Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[triforcharity]

But AE it is plainly obvious that the Penthouses were deliberately targetted. Why else would the very strongest column in the building give way first ? Column 79 is said to have weighed around 350 tons in total over the 47 floors. To assume that it would give way before dozens of lighter columns did makes no sense at all.

The only real answer is that they wanted the Penthouses and what was inside them to be hidden under the rubble of the Global collapse. That's probably why there is no aerial photography of the collapse of WTC7 despite the abundance of news helicopters and the fact that they were actually expecting the collapse.

Because, IIRC, column 79 supported the Penthouse, and had more load on it? Yeah, couldn't be that.....

What was inside the Penthouses? Oh yeah, as already stated numerous times, AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT!! FFS!!

Or maybe it was because, you know, by that time, there were no news helicopters in the air. None.

 

[triforcharity]

Semantics. Negligible means too small to be considered. The exterior columns were providing resistance. You persist in ignoring what has been acknowledged by Dr. Sunder:

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . [FONT=&quot]. . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?
[/FONT]

Why do you insist on quoting a draft report, instead of the final report?

 

[CurtC]

The computer graphic clearly shows the exterior columns folding up but still providing resistance well into the period of FFA.

The key question: how much force (resistance) did those folding-up columns provide?

Would it have been enough to make a detectable difference in the rate of acceleration downwards? If you think the answer is "yes," please support your answer with data.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The key question: how much force (resistance) did those folding-up columns provide?

Would it have been enough to make a detectable difference in the rate of acceleration downwards? If you think the answer is "yes," please support your answer with data.

Dr. Bazant provides a figure in his first paper on the WTC collapses which is a classic resistance during buckling chart. It is figure 5 d and e.

The resistance never goes below 25% of the original intact column resistance. So if the exterior columns of WTC 7 had an intact column factor of safety of just 2.00 to 1 and they all buckled naturally, the remaining resistance would have kept the fall to a maximum acceleration of 0.5 g and it would have never gotten anywhere near g.

 

[beachnut]

Dr. Bazant provides a figure in his first paper on the WTC collapses which is a classic resistance during buckling chart. It is figure 5 d and e.

The resistance never goes below 25% of the original intact column resistance. So if the exterior columns of WTC 7 had an intact column factor of safety of just 2.00 to 1 and they all buckled naturally, the remaining resistance would have kept the fall to a maximum acceleration of 0.5 g and it would have never gotten anywhere near g.

Wow! You need to publish your fantastic work!

Tony, publish your work in a real journal and stop wasting your time posting made up engineering here when you can get your real reward by exposing your greatness to the world of reality engineering.

Now is the time! Publish! Take action, save us from your imaginary bad guys who did 911! Help us, save us. Why did you sit on this explosive evidence for over 8 years. You know Bush is not president right? Still worried about Gravy being an agent for a foreign government? What other super revelations can you give us; I smell a smoking gun thread in the works.

 

[GlennB]

Dr. Bazant provides a figure in his first paper on the WTC collapses which is a classic resistance during buckling chart. It is figure 5 d and e.

The resistance never goes below 25% of the original intact column resistance. So if the exterior columns of WTC 7 had an intact column factor of safety of just 2.00 to 1 and they all buckled naturally, the remaining resistance would have kept the fall to a maximum acceleration of 0.5 g and it would have never gotten anywhere near g.

Unless the connections were compromised by an already failing core structure. You forgot that bit. In which case buckling exterior steel columns are not 'buckling' under purely vertical load are they?

 

[ozeco41]

Dr. Bazant provides a figure in his first paper on the WTC collapses which is a classic resistance during buckling chart. It is figure 5 d and e.

The resistance never goes below 25% of the original intact column resistance. So if the exterior columns of WTC 7 had an intact column factor of safety of just 2.00 to 1 and they all buckled naturally, the remaining resistance would have kept the fall to a maximum acceleration of 0.5 g and it would have never gotten anywhere near g.

Unless the connections were compromised by an already failing core structure. You forgot that bit. In which case buckling exterior steel columns are not 'buckling' under purely vertical load are they?

It is actually several grades sillier than that.
He quotes a "classic" example and extracts a figure 25% from that example
THEN neglects to state the conditions which applied to that example;
THEN takes the traditional "truther" two quantum leaps by inference;
AND draws a totally false analogy;

WHILST forgetting that some of us here are engineers and can see right through the rubbish.

LEAVING a question "Is he deliberately dishonest?" OR "Simply incompetent?"

Given the year and a half plus since the publication of that ridiculous paper on missing jolts I am no better placed to answer the question.

 

[pgimeno]

Dr. Bazant provides a figure in his first paper on the WTC collapses which is a classic resistance during buckling chart. It is figure 5 d and e.

The resistance never goes below 25% of the original intact column resistance. So if the exterior columns of WTC 7 had an intact column factor of safety of just 2.00 to 1 and they all buckled naturally, the remaining resistance would have kept the fall to a maximum acceleration of 0.5 g and it would have never gotten anywhere near g.

I have already said this, but it seems Tony has me on ignore.

In the discussion of Fig. 5 (that's appendix III from [Bazant and Zhou 2002] which is the second paper on the subject by Bazant, not the first - the first one didn't include any appendices) Bazant points out:

This curve is an optimistic upper bound since, in reality, the plastic hinges develop fracture (Bažant and Planas 1998), and probably do so already at rather small rotations.
​

(Bažant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis. p.6)

So, to the already stated arguments you can add that Bazant himself doesn't think that the ~25% upper bound he gives (which he explicitly specifies was calculated for the conditions in the towers: "Fig. 5 shows this diagram as estimated for these towers") is realistic at all.

 

[Myriad]

A buckling framework would still provide 25% of its original strength if we disregard the possibility of fracture? So what?

If we disregard the possibility of fracture, it would be impossible to break a thin pane of glass with a sledgehammer.

But what does that have to do with an actual collapse in the real world? In reality buckling members do fracture, and once they do, their "resistance to collapse" becomes precisely zero.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Newtons Bit]

A buckling framework would still provide 25% of its original strength if we disregard the possibility of fracture? So what?

If we disregard the possibility of fracture, it would be impossible to break a thin pane of glass with a sledgehammer.

But what does that have to do with an actual collapse in the real world? In reality buckling members do fracture, and once they do, their "resistance to collapse" becomes precisely zero.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's amazing how hard truthers struggle with the obvious.

Don't forget: the plastic hinges were near the connections and the connections had less capacity than the members. Ergo the connections fail before the column reaches the plastic state.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Do you have another explanation for the instantaneous FFA for 100 feet?

Yeah, it's called Gravity!

 

[bill smith]

A buckling framework would still provide 25% of its original strength if we disregard the possibility of fracture? So what?

If we disregard the possibility of fracture, it would be impossible to break a thin pane of glass with a sledgehammer.

But what does that have to do with an actual collapse in the real world? In reality buckling members do fracture, and once they do, their "resistance to collapse" becomes precisely zero.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad I just wanted to run this past you.

All Truthers believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition- that goes without saying. But if WTC7 as a whole was a controlled demolition then the deliberate early collapsing of the Penthouses into the building had to be smaller controlled demolitions in themselves.

Yet as near as we can tell those smaller demolitions were entirely silent. leading a person to the possibility that the entire demolition was silent just as Shyam Sunder said.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Myriad I just wanted to run this past you.

All Truthers believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition- that goes without saying. But if WTC7 was as a whole was a controlled demolition then the deliberate collapsing of the Penthouses into the building had to be smaller controlled demolitions themselves.

Yet as near as we can tell those smaller demolitions were entirely silent. leading a person to the possibility that the entire demolition was silent just as Shyam Sunder said.

Talk about delusions of granduer!

Conspiracy Theory: World Trade Center 7 was not hit by an airplane, but rather the FDNY, NYPD and Larry Silverstein were involved in a cover-up to blow up the building because the information that it contained was classified and they blew it up to destroy the evidence that was in the computers. And that Larry Silverstein gave the order to destroy WTC7 with explosives.

Despite not having been hit by one of the hijacked passenger planes, WTC7 was not set up with explosives in time for an event such as 9/11. The FDNY, NYPD and Larry Silverstein were not part of any cover up because they are not part of a demolition company that specializes in controlled demolitions. WTC7 did not contain classified information since it was only a building for World Trade. Larry Silverstien was the owner of the WTC complex. Firefighters were quoted as saying: "The building doesn't look right.","See the way this building is leaning? There's no way to stop it (the fire). It's going to come down.". The "controlled demolition theory" holds no water for WTC7. Simply because there's no evidence to support it. The only way to prove that WTC 7 was a demolition is finding primacords or have a witness who photographed a demolition expert holding a remote detenator or the primacords. A remote detenator wouldn't have worked, because they rely on radio frequencies and there's too many radio frequencies that could set off an explosive prematurely. But the 9/11 Truthers can't even hope to find any evidence.

WTC7 wasn't involved in the 9/11 Commission due to the simple fact that it wasn't involved in the terrorist plot. And if they really wanted to destroy documents all they would have to do is burn or shred them in a shredder and wipe out the computers hard drive. Destroying a building because it contains alledged Government documents is ludicrus. WTC7 was hit by debris by WTC1 falling on it, causing a 20 story hole, rupturing fuel lines for the generators and causing uncontrollable fires on mulitple floors. Structural engineers determined that WTC7's structure had been comprimised by the fires that raged inside the building. Firefighters also confirmed that the fires were uncontrollable and left WTC7 to burn out, at 5:20 PM the building collasped under it's own weight due to the fires weakening the steel columns.

Enough said!

 

[twinstead]

Talk about delusions of granduer!



Despite not having been hit by one of the hijacked passenger planes, WTC7 was not set up with explosives in time for an event such as 9/11. The FDNY, NYPD and Larry Silverstein were not part of any cover up because they are not part of a demolition company that specializes in controlled demolitions. WTC7 did not contain classified information since it was only a building for World Trade. Larry Silverstien was the owner of the WTC complex. Firefighters were quoted as saying: "The building doesn't look right.","See the way this building is leaning? There's no way to stop it (the fire). It's going to come down.". The "controlled demolition theory" holds no water for WTC7. Simply because there's no evidence to support it. The only way to prove that WTC 7 was a demolition is finding primacords or have a witness who photographed a demolition expert holding a remote detenator or the primacords. A remote detenator wouldn't have worked, because they rely on radio frequencies and there's too many radio frequencies that could set off an explosive prematurely. But the 9/11 Truthers can't even hope to find any evidence.

WTC7 wasn't involved in the 9/11 Commission due to the simple fact that it wasn't involved in the terrorist plot. And if they really wanted to destroy documents all they would have to do is burn or shred them in a shredder and wipe out the computers hard drive. Destroying a building because it contains alledged Government documents is ludicrus. WTC7 was hit by debris by WTC1 falling on it, causing a 20 story hole, rupturing fuel lines for the generators and causing uncontrollable fires on mulitple floors. Structural engineers determined that WTC7's structure had been comprimised by the fires that raged inside the building. Firefighters also confirmed that the fires were uncontrollable and left WTC7 to burn out, at 5:20 PM the building collasped under it's own weight due to the fires weakening the steel columns.

Enough said!

Booooring. Bill's version is MUCH more sexy and cool!

 

[Christopher7]

The exterior columns were providing resistance.

You have not proved it.

Yes I have. Dr. Sunder said "there was resistance in this case" and the computer model bears this out. The exterior walls were folding up and providing resistance well into the FFA portion of the collapse.

Because you are cherry-picking a quote from before their corrections. The public comments sessions were there for a reason.

The term "cherry picking" is BS. You use it when you have no rebuttal. All statements in all the reports are a matter of public record and may be quoted.

They neglected to account for the buckling of the bottom floors in their first analysis,

That is saying that NIST is incompetent. They had their computer model that showed the buckling which provided resistance as Dr. Sunder said.

He clearly states that the computer model provided resistance. Why do you guys persist in ignoring the facts?

Are you implying that the computer model represents that aspect accurately? What about the rest?

The whole hypothesis is supposition. They tried to get the evidence to fit their predetermined conclusion and they failed. Their computer model does not fall at FFA and it is folding up. They did not let it run and show the whole collapse because the folding up gets more severe.

Note that there is no horizontal collapse in the computer model. This is not even close to what they said happened.
http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

This is what it looks like with the horizontal collapse. The debris damage from WTC 1 did not appreciably effect the collapse.

 

[bill smith]

What I found hilarious was when Shyam Sunder said that the computer visualisation of the collapse of WTC7 shown in the above pictures provided a 'reasonable match' for the observed event itself. lol

Remember that the computer visualisation was telling us what we should have seen with the naked eye.

Considering that the final NIST report on WTC7 is one that depends on the data that provided those nonsense pictures are we obliged just to nod our heads and say that we accept the report ?
Even though they refuse to release the data that they used to program the computer model for independent verification as is the custom and practice in good science.

The reason for that being- as emerged frpom a recent answer to a FOIA request We will not release the data because it might 'jeopardise public safety'.

Haw haw haw.

The only reason that the release of the data might ' jeopardise public safety ' is that there might well be riots...

 

[Christopher7]

Dave Thomas said that in his video.
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

Dave has not responded to this because he knows that it is indefensible.

His assertion that the lower part of the north wall had "already collapsed" leaving the top section hanging from a sky hook as the the lower floors were pulled inward, and then falling at FFA, is absurd and utterly false. The lower portion was intact as is obvious in the computer model.

 

[BigAl]

Dave has not responded to this because he knows that it is indefensible.

His assertion that the lower part of the north wall had "already collapsed" leaving the top section hanging from a sky hook as the the lower floors were pulled inward, and then falling at FFA, is absurd and utterly false. The lower portion was intact as is obvious in the computer model.

Here's an animation of the computer model that shows how WTC7 collapsed due to fire and is consistent with all the evidence and science.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

It shows how the visible short period of near-free fall happened and it answers your fixation on the timing of the collapse of the exterior walls.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7.

Watch the video and tell us why it's wrong, Chris.

 

[alienentity]

Regardless how many times C7 attempts to misrepresent NIST, Sunder et al., the fact remains that in NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:

The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.


And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.'

This is an engineering explanation for the collapse and of course the 2.25 s at virtual free fall acceleration. C7 keeps asking for the answer, receiving it, ignoring or handwaving it away and then claiming nobody has answered.

Well, time to zip it C7. you've had the explanations given to you too many times. If you don't want to learn, that's your problem, not ours, not NIST's.

I'll post again regarding the difference between the simulation and the actual collapse, and relate it to C7's inability or unwillingness to understand and interpret a few simple things...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Booooring. Bill's version is MUCH more sexy and cool!

Yeah, if anyone was on the influence of drugs & smoking cannibus. LOL!