Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[funk de fino]

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell..

Are you the guy who said you saw a documentary which actually did not exist?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

If he were, then he would probably contradict what he had said earlier, too. Want to know why?

Although I'm not an engineer, as a software developer I have experience designing and implementing complex solutions. I can tell you first hand that despite all the planning, all the testing, all the refactoring, it is the real world that has the final say on whether a design will behave the way you expect it to. There are always real-world issues that are unanticipated in the design, no matter how careful you think you have been.

Robertson's comments contradicted what he said earlier because real world experience proved him wrong. That's what rational people do...instead of sticking to an absurd belief that clearly contradicts reality, they alter their beliefs to be consistent with what actually happens.

You should try it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Show where the NIST has anymore than a few pieces which experienced up to 600 degrees C. The vast majority of what they have did not experience more than 250 degrees C, where steel has not even begun to lose strength.

Please inform your audience how a sampling that represents only one percent of all the columns on those floors justifies such a sweeping conclusion on your part. Did you mention to your audience that the testing method was based on paint spalling which only provides a minimum temperature?

 

[aggle-rithm]

If this ever comes on top the people I mention here will be among the first to be arrested. Les Robertson, Shyam Sunder, Mark Loiseaux, and John Lloyd. There are many others of course but these are prime among them.

So...you believe that people who disagree with you on matters in which they are experts and you -- to put it kindly -- are not, should be arrested.

Thank God you're not in a position of authority. Nor will you ever be. Not even if the last two people on Earth are you and Zippy the Pinhead.

 

[Justin39640]

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

your idea that in a random event (collapse) that the columns should land squarely on each other (when only half failed at 1st and the top part was tilted) is so out there its insane

correction - 29 million static pounds over the entire surface of the floor (1 acres worth)
3 times that coming down on one portion of that will tear through that floor like it was going through a wet paper bag

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

id love to hear Bill
what crimes would they charge him with bill?
what crimes did he commit?

none

you have 0 idea on legal science or anything relevant to this forum
youre just C&Ping other peoples crapola
the real gems come when your own thoughts spill out onto the internet
(vaporized columns. rebar, concrete)

we just point and laugh
not bring you up on charges

Skilling made a number of comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 which you can find on-line.

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell.

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.

unlikely is a very far cry from impossible
maybe you should think about that
smh


---
general thought
so based on what you guys perceive to be lies
les robertson should be dragged before a tribunal?

so what sofia did in 911 mysteries (edit video and overlay audio) what should happen to her?
and the 100,000 other deceptively edited videos posted by truthers
what should happen to them?
to every truther whos ever falsely accused the FDNY of murdering their own
etc etc etc

before you post think of both sides of the coin bill
and again be grateful you live in a place where stupid isnt a crime

what if tony in a court your paper is shown to be wrong
should you then be brought up on charges and thrown over to a hangman?

you guys really want to live in a world like that go move to the tribal regions of pakistan

 

[Gamolon]

Tony,

You said this in a post:

Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:

His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.

I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:

Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.”

Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:

Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the Twin Towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further.

Again. IMPACT study.

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

 

[Justin39640]

Tony,

You said this in a post:


You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:


I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:


Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:


Again. IMPACT study.



So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

good job
tony lied (outright)
where do we submit the complaint to start his tribunal?

just working by your rules bill

 

[FineWine]

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

"Mr. Robertson, isn't it embarrassing, indeed surreal, to be asked technical questions by ignorant Jew-hating cretins who have formed a kangaroo court to lynch innocent Americans and exonerate murderous Islamist terrorists?"

 

[Gamolon]

Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the initial floor impact physically looked like for the towers? I mean the south tower's upper mass leaned over and then collapsed downward. What did the perimeter columns on the deformation side of the south tower impact first? I mean if they buckled inward and then the mass fell down, would the corner of upper mass's deformation side's buckled/snapped columns and floor meet the floor inside the perimeter columns of the lower mass first?

 

[newton3376]

Tony,

You said this in a post:


You were asked to elaborate. You then said this:


I asked you for links to this information and you Said Skilling made comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 about fuel from the jet affecting the steel structure.

Here is Skillings comment about the analysis:


Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.

Here are comments from Robertson:


Again. IMPACT study.



So no, they didn't contradict one another. You just assumed (and were quite wrong) that Skilling meant they did a study of the effects of fire on the columns and structural steel in addition to the impact of a 707.

Tony....you just got PWND.

Maybe you should climb down from that mountain of stupid you have climbed and actually READ SOMETHING BEFORE CLAIMING IT SAYS SOMETHING IT DOESN'T SAY.

