Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok folks...I'm sure you know the drill by now, everyone...all together: "It is attack the argument and not the arguer" (ie. Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement). Let's stop the bickering and address the OP...your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
A lot of it is in the interpretation of results by Sunder and his gang Al. But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him uiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

What the h**l is a "Sunder"?

Each PE is a licenses engineer and is legally responsible for what he says.

It's clear that Bill doesn't understand what the technical and legal implications of a P.E. (Professional Engineer) title are.
 
Last edited:
Then why are you still here?

Dave

Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

So I have to come here to JREF to see what the "debunkers" think.

And still no one has taken me up on my offer to discuss this in a nice neutral forum or blog (like the BBC blog I've mentioned).

Will you come out of JREF Dave and discuss 9/11 on let's say the BBC blog?
 
OK, locknar, steve and Bill's arguments are both retarded and insane.

They, of course, are completely normal.

Will that do?
 
Last edited:
Do you all not see the contradiction in this belief of yours? (meaning all you JREF "debunkers").

This is the JREF "debunker" mode of thought...

"Anyone who has not spoken out against the Official Conspiracy Theory automatically accepts and endorses the Official Conspiracy Theroy. While at the same time anyone who has not spoken out against the Controlled Demolitions has not done so because (insert reason here)"

Are you lurkers seeing this? I certainly hope so. This is a glaring insight into the skewed thinking of "debunkers"

Did you miss my simple question to you?

“Why do you assume that because they are not all crying out “Controlled Demolition” they are being coerced into silence?”

Now Steve while you ponder your response lets take a little look at something.

I am sure that you are aware of the scientific process and how it works and that you are familiar with Archimedes of Syracuse sitting in his bath and his principle, are you not?

Now for the life of me I can’t find a list of scientist who have signed a list to say that he is correct in his assertions, nor am I aware of one. Are you? So from this WE have to decide (assume) one of the following

1/ The scientific community agrees with him and so does not publish a competing Hypothesis or voice their decent i.e. they agree with him and his principle. Or……………

2/ the scientific community are being coerced into silence by the reptilians.

Which one are you going for?

Woof!¬
 
But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

Note how bill smith uses a classic piece of conspiracist logic here. If the vast majority of experts fail to support the conspiracy theory, this can be postulated as due to threats and intimidation even without any evidence of any such thing having happened.

Strangely enough, Danny Jowenko's demolition company appears still to be trading.

Dave
 
Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

So I have to come here to JREF to see what the "debunkers" think.

One would presume you now know. So why are you still here?

Dave
 
Steve:
Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

Where do you live? Neverland?

I've only ever met one 9/11 conspiracy theorist and he made Herman Munster look normal.

Cut the crap. Nobody but a handful of fruitcakes believes your insane ideas.
 
Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

Yeah, bill. I didn't think you'd take the bet.

"Do it for the truth..."??

Would that be "the truth" as the rest of us understand the term?
Or "the bill smith truth"?

Because those are two very different concepts. Some folks, less familiar with you than I am, might be, uh, shocked at how divergent those two concepts really are, bill.

Let's provide a couple of reference points, shall we?

The Truth | The "Bill Smith Truth"
| (Source)
Explosive charges make noise. | Demolition companies have access to "silent explosives"
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post22695 )
Two 100 ton, 500 mph planes crashed thru the external walls of two Towers. | Molecular field disruptors were used
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040 )
The Dept of Homeland Security is a typical bloated bureaucratic response to a major disaster. | DHS has built and manned about 200 concentration camps around the country, capable of holding 25 million American dissidents, complete with NAZI-style cattle cars with iron shackles to transport them.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13890 )
NIST released its WTC7 report, and it has been accepted by the engineering community. | The NIST's WTC7 report has been completely disproven by ae911t "scientists" and 'is dead'.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post31965 )
The Bush administration, respecting American political tradition, will peacefully pass on power to the freely elected Obama administration. | The Bush administration would, without doubt, engineer a "false flag terrorist action", declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post14464 )
A bunch of terrorists attacked the US. | The Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then blew the whistle on themselves (...?!..?!) to instill PTSD on the American public to make them more malleable to mind control.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post12347 )
And my personal favorite: . |
Fires raged thru the Towers and WTC7 | Conspirators placed giant smoke generators in the buildings to simulate fires.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13846 )
Sure, bill. You've got TONS of credibility to be telling anyone to post anything "for the truth"...

