Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Horatius]

You could use that to develop a differential equation that expresses an increase in energy from the potential energy into strain energy of the column which results in a deflection that you can use to compute the change in potential energy. I hate differential equations.

You and me both. Is there anyone we can trick into doing this work for us?

That's why I was hoping someone had already done a study on rates of failures. Doing this sort of work is professional-level structure and failure engineering, which I'm not really qualified for. I'm good enough to interpret things for a lay audience, but doing the heavy lifting with the DiffEqs is beyond me at this point.

Of course if the Strain energy (FS) of a particular column becomes less than the force of gravity acting on it then it will tend to distort. If the strain energy becomes catastrophically low then the lower column will fail altogether.

I have no problem with that. Nobody would have.

Except possibly cmatrix, who seems to think that column failure is ridiculous anti-science nonsense.

But I am happy to watch your attempts tp sketch how all four widely-seperated corners of the building dropped at the same time in addition to all the interior structure barring that which had already fallen in the Penthouse collapse incidents.

Well, the sketch won't be all that fancy. The real question you need to be looking for is that discussed above: what is the expected time difference between the first column failure and the last? If that time is sufficiently short, we would not expect to be able to distinguish the two events based solely on a commercial video. By "sufficiently short", I mean on the time scale of a few video frames shot at a rate of 24 or 30 frames per second, depending on the video used. Exactly how many frames would need to be calculated - how much drop would one section be expected to show prior to the other sections beginning to drop, and would that drop show up at the range the camera was at, or would several frames in a row be essentially the same, based on the available resolution of the camera?

So bill, feel free to try to scare up an expert who can answer that rate question for us. You do realize that if an honest analysis of this question leads to an answer significantly greater than the time I mentioned above, that would actually be useful evidence to support your "inside job" hypothesis, right?

By the way how long were the column sections ? From your drawing (8 floors,8 column-sections) it looks like 12 feet or so. Is that correct ?

There you go, acting as if my admittedly limited artistic skills should be taken as some accurate reflection of the actual structure of a real building. I'm illustrating concepts here, not doing draftsmanship.

I chose 8 sections since it let me draw the column very easily, while still being small enough to render a smooth curve somewhat believably. Smaller segments would have made a smoother curve, but then you'd be whining about floors that were 4 feet high. Longer segments wouldn't show a curve, they'd just show a kink.

 

[bill smith]

You and me both. Is there anyone we can trick into doing this work for us?

That's why I was hoping someone had already done a study on rates of failures. Doing this sort of work is professional-level structure and failure engineering, which I'm not really qualified for. I'm good enough to interpret things for a lay audience, but doing the heavy lifting with the DiffEqs is beyond me at this point.








Except possibly cmatrix, who seems to think that column failure is ridiculous anti-science nonsense.






Well, the sketch won't be all that fancy. The real question you need to be looking for is that discussed above: what is the expected time difference between the first column failure and the last? If that time is sufficiently short, we would not expect to be able to distinguish the two events based solely on a commercial video. By "sufficiently short", I mean on the time scale of a few video frames shot at a rate of 24 or 30 frames per second, depending on the video used. Exactly how many frames would need to be calculated - how much drop would one section be expected to show prior to the other sections beginning to drop, and would that drop show up at the range the camera was at, or would several frames in a row be essentially the same, based on the available resolution of the camera?

So bill, feel free to try to scare up an expert who can answer that rate question for us. You do realize that if an honest analysis of this question leads to an answer significantly greater than the time I mentioned above, that would actually be useful evidence to support your "inside job" hypothesis, right?








There you go, acting as if my admittedly limited artistic skills should be taken as some accurate reflection of the actual structure of a real building. I'm illustrating concepts here, not doing draftsmanship.

I chose 8 sections since it let me draw the column very easily, while still being small enough to render a smooth curve somewhat believably. Smaller segments would have made a smoother curve, but then you'd be whining about floors that were 4 feet high. Longer segments wouldn't show a curve, they'd just show a kink.

Why don't you write a disclaimer right now for your misrepresentation of the column lengths ? And show how things would look over the eight floors with say- three column lengths in place of eight ?

Remember that any internal collapse negan at column 79. Even in the doubtful debunker scenario of the rest of the massive internal structure collapsing it would ripple out from 79 which was way off centre. This of course would cause one side to go down noticably before the other. An asymmetric collapse.

The fires did not burn evenly....also an indicator for an asymmetric collapse.

But the corner columns dropped simultaneously....SYMMETRICAL collapse. Inside Job, end of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MGdWNYLGc&feature=player_embedded#! WTC7 Learning Loop

There is one consolation though Horatius...

While Eagles may soar, weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Challenge

Hi, I challenge Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkin to an arm wrestling match. The winner gets a Noble prize. Bet the chickens don't even answer.

 

[cmatrix]

Firstly, "simultaneously floor by floor" is an oxymoron, so of course that's not the answer. Secondly, you're ignoring the possibility that a single buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight storeys above the bottom hinge - quite a simple occurrence given that the interior had collapsed and the perimeter columns were unsupported.

So, now that you've been told the third possibility, would you like to think about it a bit more?

Dave

No "simultaneously floor by floor" is not an oxymoron, JREF skeptic is. "simultaneously floor by floor" means all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on each floor within a fraction of a second of each other. They buckled simultaneously on one floor, then the next etc.

Yes you're right I did ignore the possibility that a single eight story buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight stories above the bottom hinge occurring simultaneously at the same points on all 58 perimeter columns. Mainly because it is so absurd and because there is no photographic evidence whatsoever that would suggest that happened.

 

[uke2se]

No "simultaneously floor by floor" is not an oxymoron, JREF skeptic is. "simultaneously floor by floor" means all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on each floor within a fraction of a second of each other. They buckled simultaneously on one floor, then the next etc.

Yes you're right I did ignore the possibility that a single eight story buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight stories above the bottom hinge occurring simultaneously at the same points on all 58 perimeter columns. Mainly because it is so absurd and because there is no photographic evidence whatsoever that would suggest that happened.

My bold.

Is that the only standard of evidence you accept, cmatrix?

 

[Horatius]

And here we see the truthers willfully ignoring all actual discussion of what might have happened to WTC7, in favour of mindlessly repeating their original claims, without any consideration for any of the points we've made above.

The discussion we've had between Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit and myself is how science and engineering should be done - reasonable people explaining their positions, and being willing to adjust those positions based on more and better information. We've evolved to a point where there is largely agreement on what would likely happen to a single column, and have some idea of what we'd need to do to expand that understanding to a multi-column failure, even if we ourselves don't have the skills and experience needed to extend the work that far. We acknowledge our limitations, and invite others to fill in the gaps.


What do the Truthers do? Nit pick a cartoon because I'm not good enough an artist to draw a curved column that accurately depicts the columns of WTC7, even though an accurate depiction was never my intention. Ignore my suggestions as to how they might contribute to the discussion in a manner that could support their position, and simply re-assert that everything must be "simultaneous", with no effort to explain what that means in real-world terms. Declare our positions "absurd" with no explanation, while admitting they've already decided to ignore those positions.

Oh, and then they call me a weasel, without the modifier "cheese".


And this is why no one but a mediocre comic creator with a degree in physics will bother trying to explain anything to you guys - it's just not worth the effort, when all those efforts will be automatically dismissed as "misrepresentations" and "absurd".

Why don't you write a disclaimer right now for your misrepresentation of the column lengths ? And show how things would look over the eight floors with say- three column lengths in place of eight ?

Remember that any internal collapse negan at column 79. Even in the doubtful debunker scenario of the rest of the massive internal structure collapsing it would ripple out from 79 which was way off centre. This of course would cause one side to go down noticably before the other. An asymmetric collapse.

The fires did not burn evenly....also an indicator for an asymmetric collapse.

But the corner columns dropped simultaneously....SYMMETRICAL collapse. Inside Job, end of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MGdWNYLGc&feature=player_embedded#! WTC7 Learning Loop

There is one consolation though Horatius...

While Eagles may soar, weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

No "simultaneously floor by floor" is not an oxymoron, JREF skeptic is. "simultaneously floor by floor" means all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on each floor within a fraction of a second of each other. They buckled simultaneously on one floor, then the next etc.

Yes you're right I did ignore the possibility that a single eight story buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight stories above the bottom hinge occurring simultaneously at the same points on all 58 perimeter columns. Mainly because it is so absurd and because there is no photographic evidence whatsoever that would suggest that happened.

 

[bill smith]

And here we see the truthers willfully ignoring all actual discussion of what might have happened to WTC7, in favour of mindlessly repeating their original claims, without any consideration for any of the points we've made above.

The discussion we've had between Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit and myself is how science and engineering should be done - reasonable people explaining their positions, and being willing to adjust those positions based on more and better information. We've evolved to a point where there is largely agreement on what would likely happen to a single column, and have some idea of what we'd need to do to expand that understanding to a multi-column failure, even if we ourselves don't have the skills and experience needed to extend the work that far. We acknowledge our limitations, and invite others to fill in the gaps.


What do the Truthers do? Nit pick a cartoon because I'm not good enough an artist to draw a curved column that accurately depicts the columns of WTC7, even though an accurate depiction was never my intention. Ignore my suggestions as to how they might contribute to the discussion in a manner that could support their position, and simply re-assert that everything must be "simultaneous", with no effort to explain what that means in real-world terms. Declare our positions "absurd" with no explanation, while admitting they've already decided to ignore those positions.

Oh, and then they call me a weasel, without the modifier "cheese".


And this is why no one but a mediocre comic creator with a degree in physics will bother trying to explain anything to you guys - it's just not worth the effort, when all those efforts will be automatically dismissed as "misrepresentations" and "absurd".

If you hadn't chosen eight lengths for eight floors I might give some credence to what you say. But as it is the perception was being created of a house of matches as opposed to the Truth, which was a carefully interwoven structure. Strong and stable enough that entire floors could be removed without jeopardising the building.If you like I can post a link quoting the NYT telling just how exceptionally strongly built WTC7 was by comparison to many other structures of similar size.

So if you and your fellow scientists....my God Newton's Bit even let you carry on with the eight column thing and he's an architect or something. You guys can carry on having these kinds of discussions but Readers should beware. Not all that glitters is gold.

 

[Architect]

So if you and your fellow scientists....my God Newton's Bit even let you carry on with the eight column thing and he's an architect or something.

How long have you been posting here???

 

[Horatius]

If you hadn't chosen eight lengths for eight floors I might give some credence to what you say. But as it is the perception was being created of a house of matches as oppsed to the Truth, which was a carefully interwoven srtuctrure. Strong and stable enough that entire floors could be removed without jeapordising the building.If you like I can post a link quoting the NYT telling just how strongly built WTC7 was by comparison to many other structures of similar size.

So if you and your fellow scientists....my God Newton's Bit even let you carry on with the eight column thing and he's an architect or something. You guys can carry on having these kinds of discussions but Readers should beware.

Bolded the bit you're missing out on. Go take a look at how the SG site works. Create one element. Duplicate it. Group those, duplicate it. Rinse and repeat. How many elements will you get?


Now, try to make a nice-looking curved element that is accurate enough no one can nit-pick it. Let me know how long it takes.


And just keep on completely ignoring the actual discussion in favour of artistic criticism. Because we all know it's the art you want to dispute, and not the physics, right?

 

[bill smith]

Bolded the bit you're missing out on. Go take a look at how the SG site works. Create one element. Duplicate it. Group those, duplicate it. Rinse and repeat. How many elements will you get?


Now, try to make a nice-looking curved element that is accurate enough no one can nit-pick it. Let me know how long it takes.


And just keep on completely ignoring the actual discussion in favour of artistic criticism. Because we all know it's the art you want to dispute, and not the physics, right?

Don't be ridiculous Horatius. The artwork was fine, if a little too artful for my taste,But the Physics was rubbish. Answer how the four corners fell simultaneosly or drop the 'progressive collapse' entirely.

You cannot have both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MGdWNYLGc&feature=player_embedded#! wtc7 loop

 

[Horatius]

Don't be ridiculous Horatius. The artwork was fine, if a little too artful for my taste,But the Physics was rubbish. Answer how the four corners fell simultaneosly or drop the 'progressive collapse' entirely.

You cannot have both.

And again bs ignores that we've already addressed what would be needed to address that issue. He'd rather stick with bare assertions like:

This of course would cause one side to go down noticably before the other.

That's the problem right there bs. Why is it "of course" that the the difference would be "noticeable"? I've explicitly asked if anyone has any actual information on the rate at which such a collapse would progress from one column to another. You seem awfully confident of that "of course", but you've completely failed to show why you're that confident.

If you had such a source, you could destroy me utterly with a simple reference. But you instead choose to go with a bare "of course" assertion, with no supporting evidence, reference or analysis. Thus it's clear that this is nothing more than your own preconceived notions, rather than actual facts.

Once again: video rates are usually 24 or 30 fps. If the collapse can proceed from first to last in less than about 1/30 of a second, there will be no evidence of any "asymmetry" in the video record. If it's between 1/30 and, say, 4/30 of a second, we'll have to do some math to figure out if we'd see anything or not. If it's greater than that, chances are we'd expect to see this difference.

You know what you need to do to show I'm wrong bs. That you continue to avoid doing just that shows your fundamental lack of confidence in your own position.

 

[DGM]

No "simultaneously floor by floor" is not an oxymoron, JREF skeptic is. "simultaneously floor by floor" means all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on each floor within a fraction of a second of each other. They buckled simultaneously on one floor, then the next etc.

.

So now your redefining the English language. How exactly is "within a fraction of a second" simultaneously?

Did you study English at the same school you studied physics?

 

[bill smith]

And again bs ignores that we've already addressed what would be needed to address that issue. He'd rather stick with bare assertions like:





That's the problem right there bs. Why is it "of course" that the the difference would be "noticeable"? I've explicitly asked if anyone has any actual information on the rate at which such a collapse would progress from one column to another. You seem awfully confident of that "of course", but you've completely failed to show why you're that confident.

If you had such a source, you could destroy me utterly with a simple reference. But you instead choose to go with a bare "of course" assertion, with no supporting evidence, reference or analysis. Thus it's clear that this is nothing more than your own preconceived notions, rather than actual facts.

Once again: video rates are usually 24 or 30 fps. If the collapse can proceed from first to last in less than about 1/30 of a second, there will be no evidence of any "asymmetry" in the video record. If it's between 1/30 and, say, 4/30 of a second, we'll have to do some math to figure out if we'd see anything or not. If it's greater than that, chances are we'd expect to see this difference.

You know what you need to do to show I'm wrong bs. That you continue to avoid doing just that shows your fundamental lack of confidence in your own position.

I am not concerned with proving anything Horatius. Proof is flatly impossible for any Truth researcher. As you well know the government has all the evidence under lock and key and guards it with their very lives. Metaphorically and probably literally.

So we do our best with strong srguments instead. Like here today. Because in the end it is PERCEPTION that counts. Read my signature..

 

[Horatius]

Proof is flatly impossible for any Truth researcher.

Nice to see you admit it. Sad to see you don't understand why that is.

So we do our best with strong srguments instead. Like here today. Because in the end it is PERCEPTION that counts. Read my signature..

And I knew you'd bring that sig into it eventually. Tell me, do you build your skyscrapers the same way you build your tables? How about your bridges, your space shuttles, your atomic weapons?

Large scale engineering is simply on a different scale than small scale engineering*. That you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent that doesn't change this fact. There's a reason the number of firms that can do large-scale engineering works is dwarfed by the number of firms that can do household construction.









*Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist such a bad joke!

 

[Newtons Bit]

So now your redefining the English language. How exactly is "within a fraction of a second" simultaneously?

Did you study English at the same school you studied physics?

It's not even a fraction of a second. Many columns had "failed" when the penthouse collapsed. It was several seconds after that before the general collapse.

 

[Horatius]

It's not even a fraction of a second. Many columns had "failed" when the penthouse collapsed. It was several seconds after that before the general collapse.

Speaking of sigs people should read, let's quote yours for those who have sigs turned off:

"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

And yet, bs can turn around and say that, "of course" the difference would be noticeable. Because he has a kitchen table. Or something.

 

[tfk]

Of course if the Strain energy (FS) of a particular column becomes less than the force of gravity acting on it then it will tend to distort. If the strain energy becomes catastrophically low then the lower column will fail altogether.

I have no problem with that. Nobody would have.

Typical BullSmith. Unmitigated gibberish.

It is not possible for strain energy to be greater than, equal to or less than the force of gravity.

Just as it's not possible for 3 inches to be less than or greater than 4 pounds. Strain energy & force measure different things & use different units.

The strain energy of a column (loaded below its elastic limit) is given by:
Strain energy = Work = 0.5 x Force x Deflection

Strain energy of a column loaded above its elastic limit is given by:
Strain energy = Work ≈ Max Load x Deflection

Strain energy increases as the load increases and/or as the deflection of the part increases.

Parts do not fail when "strain energy becomes catastrophically low." The strain energy of an unloaded column is approximately zero. (Slightly larger due to the weight of the column itself.)

Parts fail when their strain energy gets too high. (Specifically above their toughness.)

You haven't the slightest clue what you are jabbering about.

As usual...

 

[cmatrix]

So now your redefining the English language. How exactly is "within a fraction of a second" simultaneously?

Did you study English at the same school you studied physics?

It's not me with the problem. "within a fraction of a second" is not simultaneous but I never said it was. Every column has to buckle simultaneously on each floor. This happens on each floor "within a fraction of a second" of each other. Get it now?

 

[Horatius]

It's not me with the problem. "within a fraction of a second" is not simultaneous but I never said it was. Every column has to buckle simultaneously on each floor. This happens on each floor "within a fraction of a second" of each other. Get it now?

So, no substantive discussion of anything anyone has said in the last day or so, then? For someone who claims to want a serious discussion of how WTC7 might have fallen, you do seem to studiously avoid talking to those who actually address this issue.

 

[Disbelief]

It's not me with the problem. "within a fraction of a second" is not simultaneous but I never said it was. Every column has to buckle simultaneously on each floor. This happens on each floor "within a fraction of a second" of each other. Get it now?

Bolding mine
How was this done? Thermite? Explosives?