 

[GlennB]

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the initial floor impact physically looked like for the towers? I mean the south tower's upper mass leaned over and then collapsed downward. What did the perimeter columns on the deformation side of the south tower impact first? I mean if they buckled inward and then the mass fell down, would the corner of upper mass's deformation side's buckled/snapped columns and floor meet the floor inside the perimeter columns of the lower mass first?

Yep. But maybe it goes deeper -- collapse didn't commence until the core columns buckled/broke at about the same time. At onset, what condition would those columns be in? To envision a broken column end meeting what was previously a part of the *same* column must mean that both ends were deformed to breaking point. So they don't 'meet' in any normal sense of the word whatsoever. On the contrary, they separate. Collapse of a given column happens at the point where the ends part company. One or both ends must therefore be displaced laterally. By definition.
It seems truthers cannot comprehend that Bazant proposed a model, not a realistic collapse scenario.

 

[Gamolon]

Yep. But maybe it goes deeper -- collapse didn't commence until the core columns buckled/broke at about the same time. At onset, what condition would those columns be in? To envision a broken column end meeting what was previously a part of the *same* column must mean that both ends were deformed to breaking point. So they don't 'meet' in any normal sense of the word whatsoever. On the contrary, they separate. Collapse of a given column happens at the point where the ends part company. One or both ends must therefore be displaced laterally. By definition.
It seems truthers cannot comprehend that Bazant proposed a model, not a realistic collapse scenario.

Ok.

I am no engineer as I have stated before, but I can look at the collapse videos and see how the upper mass of each tower came down and sytematically sheared/severed/bent/broke/pulled columns and floors. The lower mass was "taken apart" (for lack of a better term) by the descending mass and debris.

There were many tons of elevator motors, panels, elevator switch gear, concrete pads, etc, in the core. How is it NOT possible that this stuff broke free and sheared connections or broke concrete on their way down in addition to the upper mass of concrete floors?

I don't understand how Hewia and others can say the lower mass AS A WHOLE, should have stopped the upper mass from descending when it is clear the the lower mass was systematically destroyed (a bunch of local failures). I actually envision local connection failures (floor truss connections) failing individually thus creating the lrager failure of the lower mass as a whole.

Does this make sense?

 

[Heiwa]

Interesting discussion above but a little off topic.

Anyway, it seems eveybody agrees that upper part C of WTC 1 had mass between 32 000 and 36 000 tons with a cross area of 4 000 m². Thus the average load/pressure was 8-9 ton/m² - let's say 10 ton/m² at interface with structure below, part A. As the upper part C was say 50 m high (actually more) the density of mass is only 0.2 (actually less).

Reason for this is that the upper part is mostly air.

Most steel/concrete (composite) tower structures for offices, etc, are of course same. Mostly air. The actual, heavy density structural elements takes up very little space of the total structure.

So if some element fails in the structure there is ample room for deformations and displacements to take place before elements, previously apart, come in contact with each other ... and more failures may develop.

It is suggested that in WTC 1 280+ columns separating parts C and A failed and allowed part C to first free fall and then impact part A. Or that 4 exterior walls and an assembly of core columns between parts C and A suddenly failed. Same thing! This suggestion confirms that the structure was mostly air and by removing the elements between C and A, C could free fall through the air and BANG impact A.

Evidently the suggestion that 280 local elements suddenly fail is not really confirmed. They could all sag, buckle, deform, etc, allowing a more slow displacement of C down towards A = no free fall ... and no impact.

Anyway, let's suppose C contacts A and applies a load on A. What happens? Well, we are back to origin, because A carried C before for 30+ years. Why would C now suddenly one-way crush down A?

It is suggested that C starts to break elements and element connections in A so that A starts to disintegrate, floor by floor, and that broken elements of A also assist in the destruction of A.

Same people suggesting this, suggest that upper part C remains virtually intact!

However, that is simply wrong. When two identical structures collide BOTH stuctures suffer local failures. And if one structure, e.g., C, is much smaller than the other, let's say A, C has no chance whatsoever to destroy A.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (topic).

I assume Leslie Robertson agrees with me.

 

[GlennB]

Ok.

I am no engineer as I have stated before, but I can look at the collapse videos and see how the upper mass of each tower came down and sytematically sheared/severed/bent/broke/pulled columns and floors. The lower mass was "taken apart" (for lack of a better term) by the descending mass and debris.

There were many tons of elevator motors, panels, elevator switch gear, concrete pads, etc, in the core. How is it NOT possible that this stuff broke free and sheared connections or broke concrete on their way down in addition to the upper mass of concrete floors?

I don't understand how Hewia and others can say the lower mass AS A WHOLE, should have stopped the upper mass from descending when it is clear the the lower mass was systematically destroyed (a bunch of local failures). I actually envision local connection failures (floor truss connections) failing individually thus creating the lrager failure of the lower mass as a whole.