LoL.


Tom

PS. You were bluffed on that bet, bill. And you folded.

You see, I believe that 200 papers is a good estimate of the number of papers currently released that are based on the NIST report. But this is just an estimate, based on previous numbers and my experience with the amazing number of papers that academia and industry is capable of churning out.

But, being a good estimate, I believe that there's a 50/50 chance of the real number being above or below it.

I've told you before that I rarely bet on anything without knowing the outcome ahead of time. Certainly I'd never bet that much on what would be a "coin toss".

So an unobservant person might guess that I violated my personal dictum this time. But they would be wrong.

You see, bill, I was NOT willing to bet $500 on the number of NIST-supporting papers without checking.
I WAS willing to bet $500 that YOU lack all sincerity or conviction in any of your stated beliefs.

That bet is "money in the bank".
 
Last edited:
I hdn''t actually looked at this link for a year or two. Wow. I think it is getting time for us Truthers to start ridiculing you debunkers.It's going to start happening soon anyway. You know it. That will be fun.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
.

I have every confidence that this prediction of yours will come true to precisely the same extent that all your previous predictions have come true.

Tom.

PS. So, is it too late for Bush to declare "martial law", cancel the elections and appoint himself "Dictator for Life" ...?
 
Yeah, bill. I didn't think you'd take the bet.

"Do it for the truth..."??

Would that be "the truth" as the rest of us understand the term?
Or "the bill smith truth"?

Because those are two very different concepts. Some folks, less familiar with you than I am, might be, uh, shocked at how divergent those two concepts really are, bill.

Let's provide a couple of reference points, shall we?

The Truth | The "Bill Smith Truth"
| (Source)
Explosive charges make noise. | Demolition companies have access to "silent explosives"
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post22695 )
Two 100 ton, 500 mph planes crashed thru the external walls of two Towers. | Molecular field disruptors were used
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040 )
The Dept of Homeland Security is a typical bloated bureaucratic response to a major disaster. | DHS has built and manned about 200 concentration camps around the country, capable of holding 25 million American dissidents, complete with NAZI-style cattle cars with iron shackles to transport them.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13890 )
NIST released its WTC7 report, and it has been accepted by the engineering community. | The NIST's WTC7 report has been completely disproven by ae911t "scientists" and 'is dead'.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post31965 )
The Bush administration, respecting American political tradition, will peacefully pass on power to the freely elected Obama administration. | The Bush administration would, without doubt, engineer a "false flag terrorist action", declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post14464 )
A bunch of terrorists attacked the US. | The Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then blew the whistle on themselves (...?!..?!) to instill PTSD on the American public to make them more malleable to mind control.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post12347 )
And my personal favorite: . |
Fires raged thru the Towers and WTC7 | Conspirators placed giant smoke generators in the buildings to simulate fires.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13846 )
Sure, bill. You've got TONS of credibility to be telling anyone to post anything "for the truth"...

LoL.


Tom

PS. You were bluffed on that bet, bill. And you folded.

You see, I believe that 200 papers is a good estimate of the number of papers currently released that are based on the NIST report. But this is just an estimate, based on previous numbers and my experience with the amazing number of papers that academia and industry is capable of churning out.

But, being a good estimate, I believe that there's a 50/50 chance of the real number being above or below it.

I've told you before that I rarely bet on anything without knowing the outcome ahead of time. Certainly I'd never bet that much on what would be a "coin toss".

So an unobservant person might guess that I violated my personal dictum this time. But they would be wrong.

You see, bill, I was NOT willing to bet $500 on the number of NIST-supporting papers without checking.
I WAS willing to bet $500 that YOU lack all sincerity or conviction in any of your stated beliefs.

That bet is "money in the bank".

