bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Thanks. I didn't know this. Is everything to scale ? Seems like a big mall compared to the acre footprint of WTC2.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
Thanks. I didn't know this. Is everything to scale ? Seems like a big mall compared to the acre footprint of WTC2.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
For any distance shot, the diameter of the wire (.3inch) is going to be below the resolution of the image. It's there, we just can't see it in anything other than what amounts to a close-up photograph given the size of the WTC site.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
You often show close up pictures of rubble Al. See if you can find any with some of the three-quarters of a square mile of mesh ereinforcing that must be there .
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Well, wonder no more. In any building collapse, there is a HUGE cloud of dust. Most are from controlled demolitions, granted...but it's obvious that the dust is generated by the collapse and NOT the explosives.
I recommend a book called Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger. It will permanently destroy your faith in military weapons development.
Long story short -- they spend a lot of money on a lot of ridiculous crap that never goes anywhere. Unscrupulous scientists spend years working on projects that they KNOW are bogus because they are riding the military-spending gravy train.
.
LoL.
I didn't fail anything.
I first addressed the theoretical challenge.
I laid out a clear explanation as to why the collapse would continue to the ground. I pointed out a half-dozen or so effects that needed to be considered. And explained, in plain English, why these factors result in a total collapse.
I invited you to join the conversation about a dozen time.
You ran away from the discussion each and every time. You were too much of a coward to stand and discuss things. And now, typically, come back & claim victory.
How childish.
But I did learn something significant thru that debate. I learned that the specific reason that you showed such cowardice is that YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG.
But your ego won't let you admit it.
And now you're publishing your silliness. You'll get smacked down in the dry, understated way of academia. And you figure that you'll be able to leverage your "fame" somehow.
Good luck with that.
I told you before that it is FAR preferrable to be an unknown incompetent than to be a famous incompetent.
Tom
PS. I also told you that I know exactly how to build a free standing structure that will crush down just like the towers.
Too bad your rude behavior prevents you from hearing about it.
Unless you want to reinstitute that wager that you withdrew...
.
Tony,
A couple of questions...
1) Steven Jones has said explicitly (1) that explosives would be needed ever floor, 2nd floor or so. What do you think. What is the largest number of floors that could be left UNexploded and have the descent still look as it did?
As a follow on, what percent of the core and/or peripheral columns would have to be destroyed?
Are you a "thermat-o-phile"?
If not, you can skip this question.
2) I've got a video that shows the penetration of a 1/2" thick plate of steel using thermite. (2) It takes the thermite approximately 7 seconds to cut thru this plate. Considering that the lower columns were on the order of 2 to 5 inches thick, requiring 14 to 70 seconds, how could one possibly sequence this in a demolition that was, for the bottom 2/3rds, occurring at approximately 1/10th of a second per floor?
3) Why are there no, zero, none beams with the clear evidence of being cut by thermite in the pile?? I am not talking about thermite cuts once someone has time to clean off the dross and residuals. I'm talking about the 5" thick, clear as a bell, see it from 50 feet away, yellow slag that thermite leaves when cutting steel.
4) Why are there approximately zero beams in the rubble heap that have been cut to 1 story long? A quick math check will tell you that, if you had to cut 50% of the beams per floor to get "free fall" descent, then 75% of all the beams in the rubble should have been 1 story long. This amount to about 12,000 1 story beams per tower. And about 4,000 3 story beams. Why do there appear to be ONLY 3 story beams?
Doesn't the lack of cut beams in the rubble heap - evidence that we can still examine today - negate any demolition of any sort using any technique whatsoever?
Thanks,
Tom
(1)
A physicist and a structural engineer debate the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center
October 26, 2006
KGNU Radio, Denver
"ROBERTSON: We’re not—are we really saying every floor, every other, every third floor would have had to have had some kind of explosives in it? That’s absolute nonsense.
JONES: That would be required, to move the mass out of the way, yes, in order for the upper floors to proceed so rapidly to the ground.
ROBERTSON: So the premise that you’re putting forward on the table here I gather, Steven, is that, many, many floors of the building had in them explosives designed to bring down the building.
JONES: Completely and rapidly.
In your estimation, what percent of the columns on any given floor would
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs
The picture below shows the remains of the south face of WTC 2. The photo is taken at street level. Debris has crashed through the street level just outside WTC 2 and revealed sub levels B1, B2 and B3.
A high resolution version of the photo can be downloaded here:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4015
Just click "Download original photo".
The photo shows the inside of WTC 2 packed with debris from nearly the top of what once was the lobby area and down to at the least B3. Note all the rebar sticking out all over of the pile. Especially from the debris inside B1.
It is all there inside that pile.