Does this make sense?

Makes sense to me. There is no 'whole' to do any arresting, just components. Tony S's 'millions of pounds of strength in the floors', for example, ignores this. Nobody took the upper section apart and gently spread it out anywhere on the lower section. Large lumps fell and hit parts not designed for it.

Heiwa thinks in terms of a welded structure with no 'gaps' (a ship) hitting a similar structure. The impact only affects a small part of that structure where contact is made, and I suspect this is where he gets his 'friction arrest' nonsense. Tony S thinks in terms of a Bazantian clean axial impact of columns. Neither is realistic in WTC terms.

 

[alienentity]

You guys are on a (very justifiable) roll in schooling Tony about his bad habit of sloppy quote mining combined with glib hand waving.

No wonder his conclusions are out to lunch. It's no coincidence.

Going back to his colleague David Chandler's observation that WTC 1 upper block began to fall at only 64% acceleration of freefall, it is inescapable to all but these half-crazed conspiracy cultists that the structure was weakened, but not entirely destroyed.

This is overwhelming evidence that the structural weakening was partial at the time of collapse initiation - totally unlike a controlled demolition.

Tony and his closest colleagues are caught in a trap of their own making: they bleat endlessly about freefall speed, as conclusive evidence of CD, but the reality is that neither tower collapsed at freefall speed anyway.
They try in vain to 'splain their way out of it.

Tony's main excuse (for the failure of truther assumption) is that there should have been a discernible 'jolt'. There is no scientific consensus that this is a reasonable assumption, as it relies on an oversimplified concept of the points of impact, and the initial failure modes of the structure.

This is not really a surprise either - to accurately model the collapse of these structures one would need exponentially more complex calculations, at colossal cost to whomever chose to undertake them. And while that would certainly increase the depth of knowledge about the collapses, it is exceedingly unlikely that it would change the basic conclusions about their initiation.

Controlled demolition of the WTC buildings will never become the most plausible hypothesis in the serious scientific community, simply because it doesn't fit with the totality of data - it cannot.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I assume Leslie Robertson agrees with me.

That alone gives us useful insight into how your mind works.

 

[tsig]

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.

Why, would the laws of physics change?

If you damage a structure enough it will fall due to gravity.

Structural damage(planes) + heat weakening (fire) + gravity = collapse.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Suppose Robertson is eventually called before some kind of tribunal. What do you think would be the most awkward question they could ask him in that context ?

Hee, hee!

Thanks, Bill, that was hilarious!

(...tribunal...!)

 

[aggle-rithm]

What our truther friends are overlooking is a concept that was stated eloquently in Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit":

If your theory relies on a chain of reasoning, then every link in the chain must be sound. A single weak link invalidates the theory.

Or something like that.

The problem here is that we have spent 53 pages discussing ONE LINK in the chain...whether it is possible for the towers to have collapsed from the airline crash damage alone. Even if this link was rock-solid (it isn't), there are many other links that are equally important.

The truthers would have to show that:

1) It is POSSIBLE to demolish a building that is heavily damaged and on fire without anyone noticing
2) Anyone had a REASON to do this, given the extreme complexity of the operation, the high likelihood of failure, and the great risk if the plot were uncovered
3) How the conspirators were able to keep quiet for so many years, given the large number of people that would have to be involved in the operation

...and there's probably more.

Given the daunting task of facing these additional challenges once you've somehow managed to convince a single person in a position of authority (they haven't and probably won't), most rational people would give this up as a futile enterprise.

Our truthers are made of different stuff, I suppose.

 

[alienentity]

Tony's utter contempt for the value of Leslie Robertson's direct knowledge is breathtaking as well.

Here's one man who should know, does know, and needed to know about such things as plane impacts, and who has offered his insights numerous times, but is either ignored by 9/11 truthers or set aside as 'curious things' not to be taken seriously(Tony Szamboti's words).

Tony doesn't even have a good reference for Mr. Robertson's opinions, showing that he hasn't researched them seriously - why would he? They go against Tony's political agenda to blame his government and absolve the hijackers and Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately this type of intellectual corruption is a necessary component of the 9/11 'truth' cult.

Here is what Mr. Robertson said during a radio interview on KGNU Radio, Denver, October 26, 2006.
'The project was designed for the impact of a, what we call a low-flying, slow-flying
Boeing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time, actually the intercontinental version.
We envisioned it much as was the case for the aircraft that struck the Empire State
Building in the Second World War, the same condition, lost in the fog, i.e. an accidental
impact of an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for high-speed impact from the jets that actually hit it. '
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

And the audio interview without the misleading annotations by Gregg Roberts
Associate Editor http://911research.wtc7.net

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4076