I'm flattered that you went to so much trouble T. Some of the links in those pages might be interesting. We are not so interested on 'papers based on the NIST reports' for obvious reasons. How may papers do you have that are full independent analyses of the collapses themselves ?

I hope there is enough room left on this page. lol
 
Last edited:
Steve:


Where do you live? Neverland?

I've only ever met one 9/11 conspiracy theorist and he made Herman Munster look normal.

Cut the crap. Nobody but a handful of fruitcakes believes your insane ideas.

I was on vacation for two weeks, so I rarely logged on. Strange how the CTists suddenly disappear when not on the internet.
 
:boggled:

How in the hell can a controlled demolition make columns buckle BEFORE it happens?!?!

Also, I thought controlled demolition CUT support columns, not buckle them?

So you admit that there ARE buckling columns? Just that they were caused to buckle by a controlled demolition of some sort?

In that case your website is wrong and needs to be corrected. Or do you like to mislead people to make a point?:

Well, one possibility is that the core columns (not seen) are demolished/cut by CD before and as a result the perimeter columns (seen) deform as seen on the photos from a video one second before the WTC 2 explodes around the initiation zone (and the deformed wall columns).

As far as I am concerned no buckled columns from the initiation zone between parts C and A have been identified in the rubble, documented and analyzed by proper authorities. So no need to correct web page.

One reason is that a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances = my point = topic of thread. It also applies to WTC 2 even if my papers concentrate on WTC 1.

In the WTC 2 case the CD of upper part C is even more obvious than for WTC 1. The WTC 2 upper part was three times bigger than WTC 1 ... and it disappears before hitting ground. So how could it - WTC 2 part C - one-way crush down WTC 2 part A?
 
Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those. People were simply supposed to take it on faith that they all supported the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now you are going to get it!

No Steve, he WAS supposed to investigate them, but he didn't read past the titles.
 
Just for kicks, what if the majority of the world's experts suddenly gave a hoot about the tiny truther cult and made a concerted effort to specifically claim, in print, that they don't think the wtc was a CD.

Then what, bill and Steve?
 
Once again, because somehow, contrary to all evidence, it's still being argued that there's no widespread acceptance of the findings of the NIST WTC studies, and that it's somehow dishonest to say so:

As far as the engineering, building safety, fire engineering, and architectural professions are concerned, there is actually zero silence on the issue of the NIST report's veracity. As I and others have pointed out before, the ICC has not only accepted NISTs findings, but is already in process of integrating that knowledge into future building codes. Some of the findings - for example, the issue of fireproofing bonding, as well as an increase in the fire resistance rating of structural components and assemblies - directly address issues highlighted in the NIST report. Other changes are still being studied. But my point is that, while Tom is 100% correct about individuals not speaking up and signing petitions, creating groups, etc. regarding their acceptance of the NIST report, there's context here that someone who hasn't studied 9/11 might be missing, and that's that their professional bodies have indeed sounded off on the issue. And they unquestioningly accept NISTs findings. The ICC modifications to code prove that. And buildings built to codes developed with that knowledge, like the Beijing Mandarin (which by the way burnt down back in February), are further proof.

The bottom line is that there is indeed widespread acceptance of the NIST report. And it's not just rhetorical, it's actually practical acceptance.

The NIST report is established knowledge. Only a select number of conspiracy addicts think there's no acceptance of NIST's findings. The ICC alone has 338 chapters, and if you presume a mere 3 members per chapter, that exceeds the number of engineering and architectural professionals who've signed AE911T's petition right there by itself. And the ICC has definitively spoken up in favor of the report by approving code changes and accepting further modifications based on that report.

On top of that, any numbers argument ignores the fact that it doesn't matter how many professionals state sympathy to conspiratorial fantasies; when the fantasies themselves are disproven, a million people can sign a million petitions, and they'd still be all wrong. The failure of the conspiracy fantasy doesn't lay in who believes and who doesn't believe in it, it lies in the failure to actually be supported by the evidence and reflect what happened on that day.

