. Simple math - height of two storeys minus thickess of rubble.
24. Peer reviewed as far as I am concerned.
25. BLGB data.
26. No - my data is easy to verify.
27. Part B is a thick layer of rubble - no columns. Part A has columns.
28. Simple math. Try yourself!
29. It is a question. What do YOU see?
30. When roof line has dropped 35 meter a 11.56 m thick rubble layer is produced according BLGB. Simple math.
31. They have to drop somewhere!
32. See above.
33. BLGB data!
34. Simple math.
35. No - the plane impact area is now in the bottom of the rubble - part B.
36. BLGB data - solve their differential equations or do my simple math.
37. BLGB data - solve their differential equations or do my simple math.
38. BLGB data - solve their differential equations or do my simple math.
39. This is my conclusion.

Puh. Pls read my Comments for Discussion again and try to do the simple math yourself. It is easy. No need for differential equations. But my simple math gives exactly the same result as BLGB. None of the results can be verified by video recordings though. 66 m layer of rubble. Part C riding down on part B. BLGB is really trying to fool you.

 

[Heiwa]

Part A is a floor. The floor was not designed to hold the weight of part C falling on it so it gave way. When this gave way the support for the columns was no longer there and the building collapsed.

Very simple, even for your grandchildren.

Part A is initially all the 97 floors and columns below part B. When a floor of part A is crushed it adds 0.896 m of rubble to part B. Read the BLGB paper!

The building - part A - didn't collapse acording BLGB! Each 97 storeys of part A was crushed by part B and part C and BLGB tries to describe it with differential equations. Simple math is much simpler. But the result is the same. Does not tally with the video recordings! At the end - part A totally crushed - part B was a very thick layer of rubble on top of which part C was resting.

Then - part C was destroyed. BLGB has a differential equation for that too. Not part of this discussion!

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa a lot of pretty smart engineers disagree with you. I mean A LOT. Why do you think this is?

 

[dtugg]

Heiwa a lot of pretty smart engineers disagree with you. I mean A LOT. Why do you think this is?

My guess is that the NWO paid them all off with the $160 billion in gold stolen from the WTC and the $2.3 trillion "missing" from the Pentagon.

 

[funk de fino]

Part A is initially all the 97 floors and columns below part B. When a floor of part A is crushed it adds 0.896 m of rubble to part B. Read the BLGB paper!

The building - part A - didn't collapse acording BLGB! Each 97 storeys of part A was crushed by part B and part C and BLGB tries to describe it with differential equations. Simple math is much simpler. But the result is the same. Does not tally with the video recordings! At the end - part A totally crushed - part B was a very thick layer of rubble on top of which part C was resting.

Then - part C was destroyed. BLGB has a differential equation for that too. Not part of this discussion!

You dont even know what you are seeing in the videos. You see things that are not happening and things that are happening you miss. When they are pointed out to you, you just lie about it.

Forget the obsession with the simple collapse model and explain how the floor pan could hold the weight of the top section bearing down on it.

Please prove the NIST December FAQ's explanation of the collapse wrong.

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Heiwa a lot of pretty smart engineers disagree with you. I mean A LOT. Why do you think this is?

My guess is that the NWO paid them all off with the $160 billion in gold stolen from the WTC and the $2.3 trillion "missing" from the Pentagon.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nobody believes a word that you say after your pizza box, matchbox, bathroom scale, sponge, and kids jumping on beds "experiments." You may very well "win" yet another Stundie.

You forgot the infamous collapsing plastic table at the picnic that got this whole freaking thing started in the first place!

 

[Heiwa]

My Discussion of Paper has got G, co-author of the paper in question, to ask:

So, Heiwa, tell me what you see after a 35 m drop!
Again, Heiwa, tell us what you see when there are 36 storeys still to crush.

Thanks for asking. There is plenty to see on the videos of the WTC1 destruction apart from a 'jolt' that nobody sees. Lately I have concentrated on those features that you postulate in your paper What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York that I found in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008). And there are plenty features I do not see.

Of course, the title of your paper is misleading. WTC1 never collapsed! It was crushed down from the top according to you. It - part A/lower structure below floor 97 - was crushed by a layer of rubble - part B - that was created when part C - the upper part floor 98 and above - dropped down. Part A never collapsed - each and anyone of its 97 storeys were crushed, one after the other.

According your paper - as I understand it - part C suddenly dropped (its support were weakened by fire/heat an buckled) and impacted on floor 97 of part A. This impact allegedly destroyed the columns between floor 97/96 and floor 97 dropped down on floor 96. I do not see that on any video.

It is now the crush down of part A starts. When floor 97 drops down it becomes a 0.896 m thick layer of rubble - that you call part B - that contacts floor 96 of part A. This rubble is volume vise about 3 600 m3! The uniform (sic) density of structure floors 97/96 was originally 0.255 according you (plenty of air). The density of the rubble is 1.025 according you so compression takes place. It is part C that compresses structure floors 97/96 75.1%.