The photo is one of 806 photos taken by FEMA at ground zero.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Actually the term "high strength" is dliberately misleading. Do you have a source that indicates the the steel rod was made from the highest grade rod or not? Somehow I doubt it. In relative terms, .230" diameter steel rod is "undersized" for use as reinforcement in concrete. So is the 4" floor slab. Anyone familiar with US building code feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
I think it's funny that "truthers" feel it necessary to add "Extra Strength!" and "Super Strong" to every element of the WTC construction. It's almost as if subconsiously they realize that despite their massive size the WTC's were very fagile and they need to compensate for this.
In this one together with twisted floor trusses:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=4028
(See figure 2-17 in NIST NCSTAR 1-1 for what a floor truss looked like)
And of course you wont see much of it because it is hidden inside the pile.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
This "missing rebar" claim is just about the lamest thing I have heard in a long time. The high resolution photo clearly shows there was tons of rebar in the pile. A new level of stupidity.
That is why I posted the photo, to put an end to the silliness. When I read this part of the thread I remembered that photo and posted it. Here is another one that shows what a spaghetti of rebar that pile was. It is from the final stages of the clean up in March 2002, with a digger standing on top of the last remains of the WTC 2 pile, all the way down on the bottom of the bath tube.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do?id=6036
You're lying again. Your so-called part A consists, in reality, of INDIVIDUAL FLOORS that are crushed very quickly ONE-BY-ONE.
Will you continue peddling your idiocy after you've been slapped down by the real engineers at the ASCE journal?
The INDIVIDUAL FLOORS in lower part A were just secondary structural elements in the structure and cannot crush very much even if they are full of rebars, etc. as e have now learnt. But they offer plenty of resistance to primary elements (COLUMNS) and secondary elements of upper part C displacing down on them. It is Bazant that calls the parts A and C.
My article in JEM, approved for publication by editor Ross Corotis, I wonder when it will be published. It actually describes the early destructions of the 12 part A top floors ... and why it is not possible. Let's discuss it after JEM publication.
Heiwa, how many times can you be ripped apart without noticing? Your arguments are flawed in infantile ways that have been pointed out to you time and time again. Yet you come back with:
It's a joke.
It doesn't please me to say this, but you've been a joke for 99.9% of casual observers ever since you started posting.
Give your embarrassment meter a rest and stop plugging your ridiculous excuses for papers.
It's a joke.
It doesn't please me to say this, but you've been a joke for 99.9% of casual observers ever since you started posting.
Give your embarrassment meter a rest and stop plugging your ridiculous excuses for papers.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
You may be misunderstanding me. I do not say there is NO wire mesh. I say that there is far too little by dozens of orders of magnitude. his is a bit like saying that a herd of elephants galloped through Manhatten and the proof is these three footprints. We are looking for three-quarters of a square mile of mesh.
Two other interesting things about that photo are if it really does show the top three basement levels of WWTC2 is
1. The virtual absense of concrete.
2. The obvious lack of compression. You would expect this rubble to be pressed together like strata in a rock. It definately is not.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The rebar was 70 to 90 ksi steel. That is considered high strength for construction. You can find this information in the NIST report.
That size rod is not undersize for use as rebar in a floor. Go look up welded wire fabric.
I only said high strength because it is high strength. It wasn't for effect but accuracy.
Bill has been shown many photos of rebar in close-up photos. His only response has been to say he "can't see enough of it", which would be laughable if he actually meant that.
He's trolling and has no interest at all in seeing photos of rebar.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The core columns were made up of three stories tall sections which were butt welded together. I believe that some type of explosive charge was used every third floor to break the welds of the outer core columns, after the collapse was underway for a few floors. As they were inside the tower, any blast from the charges would not be visible, and the debris falling outside would mask any escaping ejections and the collapse itself would mask the noise. I don't think much would have to be done to the perimeter columns except to separate the orthogonal walls at the corners every 10 to 20 floors. This could have been done by attacking the spandrel splices at the corners, allowing the perimeter walls to petal outward.
The breaking of the welded joints of the outer core columns every third floor would very effectively bring down those towers. The remaining spires were comprised of only the interior core columns. All of the much more robust and heavier outer core columns collapsed to the ground with the collapse wave.
I do think artificial heat weakening was used to initiate the collapses. This heat weakening could have been used to weaken the joints of the structure. It would not have to mean cutting the columns with thermite. I am inclined to believe that the temperatures from this heat weakening were much higher than what fire could produce and that is why little to no steel evidence was saved from the fire affected areas for analysis.
In essence, I think the demolition was achieved by attacking joints with heat generating mechanisms and explosive charges rather than cutting columns.
Last edited:
- Status