Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

bill smith said:
So the core columns were severed ? Like in cut or in torn ? If torn then the columns must have knelt to apply the appropriate force to tear them surely ? Would that kneeling not have walked block C out of alignment with the lower columns and walls as well as causing all the walls to visibly buckle prior to collapse initiation ?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. On some videos the walls can be seen buckling as the initial lateral progressive failure takes place. Since the upper block was observed to rotate at the beginning of its fall in both collapses, it's not geometrically possible that all the supports could have remained in alignment with those in the lower block, therefore the majority of impacts must have been between the columns and the floors. The rotation was quite likely associated with a very large eccentric loading on the core columns, which would have done a good job of causing multiple-point failures. I'm not sure what you think you mean by "kneeling", a word you've clearly learned to parrot from Heiwa, but if you're implying that a box column formed from 1/4" steel plate is capable of bending through a significant angle, can I remind you that's exactly the opposite of what you were arguing earlier?

I realise that you have no interest in finding out anything that you don't already think you know, and that you're just trying to ask questions to provoke some kind of "gotcha!" moment. There's really very little point, because when you get to the point where you think you've exposed a contradiction, you won't have enough understanding of the details of the collapse - because some of the details can't possibly be known - or of engineering principles - because you know even less than Heiwa, and believe me, that's a damning indictment - to realise that there's no contradiction. However, please feel free to continue tilting. The windmills are just over there.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
He does not give a value for z˙.

The wide range does not specify how far the large steel pieces were ejected. It only explains how the absence of that material affected the crushing mass.

Bazant admits that his 1 dimensional model does NOT explain the collapse of the south tower.

Pg 13
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.



NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.
Click to expand...
But they did show how the collapse (total) once started was inevitable.

Your point is?
 
Christopher7 said:
He does not give a value for z˙.

The wide range does not specify how far the large steel pieces were ejected. It only explains how the absence of that material affected the crushing mass.

Bazant admits that his 1 dimensional model does NOT explain the collapse of the south tower.

Pg 13
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.



NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.
Click to expand...

Increasing the font size is a good indicator that a person at least recognizes that they are losing an argument. There is still hope for you.

The collapse initiation has been explained by known scientific principles and the evidence available. There is no evidence that anything other than the fundamentals of the prevailing explanation need be inserted or investigated to explain it.

The collapse progression as well has been explained by known scientific principles and the evidence available. Once it is determined that the first intact floor met by the falling upper block cannot arrest the collapse, there is no reason to continue on to discover additional minute irrelevant details. If the first intact floor can't arrest the collapse, each subsequent floor is going to have even less chance to arrest it. There is no value whatsoever or anything useful to be learned by a further exhaustive study of the continued collapse progression.

Frankly, the only real value in it could be that it is yet one more fallacious absence of evidence argument that truth movement leaders can use to sell a few more books and dvds.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
...

... the powerful ejection of columns at up to 70mph. ...

SherlockHolmes said.....'if you rule out all the possibilities then then....'
Click to expand...
I already showed your initial assumption is poppycock. The powerful ejection was not powerful but only 1/839,452 of the total energy in one collapse.

0.000155 tons of TNT energy in the not so powerful ejection lateral component of energy where there is 130 TONS of TNT energy available. I only need 1/839,452 of that energy to make it hundreds of feet away from the WTC.

What school of engineering supports your position? I am glad to report to you of all the engineers only 0.0001 percent support your delusion of whatever you are pushing.

If your ideas were true a card house over 20 card stories high would fall in its own footprint of 911Truth woo.

Sherlock Holmes used evidence, knowledge, and sound judgment! Three things 911Truth does not have or use. Stop making the Sherlock Holmes statements it make you smack of Dr Thermite Jones whose idiotic thermite does not eject jack columns.

Big clue: The Chief Structural Engineer for the WTC Towers said the collapse was correct for impacts, fires and failure of his building.
Sherlock Holmes my foot.