I do not see that on any video.

To compress rubble requires energy applied by part C and it seems you do not consider that in your differential equations. To compress rubble you must overcome friction in the rubble. As the solid parts of the rubble have density 7.8 (columns) and 2.5-3.0 (concrete) there must still be plenty of air in part B - the rubble layer.

I do not see this rubble layer on any video. To compress 14 400 m3 of structure with density 0.255 to 3 600 m3 of rubble with density 1.025 requires plenty of energy! I would expect the destruction to stop then. But I do not see that! Instead upper part C soon after accelerates constantly a 0.7g due gravity. Not possible if part C shall compress rubble at the same time.

Anyway, next crush is floors 96/95. Now it is a layer of rubble - part B - with part C on top that damages part A. An impact between parts C and A is impossible with so much rubble in between. You suggest that parts B and C now overloads floor 96 (pancake theory?) so floor 96 drops down.
Fair enough! I don't agree and I do not see it, but this is what you suggest. According videos (and your own paper) acceleration of part C is now 0.65-0.7g.

Part B - the rubble layer doubles in thickness - and the crushing continues another 11 floors of part A at constant acceleration 0.7g.

So after a 35 m drop of part C - it takes 3.17-3.3 seconds according your differential equations and acceleration given above - total 13 floors of part A have been crushed (should be floors 97-84), 46.6 m of perimeter walls have failed in pieces and part B has become 11.56 m thick and part C should remain intact on top of the rubble!

Frankly speaking nobody can see that on any video.

What I see is that part C - the upper part - explodes in its lower part - floors 98-105. Controlled demolition no doubt ! That's why the roof line has dropped 35 m. I do not see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris on top of floor 84! Actually I can clearly see that floors 84-96 are undamaged!

So much for your model and theory, Dr. G.

So what do I see, when there is 36 floors to crush (61 floors of part A have been crushed)?

Well. part A is about 130 m tall at this stage. 61 floors have been crushed so part B should be abt 55 m thick and on top of that we should see part C, which is 53 m tall to roof line, and then the 40+ m mast.

Thus, when floor 36 is being crushed - and air/smoke is ejected there and only there - at 130 m above ground we should see, according your theory, a 53 m thick layer of rubble - part B - top of which is 183 m above ground. On top of that we should see part C undamaged according your theory, roof line of which is 236 m above ground, and then we should see the mast. There should be no free rubble anywhere ... and no smoke!

But sorry, I do not see all that. What I see is a fountain of debris and rubble thrown sideways in all directions - apparently caused by multiple controlled demolitions fired from top down and plenty of smoke, probably caused by the controlled demolition charges.

So, sorry! I cannot see anything that confirms your model and theory, Dr. G. But I wonder! Why do you invent such a stupid model and theory and publish it in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC1,2,7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything. I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis and quickly see that WTC1 destruction is not caused by crush down or PE>SE that NIST suggests.

Anyway - I have just updated http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . It seems NIST have destroyed all records how they analysed and simulated the WTC7 structural failures as presented in its November 20, 2008, report. There is no calculations, etc, of any kind left by NIST to support the WTC7 final report! All destroyed ... if it ever existed. The NIST WTC7 report was laughable! A big section above floor 16 was dropping at free fall ... and deformed itself.

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

So, sorry! I cannot see anything that confirms your model and theory, Dr. G. But I wonder! Why do you invent such a stupid model and theory and publish it in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC1,2,7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything. I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis

Oh, yeah. That'll convince him he's dealing with a sane, sober higher intellect, all right.

Go for the gold, next time out. Say something about his mom.

 

[X]

Why does the low density matter more than the large masses involved?


(someone please quote Heiwa's reply for me)

 

[GlennB]

.
I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis and quickly see that WTC1 destruction is not caused by crush down or PE>SE that NIST suggests.
.

Heiwa - America's enemies, believe it or not, have many excellent engineers, architects and physicists. I'm thinking of Iran, N Korea, Cuba and so on. This doesn't even mention scientists in the rest of the world who are just plain interested in the subject.

Why do you think they have not performed and published the damning structural analysis to expose the "demon" USA? The way you have?

Why do you think only a few fringe characters have come up with the same kind of calculations and conclusions that you have? Do you believe you are blessed with a God-given genius?

 

[dtugg]

Do you believe you are blessed with a God-given genius?

I am sure that Heiwa does believe he is a genius of nearly unparalleled proportion. Too bad for him that this is just a delusion of grandeur; one of his many delusions.

 

[beachnut]

Pure nonsense from fantasy pizza man
with free delivery.

Impact, fire, gravity.

DONE

You are a fraud Heiwa, you spew fantasy physics and do not understand gravity.

Your kids will see, your grandkids will see how your failed work with delusional logic as apologies for the terrorists that did 911. You are supporting the terrorist by saying their actions failed!

Worse, you say there were NO planes to support your lie. No plane pizza man.

The answer to the OP
Impact, fire, and gravity