The knowledge in the NIST report has already been used to modify codes, and further modifications are in the queue for the ICC. No engineers involved with that have indicated anything other than acceptance of the NIST findings. People can criticize NIST's report all they want - and if it's legitimate, it will be heard - but you conspiracy peddlers cannot make the argument professionals do not accept the findings. They have, and the one's who count have demonstrated their acceptance by putting that knowledge to use.
 
Ok folks...I'm sure you know the drill by now, everyone...all together: "It is attack the argument and not the arguer" (ie. Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement). Let's stop the bickering and address the OP...your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Thanks, most OCTist posts are completely off topic - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - but now and then somebody tries to find errors in my papers about it, so I reply. In all cases they have not studied the problem properly.

Worse, nobody seems to be in a position to show that one-way crush downs by gravity are in fact possible. That would really stop the lively and friendly discussion ... so let's await this magic moment.
 
I'm flattered that you went to so much trouble T. Some of the links in those pages might be interesting. We are not so interested on 'papers based on the NIST reports' for obvious reasons. How may papers do you have that are full independent analyses of the collapses themselves ?

I hope there is enough room left on this page. lol


All linked to sources via http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist,femareports,911structuralengineerin




Alternate Collapse Hypotheses
Investigations leading to alternate tower collapse hypotheses, and critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists: FEMA/ASCE, Arup Fire, University of Edinburgh, Usmani, Torero, Lane, Cherepanov, Quintiere, Corbett, Mackey, Greening


Journal and Conference Papers
Peer-reviewed papers and conference papers about the WTC impacts, fires, and collapses


WTC collapse papers with Zdenek Bazant as lead author

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008). Refutation of controlled demolition theory. Discusses matching of video record with progressive collapse equations, "free-fall" claims, concrete crushing (and how much TNT equivalent would be needed to do that crushing), air pressure & ejection of air, spread of dust cloud.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319

Excerpt (applies to link above and below): The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m).

Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski. Closing comments from Bazant to Gourley (after detailed rebuttal to his claims):

Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.


Other explanations of the tower collapses

November, 2007: Structural Engineer Keith Seffen's mathematical model of WTC tower progressive collapse (PDF. Due to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 134, No. 2, February 2008)
BBC News article about Seffen's paper

Dr. Frank Greening's papers on the Collapses, Energy Transfer, "Tipping," Concrete Pulverization (PDFs)

Physicist Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch articles on the physics of the WTC collapses Pt.1– Pt.2– Pt.3

Why didn't the towers, or the upper portions of them, topple over?

Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II
Eduardo Kausel (MIT): Why the Towers didn't fall like trees
Frank Greening: An analysis of the tipping of the upper section of WTC 2 (PDF)
A simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side.
Physicist Dave Rogers on tipping of tower tops.
Structural engineer "Newton's Bit" on "tipping"


Explanations of NIST's Investigation Methods
See also: Investigations leading to alternate collapse hypotheses.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster: FAQ (2002: Goals & Methods)

Ryan Mackey on how the NIST investigation works, and on "Scholars" critics
Ryan Mackey on NIST's degree of certainty, bounding cases, comparisons to other studies
Ryan Mackey on NIST altering model inputs
Ryan Mackey on NIST recovered steel and fire models
JREF Ktesibios on NIST workstation actual tests
JREF RWGuinn on testing models to failure
Ryan Mackey on NIST fuel load estimates
Physicist Dave Rogers on scaling issues with physical models of large structures


NIST's Recommendations, and the Architectural and Engineering Community's Response

NIST summary of WTC 1 & 2 investigation results & recommendations (PDF)

The AIA's Response to NIST's Draft Report and Recommendations (PDF)

The World Trade Center Collapse and its Implications for International Standards – W. Gene Corley ISO Focus, January 2004 (PDF)

"Reexamining Premises for High-Rise Design" Security Management magazine (PDF)
In this article from Security Management magazine, Dr. Gene Corley discusses lessons from the World Trade Center investigation and how they might affect future building design.