You can’t or will not support you rant with numbers, the energy in the horizontal component of the ejected parts from the WTC. Use some math to save yourself from further truthyness. Please present the horizontal energy component in your ejected masses and what was the total gravitational energy available? Numbers needed.

Use Sherlock Holmes to help you; he was fiction like your ideas on 911.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Quite possibly. On some videos the walls can be seen buckling as the initial lateral progressive failure takes place. Since the upper block was observed to rotate at the beginning of its fall in both collapses, it's not geometrically possible that all the supports could have remained in alignment with those in the lower block, therefore the majority of impacts must have been between the columns and the floors. The rotation was quite likely associated with a very large eccentric loading on the core columns, which would have done a good job of causing multiple-point failures. I'm not sure what you think you mean by "kneeling", a word you've clearly learned to parrot from Heiwa, but if you're implying that a box column formed from 1/4" steel plate is capable of bending through a significant angle, can I remind you that's exactly the opposite of what you were arguing earlier?


Dave
Click to expand...

Naughty naughty naughty Dave. I did not say a box column was incapable of buckling- I said that it will buckle long and long before it can store enough potential energy under compression to spring out from a building.Try not to be so tiresome.

I don't recall seeing the top of WTC1 rotate prior to collapse. Do you have a video where it can be seen ? Ideally one where the buckling walls can be seen too. Observation of the Antenna tip should display the rotation nicely.

What might have been the cause of the eccentric loading ? The hat truss ran through the top five floors I believe with the antenna on top
 
NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

funk de fino said:
You're a liar.
Click to expand...
Way to go funk.

When faced with an intolerable truth, just call the messenger a liar.

Sit thee down funk, rest ye. Then read 'em and weep.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3 NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.

PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
 
bill smith said:
I don't recall seeing the top of WTC1 rotate prior to collapse.
Click to expand...

Naughty naughty yourself. Nobody said it rotated prior to collapse. Now who's being tiresome?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc1-hinge-like-wtc2-t139.html has a discussion on whether the initial stages of WTC1's collapse were characterised by a hinging motion. There are some pretty clear pictures of the antenna tilting in the early stages of collapse.

bill smith said:
What might have been the cause of the eccentric loading ?
Click to expand...

Eccentric damage. Both towers were only hit by a single airliner, so the damage can't possibly have been symmetrical, and the same is most likely true of the fires because the airliner impact shifted contents towards the opposite side. I seem to remember this is covered in the NIST report.

bill smith said:
The hat truss ran through the top five floors I believe with the antenna on top
Click to expand...

So it was well above the damaged areas of both towers, and won't have done anything to reinforce the collapse initiation zones.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3 NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.

PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

Also on page 4:
Once the collapse initiated, it is clear from the available evidence that the building was unable to resist the falling mass of the upper stories of the towers.

Did you miss that bit because it wasn't in big bold capitals, Chris?

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:

We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

Now it's up to you to prove that once initiated, the collapse should have halted. The commonly held belief is that there was no stopping the collapse once it was initiated. Few experts appear to have a major problem with this.

Ah, but YOU do. Whoopdeedoo. Give me one reason why I, or any layman, should give your beliefs the time of day?
 
quite true, anyone that ever took a science class past the 4th grade level knows that a hydro-carbon fire can and will never harm steel
 
bob the analyst said:
quite true, anyone that ever took a science class past the 4th grade level knows that a hydro-carbon fire can and will never harm steel
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums bob, and congratulations on gloriously enlightening first post. Could you please explain why virtually every building code in the world uselessly and expensively requires that structural steel (that can never be harmed by a hydro-carbon fire) be coated with fire protection?
 
I think the main focus that people over look in the NIST report is a simple plan that is the most germane of any debate or argument

The NIST has never proved their case or their theory.

If the claim that the steel was super heated, if the claim that the box columns were severed, if the NIST claims that the striking jets cause exoskeletal damage upon impact, if the NIST claims that joints were damaged and the load could not transfer

all the NIST has to do is to reproduce, replicate and repeat this, of a jet striking a steel and concrete building, even at a smaller scale....

but the NIST or any other group--do you hear me Popular mechanics-are you listening?

just do a scaled version as a model...numerous scaled versions...do a full sized version if they wish....

but they won't do it because they know beforehand that even if 9/11 was a totally anomaly, it can not happen because science and engineering has proven it can not and will not happen
 
bill smith said:
Well I thiink that most of the World's engineers took the official story of 9/11 at face value just as most of the general populaton did. Then here is a proportion who WERE puzzled and know hat something is wrong but tey are fearful of being abelled 'cnsiracy theorists' and do not explore further. Then there are the enginerrs who do noot WANT to know that 9/11 was an inside job and actively resist knowing. This category is widely reflected in the general population. And lastlly there are those engineers and architects who have the courage of their convictions such as the membrs of ae911truth.org of whom our own Heiwa is a distinguised member.

Ae91truth.org now has 610 gigned up professionals who are demanding an independent investigation. Can you name a similar body of professionals who support the official story ? You guys use a figure of 0.0001% of the world's engineers, but how may of those have actualy been individually asked what they think in a structured way involving lists of names ? Z-E-R-O.
Click to expand...

Very wrong. Just about every engineer I know would die to actually be on the ground floor of exposing a massive Government cover up. Especially a US one involving a president that almost choked to death on a pretzel.

Then there are the 51/50's with a degree. You've stumbled on 610 of them. I bet I can get more Engineers to sign up for my group that believes a all knowing and all seeing deity that created the Universe in 7 days, then decided to send his son down to earth in human form to perform magic, die, then come back to life again 3 days later. Im not judging, I'm just pointing out people believe all kinds of things, smart or silly as a fence post.

As for your last claim, well I guess they are all Communists because none of them belong to any anti-Communist groups either.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Naughty naughty yourself. Nobody said it rotated prior to collapse. Now who's being tiresome?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc1-hinge-like-wtc2-t139.html has a discussion on whether the initial stages of WTC1's collapse were characterised by a hinging motion. There are some pretty clear pictures of the antenna tilting in the early stages of collapse.



Eccentric damage. Both towers were only hit by a single airliner, so the damage can't possibly have been symmetrical, and the same is most likely true of the fires because the airliner impact shifted contents towards the opposite side. I seem to remember this is covered in the NIST report.



So it was well above the damaged areas of both towers, and won't have done anything to reinforce the collapse initiation zones.

Dave
Click to expand...

Have a look at this one. This is potentially very interesting. The antenna is attached to the hat truss which apparently runs thrugh the top five floors tying the core and perimeter walls together which should make it very immovable. Now watch the behaviour of the antenna in the video- it's all over the place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k
 
fire retardation or coating is simply a doubling up or a redundancy--it's sort of like that extra coating of rust proofing that a automotive dealer sells to the customer before the customers signs his name on a contract

and you are very very wrong about building codes in a generalized way as you di and thanks for the welcome, first posting here and I see that a great many people have not reached the area and level where they need to be on 9/11....

it only takes a science and engineering level that the average person receives by an age of 10 or 11 years old, if they are half way smart and have cognitive comprehnsion skills and are rwasonably smart in areas of critical thinking to see that 9/11 was a complete and total hoax and that the 9/11 commision report as well as the NIST report is poorly done, has thousands of opinions and other points that are proven false or impossible in theory and in application
 
bob the analyst said:
quite true, anyone that ever took a science class past the 4th grade level knows that a hydro-carbon fire can and will never harm steel
Click to expand...

Did you miss out the "irony" smiley indicator?

If you were serious, however, you might like to reflect on the fact that it's hydrocarbon fires that are used to make steel. Or are you just a sock of Bill?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom