Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[alienentity]

There is no basis for the ends of buckling columns to move out of vertical alignment while buckling due to a vertical load.

That's just silly. This argument has already been falsified by many others, such as Oystein who kindly calculated some of the offsets.

You can't just handwave this away. It's too late, because we've moved beyond your initial denials.

 

[Gamolon]

A couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer/address.

For the north tower, what caused the sudden lean of the antenna during the collapse? It was dropping almost straight down then all of a sudden fell sideways.

Also for the north tower, in certain videos, it looks like the "upper block" is getting ripped apart from bottom (the point where the bottom of the "block" starts to move downward) to top (roof line). It seems the top of the "bottom block" stays intact for a short time seconds, giving the illusion that the "upper block" compresses. Then all hell breaks loose. Is this indeed some type of "optical illusion" or does this really happen?

 

[Oystein]

A couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer/address.

For the north tower, what caused the sudden lean of the antenna during the collapse? It was dropping almost straight down then all of a sudden fell sideways.

Also for the north tower, in certain videos, it looks like the "upper block" is getting ripped apart from bottom (the point where the bottom of the "block" starts to move downward) to top (roof line). It seems the top of the "bottom block" stays intact for a short time seconds, giving the illusion that the "upper block" compresses. Then all hell breaks loose. Is this indeed some type of "optical illusion" or does this really happen?

This is slightly off-topic, but I think actually a good question for Major_Tom. At least the "what did really happen" part, less so the question of causes. Try to ask him nicely. Shall be interesting to see what happens?

(Prediction: Some distanced, impersonal reply with lots of data; some regulars here shooting randomly in a knee-jerk reeaction; some arrogant condescending replies from M_T basically to the effect that we are all worthless scum)

 

[alienentity]

(Prediction: Some distanced, impersonal reply with lots of data; some regulars here shooting randomly in a knee-jerk reeaction; some arrogant condescending replies from M_T basically to the effect that we are all worthless scum)

 

[000063]

I am not a professional at all in this or any vaguely related field, and have no relevant education beyond having been pretty good (if I may brag: having excelled) at high school physics and math, some 25+ years ago!

And yet I find it easy to school this "engineer" and spot his many many grave and amazing errors!

Seconded.

 

[ozeco41]

A couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer/address.

For the north tower, what caused the sudden lean of the antenna during the collapse? It was dropping almost straight down then all of a sudden fell sideways.

Also for the north tower, in certain videos, it looks like the "upper block" is getting ripped apart from bottom (the point where the bottom of the "block" starts to move downward) to top (roof line). It seems the top of the "bottom block" stays intact for a short time seconds, giving the illusion that the "upper block" compresses. Then all hell breaks loose. Is this indeed some type of "optical illusion" or does this really happen?

This is slightly off-topic, but I think actually a good question for Major_Tom. At least the "what did really happen" part, less so the question of causes.....

Agreed. Major_Tom is very good at researching this sort of technical question. I think he already has the answers available. However be warned.

One of the points where I disagree with him is that he claims that initiation of collapse was started by core column failure NOT perimeter column failure as posited by NIST.

He may well be right but me and numerous others have asked "So what?" - why does it matter if NIST was wrong on a detail - does it matter? and to whom does it matter?

Several members having stated that unless it changes "The towers fell as a result of aircraft damage and unfought fires" they are not interested. And their's is a legitimate viewpoint IMO. BUT M_T can also be interested in details for his own reasons. Also legit. What is wrong is M_T insisting that everyone must agree with his viewpoint plus some other illogical ways he supports his claims.

Bottom line is that M_T refuses to address the issues of when a detail is relevant and when a detail is significant.

So his technical research can be very good. What he does with it is usually highly sus.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The towers were designed to support their weight with a much larger factor of safety than any of the Verinage demolitioned buildings.

Do you actually know that, or are you just making things up? If the former, please post the factors of safety of all buildings demolished by verinage, with sources.

Dave

 

[Illuminist14]

A couple of questions for anyone who cares to answer/address.

For the north tower, what caused the sudden lean of the antenna during the collapse? It was dropping almost straight down then all of a sudden fell sideways.

Also for the north tower, in certain videos, it looks like the "upper block" is getting ripped apart from bottom (the point where the bottom of the "block" starts to move downward) to top (roof line). It seems the top of the "bottom block" stays intact for a short time seconds, giving the illusion that the "upper block" compresses. Then all hell breaks loose. Is this indeed some type of "optical illusion" or does this really happen?

Hi gamolon,

I'm also curious about that, not sure why the antenna did that. If I was to guess I'd say the core did fail causing the cetre of the roof to descend, also it looks as if there is an internal collapse if you like before the perimeter columns peel away, but that's the danger of looking at the bottom section as a solid block (not you just some) as it makes it look like the top section is being compressed due to contact with the lower section...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you actually know that, or are you just making things up? If the former, please post the factors of safety of all buildings demolished by verinage, with sources.

Dave

Most buildings have a 1.67 to 2.00 factor of safety against vertical collapse, and based on a look at their construction the Verinage demolished buildings fit the average building construction criteria.

You know it would be somewhat impossible to get sources for this information. However, one can draw a conclusion based on averages and classic construction, so your attempt to subvert my point by disingenuously asking for sources is meaningless.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The deceleration present in the Verinage demolitions clearly show that the most explanatory solution to the lack of deceleration problem for WTC 1 is that the structural integrity was largely removed lower in the building before the falling upper section arrived, and the insidious responses I have seen here trying to walk around this problem have been mind numblingly ridiculous.

One can only laugh at the attempts, which are essentially

1. "everything was chaotic and we can never know"

2. "there were mini-jolts and even though they don't provide the necessary amplification and don't occur when impacts would be expected they are still there, honest"

3. "there was 3 to 4 inches of lateral movement of the building"

4. "the columns couldn't possibly be aligned because, well just because"

 

[Oystein]

Most buildings have a 1.67 to 2.00 factor of safety against vertical collapse, and based on a look at their construction the Verinage demolished buildings fit the average building construction criteria.

You know it would be somewhat impossible to get sources for this information. However, one can draw a conclusion based on averages and classic construction, so your attempt to subvert my point by disingenuously asking for sources is meaningless.

Hm ok. Could you give us an example of a Verinage'd building, and how you determined, from looking at it, that it "fit the average building construction criteria"? Or perhaps you could refer us to your extensive professional experience in making such judgement calls on building structures? Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

... the attempts, which are essentially

1. "everything was chaotic and we can never know"

This is false, and ther opposite is true: We have pointed out numerous ways by which you can know whith sufficient precision and detail what happened - both from observation of reality (columns bypassed each other) and from simpler models through application of math.

2. "there were mini-jolts and even though they don't provide the necessary amplification and don't occur when impacts would be expected they are still there, honest"

You flat-out deny that they were there.

3. "there was 3 to 4 inches of lateral movement of the building"

This is not an, or the, argument, why column-on-column impact did not happen and could not happen. It was a fact to counter YOUR false claim that lateral shift would essentially be impossible.

4. "the columns couldn't possibly be aligned because, well just because"

That is gross and blatantly dishonest representation of the many and detailed reasons we provided for you.




You are now so deep in the hole, that I suggest you close the lid and we throw earth upon it. Better to then let grass grow over the grave your 9/11 ideas and never be reminded again of this sad and sorry episode in your life. I hope you haven't suffered professionally yet from being exposed publicly as the bizarrely incompetent and dishonest "engineer" that you are.

 

[femr2]

The deceleration present in the Verinage demolitions clearly show that the most explanatory solution to the lack of deceleration problem for WTC 1 is that the structural integrity was largely removed lower in the building before the falling upper section arrived, and the insidious responses I have seen here trying to walk around this problem have been mind numblingly ridiculous.

You have already affirmed the ROOSD process, the salient point in this context being that floor impacts ARE occurring...they are simply within the perimeter...

As you can see with correct interpretation of that simple photo (and all the ROOSD research you're aware of) the primary "crush front" is many storeys ahead of trailing permeter destruction. Such a process began at the earliest moments of descent.

Direct comparison to verinage, where any "perimeter" has been removed prior to initiation...is simply erronious.

One can only laugh at the attempts

One could instead start addressing the very valid issues you've been presented, rather than simply pretending they don't exist. Not funny in the slightest.

which are essentially

Only in the seemingly impenetrable see no issues, hear no issues, speak no issues world you've locked yourself into Tony.

1. "everything was chaotic and we can never know"

Who said that ?