NIBS Building Code Experts: Translating WTC Recommendations into Model Building Codes

First Comprehensive Set of Model Code Changes Adopted Based on Recommendations from Commerce’s NIST World Trade Center Investigation (June, 2007)


Twin Towers' Structural Engineers on the Record

Excellent New Yorker Profile of WTC chief engineer Leslie Robertson, early speculation about collapses, many quotes from engineers, info about skyscraper design

Leslie Robertson on WTC steel core

No Tower Can Withstand Attack As Jets Get Bigger, Expert Says (Les Robertson $ NYT March 14, 2002)

"Reflections on the World Trade Center" (Robertson. PDF)

Jon Magnusson of Skilling Ward, helped design towers: "Engineers couldn't have known"



Gene Corley on FEMA/ASCE investigation lessons

"What We Learned: Building Performance Study of the WTC Collapse" (PDF) Outlines preliminary lessons learned in the FEMA/ASCE investigation of the NY World Trade Center collapse.

"Corley, ASCE Take Part in House Hearing" (PDF) On March 6, CTLGroup senior vice president Dr. Gene Corley testified before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. Dr. Corley was one of several members of the ASCE structural investigation team who were asked to discuss the performance of the World Trade Center in the September 11th attacks, and its implications for future building design. An article on the hearing from ASCE News.

"Looking Back on 9/11" (PDF) In this interview, Dr. Gene Corley discusses engineers' roles in the World Trade Center Building Performance Study


Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's WTC collapse investigations

Tower Wreckage Reveals Clues – Astaneh – Jersey City Scrap Yards (later, some of these conclusions proved wrong)

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl WTC Collapse, Field Investigations, and Analysis (Dec. 2003)

Now, as the five-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attack draws near, Astaneh-Asl finally expects to have the results of his analysis published in an academic journal. The project, requiring thousands of hours to complete, was self-funded and conducted by Astaneh-Asl, his students, and analysts from the MSC.Software Corporation, which donated the structural analysis software (MD Nastran and Dytran). Did the Building Do it? (Astaneh Study)

Testimony of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Before the House Committee on Science, March, 2002



Investigations involving extensive computer modeling of the towers

April, 2007: Purdue University analysis of WTC 1 collapse using LS-Dyna**More on the Purdue WTC study

"Did the Building Do It?" (Article about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl/Cal FEA study, Sept, 2006)
Now, as the five-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attack draws near, Astaneh-Asl finally expects to have the results of his analysis published in an academic journal. The project, requiring thousands of hours to complete, was self-funded and conducted by Astaneh-Asl, his students, and analysts from the MSC.Software Corporation, which donated the structural analysis software (MD Nastran and Dytran).

NIST's SAP reference models of WTC 1&2, obtained through FOIA request

LU Xinzheng & JIANG Jianjing Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Protection of Structures Against Hazards, Nov. 2002. 57~60

Weidlinger Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures (Matthys Levy). 10/25/02
The engineering team is comprised of: Weidlinger Associates Inc., led by Matthys Levy and Najib Abboud; LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, led by Daniel Cuoco and Gary Panariello; ARUPFire, led by Richard Custer; Hughes Associates Inc., led by Craig Beyler; SafirRosetti, led by Howard Safir; Hillman Environmental Group, led by Christopher Hillmann and John B. Glass Jr.; RWDI, led by Peter Irwin; Dr. W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp., led by Gary Freed and Alan Treibitz.

Weidlinger Study – Column failures

Weidlinger study refutes FEMA. Collapse inevitable due to structural damage and fires, not to WTC design defects. (NYT Oct 22, 2002)

First Tower to Fall Was hit at Higher Speed, Study Finds (NYT February 23, 2002)

Silverstein Sending Tower Data to U.S. Agency (NIST/Weidlinger/Insurance Agencies NYT Oct 1, 2002)
Even though the exterior columns all looked identical, both the grade and thickness of their steel varied from place to place, said Dr. Fahim Sadek, a researcher at the institute's building and fire research lab, who is producing a detailed structural model of the towers on a computer using the original blueprints. So there were actually more than 130 different column types, he said, each having to be accounted for in his model. From there, it gets only more intricate. One of Dr. Sadek's detailed models for a single floor -- the 96th floor of the north tower, considered typical -- contains 40,000 separate elements. A coarser representation of the entire tower contains 90,000 elements.

Swiss Re/Exponent Failure Analysis Associates WTC engineering study, Oct. 2002 (Complete copies of the FaAA study are available at Swiss Re by calling 212-317-5663.)

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3161860#post3161860

Applied Reseach Associates NIST World Trade Center Investigations

Aircraft Impact Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers (Univ. of Tsukuba)

Jay Windley's (Jay Utah of BAUT forum) excellent explanation of Finite Element Analysis

Structure Magazine: Computer Modeling of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (March, 2007)

CAD Digest article with CAD graphics (September, 2001) G. Charles Clifton

NIST's SAP reference models of WTC 1&2, obtained through FOIA request



More on WTC engineering, articles by and about engineers
who worked on the buildings and on the investigations

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO – NCSEA (August Domel, Nov. 2001)

The Days After, the Days Ahead: Civil engineers respond to 9/11 Attacks (Civil Engineering, Nov. 2001)

Structural engineers first in the aftermath

Civil Engineering Magazine: Dissecting the Collapses

Articles in the National Academy of Engineering's "The Bridge" Spring, 2002 (PDF):

* Editorial: Engineering and Homeland Defense by George Bugliarello
* World Trade Center “Bathtub”: From Genesis to Armageddon by George J. Tamaro The engineer who oversaw the construction of the World Trade Center “bathtub” describes the recovery efforts.
* A 911 Call to the Engineering Profession by Robert Prieto The events of September 11 challenged the future of our heavily engineered environment and the future of the engineering profession.

Early Structural Investigation Teams (through 5/02)

ASCE WTC Disaster Response Team

Engineer Tim Schenck on early GZ work

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) The World Trade Center Terrorist Attack: Damage to Critical Facilities and Crisis Response

Georgia Tech Engineering Team Will Conduct Post-Disaster Assessment at World Trade Center Attack Site

Architecture Week: Engineers Explain Collapses (5/2002)

Towers Lost and Beyond: 8 Articles by MIT researchers 2001-2002.

Civil Engineer: WTC & Pentagon Links Portal

Blog: Civil & structural engineers on WTC collapse

Forum on Technical Implications of WTC Collapses (Columbia U., November, 2001)

MIT Masters Thesis: WTC Disaster Analysis & Recommendations (June, 2005)

Designing tall buildings to Resist Earthquakes ($ NYT 2002)

Institute of Structural Engineers: Safety in tall buildings and other buildings of large occupancy ($ 2002)

9/17/01 Inferno Heat, Not Impact, Brought Down Towers, Experts Say

9/19/01: Space.com "Gravity Helped Destroy Twin Towers" concrete too heavy for core construction, walls seen buckling, seismic data

December, 2007: JOM: The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the Twin Tower Collapses



Others write about sensibly about the collapses

JREF Nobby Nobbs: Some basics on the physics of the collapses
Bautforum: Jay Utah's excellent explanation of Finite Element Analysis
JREF R. Mackey on Gordon Ross / Frank Greening debate
JREF R.Mackey on freefall and energy available for deformation
JREF R. Mackey on Judy Wood's "Math"
JREF Arkan on tower collapse times
JREF Myriad on kinetic energy of initial collapses
JREF rwguinn on structural steel deformation
JREF Dr. Adequate on Steven Jones' "handwaving" argument.
Physics kinetic energy Moscatelli The destructive forces unleashed
Steven Jones to Jim Fetzer: grand piano speed, damage to bathtub Judy Wood
JREF Kookbreaker on pancake collapse history
Ryan Mackey on independent validations of the NIST report.
Roberts: Were the towers as strong as they were designed to be?
JREF rwguinn: The engineers in my office thought the towers would collapse



More about the NIST & FEMA investigations

In Collapsing Towers, a Cascade of Failures ($ NYT Nov. 11, 2001)

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall (NYT Glanz, steel removal, Dec 25, 2001)

NIST to take over collapse investigation ($ NYT January 17, 2002)

Critique of FEMA WTC report by Ed Schulte in Plumbing Engineer, July, 2005 (PDF)

Learning from 9/11 (March, 2002) Hearing before the House Committee on Science: ASCE/FEMA BPAT study

Mismanagement Muddled Collapse Inquiry, House Panel Says (FEMA/NYC gov't/Fed gov't. $ NYT March 7, 2002)

At one point, Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat from New York City, asked for the official in charge to raise his hand, and two men, and then three appeared to do so. ''We have very serious problems here,'' added Representative John B. Larson, a Connecticut Democrat.

The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell.

The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating.

'The delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team's ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings,'' said Dr. W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer leading the investigative committee organized by FEMA.

A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry.

The federal officials who testified yesterday -- Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Robert F. Shea, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Insurance and Mitigation Administration -- repeatedly nodded their agreement.

In response to criticism from one committee member, Mr. Shea said, ''Frankly, I agree with you. There are many things in hindsight we would have done differently.''

The problem, they said, was the lack of clear authority in federal law and financing. None of the investigators, for example, had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints.


Government Orders Inquiry Into Trade Center Collapse ($ NYT March 23, 2002)

The Trade Center; Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says (FEMA. $ NYT March 29, 2002)

Interviews will examine why trade center collapsed -100,000 workers issued security passes

Wider Inquiry Into Towers Is Proposed ($ NYT May 2, 2002)

"In Data Trove, a Graphic Look at Towers' Fall, ($ NYT October 29, 2002)

Twin Tower Collapse Theory Challenged (Feb. 2003)

NIST Minutes of December 2-3, 2003, Meeting

New Evidence Is Reported That Floors Failed on 9/11 ($ NYT Dec. 3, 2003)
S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, ''We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging -- or that had been damaged -- prior to collapse.'' Still, Dr. Sunder said, ''The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse.''

NIST Not Ruling Anything Out on WTC Probe

Reliving 9/11, With Fire as Teacher (Modeling. $ NYT, Jan. 6, 2004)

NIST Public Briefing 05/05/04

Fire Testing Is Questioned In Findings On Towers (Current testing standards for new buildings inadequate. $ NYT August 26, 2004)


WTC Twin Tower Construction Details Pertinent to Engineering Investigations
See also WTC Construction, Systems, Power and WTC Core Construction

Gregory Urich: Detailed Estimate of Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower (pdf)
WTC 1 & 2 core column data
Report of WTC fire code compliance--1993 (pdf)


Truther Claim: the term "Progressive Collapse" is a new one and describes a phenomenon rarely or never seen before 9/11.
Jim Hoffman, whom many truthers describe as one of their best researchers:

You've heard that the Twin Towers pancaked, crushing themselves completely. The experts gave us a fancy-sounding term for this: progressive collapse. If you search with the phrase "progressive collapse" you will find numerous articles, most of them written since 9/11/01 about things like assessing and retrofitting existing structures against progressive collapse. It seems that the only examples of progressive collapse of buildings cited are the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

A few examples of reality:

"As the hon. Gentleman will know, I accepted the tribunal's recommendations in respect of gas which show that once buildings are strengthened against the possibility of progressive collapse there is no reason why gas should not be used..." –Ronan Point Flats (Report), November, 1968

"New safeguards against the progressive collapse of tall buildings..." –"New Safety Law for Buildings," The Times (London), February 6, 1970

"The engineering term 'progressive collapse' – a potential calamity in high-rise structures – carries a sad double meaning throughout the evening." –'Benefactors' by Frayn, The New York Times, December 23, 1985

'It was a progressive collapse,'' Mr. Cohen said. ''What touched it off, we don't know.'' –"Collapse Inquiry Studies Bracing for New Column," The New York Times, May 1, 1987.


Some Progressive Collapse Studies & Recommendations
Thanks to JREF forum member cmcaulif for his contributions

Progressive Collapse Basics (R. Shankar Nair. 2004 North American Steel Construction Conference. PDF)

Fire Induced Progressive Collapse. (Arup. PDF) "This paper considers issues related to fire induced progressive collapse of tall buildings in extreme events."

