Analysis of WTC collapses by Nemec and Suranova

[BasqueArch]

A little expanded paper was just published in the Journal of Mechanics Engineering and Automation, Volume 2, Number 6. Its online version is available on internet.

........

I wasn't able to find this paper. The last issue I found was Number 4.

Current Issue

Volume 2, Number 4, July 2012

http://www.sapub.org/journal/archive.aspx?journalid=1030

Can you post the link to this paper? You can take out "http" for instance

 

[NoahFence]

What else could it be? E.g. a controlled demolition. But we don’t want to speculate.

A controlled demolition is on the list of things it most certainly couldn't be.

 

[Micromegas]

No structure is completely isolated. But the principle of isolation was known already to the founder of mathematical mechanics Archytas of Tarentum and is still widely used in analyzing structures. We could add to our solution e.g. aerodynamic drag, probably the most important influence not taken into account. The differential equation would be a little more complicated. Nevertheless the pertinent force would act against the motion and would cause further slowing of the collapse.

Archytas of Tarentum??

Um, you actually think aerodynamic drag is a more important factor here than gravity? Like that's going to slow the collapse of a hundred-thousand-ton block that's gaining momentum with every millisecond it falls?

Oh dear.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Archytas of Tarentum??

Um, you actually think aerodynamic drag is a more important factor here than gravity? Like that's going to slow the collapse of a hundred-thousand-ton block that's gaining momentum with every millisecond it falls?

Oh dear.

Well, technically it will slow it. Probably not by much, but this is where pure mathematics fails and engineering kicks in.

 

[Oystein]

...
Um, you actually think aerodynamic drag is a more important factor here than gravity? Like that's going to slow the collapse of a hundred-thousand-ton block that's gaining momentum with every millisecond it falls?

Oh dear.

Actually, no. Martine is saying, or at least that's how I understand her, that aerodynamic drag is a less important factor here than gravity, or structural resistance, and insignificant enough, so they ignored it.

What Martina IS missing when she talks about momentum and isolated systems is the interaction of the building mass with planet earth through gravity (when falling mass accelerates) and intact columns rooted in the Manhattan bedrock (when falling mass decelerates)

 

[Newtons Bit]

Looks like Suranova fled after a small amount of criticism.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ad 3) Sorry, I don’t understand the word „verinage“.

A form of demolition that you appear to believe is impossible. Reality disagrees.

 

[beachnut]

... We could add to our solution e.g. aerodynamic drag, probably the most important influence not taken into account. The differential equation would be a little more complicated. Nevertheless the pertinent force would act against the motion and would cause further slowing of the collapse.
...“.

Drag? If the WTC was made of feathers, drag would be a factor. But massive pieces of steel, the drag can be ignored. agreed, drag can be ignored

There were large parts of core which took 20 to 30 seconds to collapse. Plus people survived in the core, not a lot a few. The pile was 5 stories high. So the collapse stops near the ground about 5 stories up. The paper failed, the differential equations did not work right. I doubt it is easy to model the WTC. A simple model shows collapse takes place in 12 or 13 seconds, but then you have the core, which is not the same as the floors.

After the top floors fell, the next lower floor fails due to too much weight, which strips the floors and ejects the shell, and leaves the core without the shell and floors for lateral support - A floor at the WTC can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, if you put 11 to 12 floors carefully on a WTC floor, the entire building will collapse. That is the conclusion based on reality, no physics is needed. Based on a momentum model, the floors could collapse in 12.08 seconds to the ground, a lot slower then a free-fall object from the same height.

The WTC collapsed due to impacts and fire, and the design. The WTC were very strong, but they were not designed for massive fires with fire systems destroyed by 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts in the shape of a 767. The person who designed the structure agrees the collapse was due to impacts and fire. The number one expert says gravity collapse, and he built the towers. We end up with an F, if we don't come up with gravity collapse, or have the fantasy of CD.

... Prof K. Kuttler, who published in the Journal of the 9/11 studies (2006) the paper “A short computation”, has obtained almost same results as the authors of the paper mentioned above. ...

The 9/11 studies journal is bogus. Made up because no one would publish the fantasy Jones had on 911.

Kuttler's paper is nonsense.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
Kuttler says a tower fell in 15 seconds, looks like it did. Looks? Forgot his stop watch? It took over 20 to 30 seconds for the towers to collapse. When you can't take the time to get the collapse right, why source a flawed paper of woo? The paper is an attack on others, and uses other work by nuts who think it was CD.

What happen to reality?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

 

[WTC Dust]

To the extent that it claims to apply to WTC Twin Towers the paper is nonsense.

Unfortunately it shares with a lot of academic "explanations" of WTC collapse one feature:

It has no mechanism which remotely resembles what actually happened with the 'Twins' and, for some reason which I cannot comprehend, academics such as these two seem to think that complex formulas or FEA's or whatever theory they are pushing are of value and over-ride what really happened. I have news for such theoreticians - first they should not be let loose outside their cloisters of academia - but let's stay polite and leave out references to the faeces of the male bovine......

Put politely I disagree. Any theoretical explanation which ignores reality will IMNSHO either be:
1) Wrong; OR
2) Right for the wrong reasons and therefore even more misleading.

...and I have not seen a example of 'right for the wrong reasons' in this sort of paper.

Put more explicitly the single specific reason that the paper is nonsense is that it considers column resistance as a main factor. Reality of 9/11 was that post 'initiation' of collapse column resistance was not a significant factor. And that bit of reality is the key to understanding the global collapses of the twins. People who do not recognise that simple reality are bound to be wrong. These two academics are wrong.

Next question.





PS - The terseness of the above reflects Friday PM after a tiring week and most way through a bottle of wine.

More detailed explanation available if needed -

PPS Oystein already did a better job of the engineering part of the explanation - He is right and has identified the key issues.

Can you tell me why you think the resistance of the columns wasn't an important factor? I'm curious.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Can you tell me why you think the resistance of the columns wasn't an important factor? I'm curious.

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo.


Gravity collapse insanity. Three different collapse events occurring simultaneously at near free fall speed.

The walls, the floors, and the huge steel core columns.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

 

[dafydd]

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

Oh dear.

 

[LSSBB]

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo.


Gravity collapse insanity. Three different collapse events occurring simultaneously at near free fall speed.

The walls, the floors, and the huge steel core columns.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

Nothing collapses by gravity? Is gravity mumbo jumbo?

 

[phunk]

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo.


Gravity collapse insanity. Three different collapse events occurring simultaneously at near free fall speed.

The walls, the floors, and the huge steel core columns.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

Can you give us an example of a non-gravity collapse?

 

[swright777]

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo.


Gravity collapse insanity. Three different collapse events occurring simultaneously at near free fall speed.

The walls, the floors, and the huge steel core columns.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

There it is again.

 

[beachnut]

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo. ...

All CD are gravity collapses. CD uses a very small amount of explosives, and uses E=mgh, to do the destruction of the building. What you about gravity collapses, means you deny CD works. You debunk your statement without knowing it. Are you happy with fantasy, or upset you can't join reality?

Gravity collapse insanity. Three different collapse events occurring simultaneously at near free fall speed. ...

Exactly what speed is your speed, "free fall speed". A number please. The fastest free fall speed in history was 321 mph for a skydiver. What speed are you working with? Got physics?

You are calling CD collapses insanity? Gravity is the primary source of energy for destroying buildings using CD. E=mgh, use physics before making silly posts.

The walls, the floors, and the huge steel core columns. ...

Fell? Yes.
______________________________
"Clayton, lies for 2,000..."

... The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

What is anything said by 911 truth.

 

[OCaptain]

Because gravity collapses are nothing more than mumbo jumbo.

The Greatest Lie Ever Told.

I thought that was the Holocaust, Clayton?! Can you pick just one!!

Jeez!!

 

[OCaptain]

There it is again.

Yes, like most twoofers, "freefall speed" means whatever he wants it to mean!

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Cough... Czech truthers still think that I. Nemec and Martina Juranova are right and you (I mean debunkers here) are wrong (without any specific reasons given).

Could you please summarize again why this paper is wrong? I understand that the model based on columns/to/columns impact is unrealistic, but Martina Juranova wrote here e.g.: "And as I have written above, even when omitting all column resistance, the speed of the collapse should have been much slower than observed."
Why is she wrong in this respect? (And sorry for my perhaps naive question).

 

[Gamolon]

Cough... Czech truthers still think that I. Nemec and Martina Juranova are right and you (I mean debunkers here) are wrong (without any specific reasons given).

Could you please summarize again why this paper is wrong? I understand that the model based on columns/to/columns impact is unrealistic, but Martina Juranova wrote here e.g.: "And as I have written above, even when omitting all column resistance, the speed of the collapse should have been much slower than observed."
Why is she wrong in this respect? (And sorry for my perhaps naive question).

IMO, the model they use is incorrect to try and explain what REALLY happened.

The lower part of the building cannot be used AS A WHOLE to determine the resistance to the upper part.

The towers were destroyed because individual connections failed as the mass of debris descended downwards. I always bring this up.

How can a bunch of these connections circled in red, for example:

Resist this coming down upon them?:

It's not a solid block hitting a solid block.

 

[Gamolon]

I have question.

I work in a 6 story office building that has a pyramid shaped roof consisting of glass panes, which resides over the atrium in the center of the building.

Could I use the formula in this paper to show that a bowling ball dropped from 200' above should just bounce off the roof?