2. "there were mini-jolts

Correct.

and even though they don't provide the necessary amplification

Virtual nonsense. Descent would have been at "freefall" if there were no impacts occuring. What do you think slowed descent of the NW corner ?

and don't occur when impacts would be expected

Says who ? Lesser "jolts" at ~2ft, ~8ft and ~17ft.

they are still there, honest"

Don't be childish. You have trace data from which the velocity profile was derived.

3. "there was 3 to 4 inches of lateral movement of the building"

Which there does appear to be.

4. "the columns couldn't possibly be aligned

Correct.

because, well just because"

Numerous folk have told you many reasons why axial column-column impacts are not possible...all of which you simply ignore.

It really doesn't matter that you hand-wave away valid criticism, ingore valid criticism and demean yourself on a regular basis.

Your unwillingness to address problems with the "missing jolt" premise simply trashes your integrity.

Cherry-picking simply trashes your honesty, or lack thereof.


You know there was tilt.


Step 1: Recalculate with 1 degree tilt, resulting in a series of separate impacts over a period of 200msec. Minimum number of "impacts"...58 (perimeter) + 8 (core rows) + 3 (OOS regions). 69 minimum.

Each of the 69 separate (virtual) impacts should occur from South to North, and an estimation of how each impact would traverse the structure to present at the NW corner.


You know there was tilt.


You really must perform the update Tony.

 

[ozeco41]

...
Numerous folk have told you many reasons why axial column-column impacts are not possible...all of which you simply ignore.

It really doesn't matter that you hand-wave away valid criticism, ignore valid criticism and demean yourself on a regular basis.

Your unwillingness to address problems with the "missing jolt" premise simply trashes your integrity.

Cherry-picking simply trashes your honesty, or lack thereof...

well said sir...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Most buildings have a 1.67 to 2.00 factor of safety against vertical collapse, and based on a look at their construction the Verinage demolished buildings fit the average building construction criteria.

In other words, you eyeballed them and thought they didn't look as strong as the WTC towers, and from that you concluded that they must have lower FoS. Way to derive reliable data, dude.

But I apologise for trying to "subvert your point" by "disingenuously" establishing that it was totally groundless. That sort of thing really shouldn't be allowed on a forum devoted to rational skepticism.

Dave

 

[tsig]

You would be thinking wrong. The towers were designed to support their weight with a much larger factor of safety than any of the Verinage demolitioned buildings.

In other words, pound for pound the twin towers were much stronger.

Tony, the factor of safety was for an intact structure, do you think that the remaining building still had the same FOS as the original?

 

[tsig]

He knows that, which is why he's focusing on the "missing jolt" or whatever. Have you noticed how vague he gets when pressed on certain details he should logically have already?

When you know the answer you give it, when you don't know the answer you try to BS it.

It sometimes works on tests but not so much in engineering.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

I've invited you to provide your explanation as to why the occasional CD fails.

No reply.

I've explained (as have many others) why there were no column ends that could possibly interact after 1 floor of decent.

No reply.

This is exactly how you (fail to) respond when you'd like some issue to simply go away, because you know that you have no response that carries any weight.

Not particularly rigorous of you...

 

[femr2]

the structural integrity was largely removed lower in the building before the falling upper section arrived

Largely ? What does that mean ? A "bit" ? But still no "jolts" given that everything is still going to impact perfectly ?

Oh what a tangled web Tony.


How long is it since you had a look at a to-scale view of the core column dimensions for WTC 1 floors 93-101...

Just the core area. Probably need to zoom in a bit...

(4096x3072 244kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/core23.jpg

Surprisingly "weedy" looking.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Largely ? What does that mean ? A "bit" ? But still no "jolts" given that everything is still going to impact perfectly ?

Oh what a tangled web Tony.


How long is it since you had a look at a to-scale view of the core column dimensions for WTC 1 floors 93-101...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/281617901.png[/qimg]

Just the core area. Probably need to zoom in a bit...

(4096x3072 244kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/core23.jpg

Surprisingly "weedy" looking.

What you and several others here either fail to or do not want to understand is that the buckling columns were part of a connected frame with massive lateral inertia. The part of the frame that would have been buckling, in any natural collapse, wouldn't all of a sudden vanish and the lateral inertia of the building would cause it to fall straight down without an enormous lateral force involved.

Some of you here act like the upper section of the building was re-entering from outer space.

It isn't surprising that all you can do is throw around hyperbole and no actual science to back your claims that the columns would have missed each other.