Fire induced progressive collapse analysis of high rise buildings

NISTIR 7396 "Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings," February 2007

Above report based on NIST/SEI workshops. Workshop presentation materials are here.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl: Progressive collapse prevention in new and existing buildings (Includes use of catenary action of cables to resist collapse. 2003. pdf).

Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 336-348 (November 2006)

Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 79-85 (May 2004)

Progressive Collapse of Structures: Annotated Bibliography and Comparison of Codes and Standards
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 418-425 (November 2006)

Cheol-Ho Lee, Seonwoong Kim, Kyu-Hong Han, Kyungkoo Lee 2009. "Simplified nonlinear progressive collapse analysis of welded steel moment frames"
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1130-1137

Feng Fu, "Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method" Journal of Constructional Steel Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 March 2009

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact" Engineering Structures, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 12 March 2009
Abstract excerpt: "The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by means of a case study, which considers the impact response of a floor plate within a typical multi-storey steel-framed composite building. ...The application study illustrates the extremely onerous conditions imposed on the impacted floor resulting in an increased vulnerability to progressive collapse for structures of this type."

B.A. Izzuddin, A.G. Vlassis, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — Part I: Simplified assessment framework" Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1308-1318

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—Part II: Application" Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1424-1438

Santiago Pujol, J. Paul Smith-Pardo 2009. "A new perspective on the effects of abrupt column removal" Engineering Structures, Volume 31, Issue 4, 869-874

Hyun-Su Kim, Jinkoo Kim, Da-Woon An, "Development of integrated system for progressive collapse analysis of building structures considering dynamic effects" Advances in Engineering Software, Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1-8

Jinkoo Kim, Taewan Kim, "Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames" Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 65, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 169-179

Jeom Kee Paik, Bong Ju Kim, "Progressive collapse analysis of thin-walled box columns" Thin-Walled Structures, Volume 46, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 541-550

Some Engineering & physics fundamentals & calculation aids

Efunda: Engineering Fundamentals
Online scientific calculator and unit converter
Shear Force And Bending diagrams 1
Ductile fracture and fragmentation in the reconstruction of the World Trade Center Attack (Wierzbicki)
Elastic Bending Theory
JREF: PixyMIsa on truther misuse of the term "entropy"
JREF Structural Engineer Newtons Bit on DCR/dead/live loads/safety factor
Steel: Ultimate strength vs. yield strength (strength is in the geometry)
A demonstration of kinetic energy: 7 grams of plastic vs. cast aluminum block

Main 9/11 Links Page
 
Yeah, bill. I didn't think you'd take the bet.

"Do it for the truth..."??

Would that be "the truth" as the rest of us understand the term?
Or "the bill smith truth"?

Because those are two very different concepts. Some folks, less familiar with you than I am, might be, uh, shocked at how divergent those two concepts really are, bill.

Let's provide a couple of reference points, shall we?

The Truth | The "Bill Smith Truth"
| (Source)
Explosive charges make noise. | Demolition companies have access to "silent explosives"
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post22695 )
Two 100 ton, 500 mph planes crashed thru the external walls of two Towers. | Molecular field disruptors were used
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040 )
The Dept of Homeland Security is a typical bloated bureaucratic response to a major disaster. | DHS has built and manned about 200 concentration camps around the country, capable of holding 25 million American dissidents, complete with NAZI-style cattle cars with iron shackles to transport them.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13890 )
NIST released its WTC7 report, and it has been accepted by the engineering community. | The NIST's WTC7 report has been completely disproven by ae911t "scientists" and 'is dead'.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post31965 )
The Bush administration, respecting American political tradition, will peacefully pass on power to the freely elected Obama administration. | The Bush administration would, without doubt, engineer a "false flag terrorist action", declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post14464 )
A bunch of terrorists attacked the US. | The Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then blew the whistle on themselves (...?!..?!) to instill PTSD on the American public to make them more malleable to mind control.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post12347 )
And my personal favorite: . |
Fires raged thru the Towers and WTC7 | Conspirators placed giant smoke generators in the buildings to simulate fires.
| ( http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13846 )
Sure, bill. You've got TONS of credibility to be telling anyone to post anything "for the truth"...

OMG that had me dying....classic...

:lolsign:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom