Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[Carlhole]

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate a lower bound of the extra seconds, over and above freefall time, that can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a Tower's mass. That delay due to the resistance of static inertia alone is at least 5 seconds (see note below).

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of at least 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time can be attributed to the resistance due to the immense structural strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds simply due to Newton's Laws alone and overcoming stationary building mass. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. Yet only a second or two delay can be attributed to structural strength since the towers fell in approximately 15 seconds. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples!

9. Do you actually believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was hardly stronger than the surrounding air? No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength gave up the ghost with little resistance at all.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second or two! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework of enormous sturctural integrity. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?


NOTES:
(1) Much more involved calculations by Kenneth Kuttler, PhD Mathematics BYU are available at Journal of 911 Studies: Look for "WTC1 Collapse Time Calculations".

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Where is the logic? This is whole pointless exercise amounts to 'Clunkity-clunk' Lite. Was the force of gravity suspended on 9/11?

 

[ozeco41]

... this is like saying that the Towers' strength gave up the ghost with little resistance at all...

It did - try reading the explanations of the global collapse. If you are serious I (or we) will provide some links.

The rest of your post is simply regurgitated truther lies or half truths.

...NOTES:
(1) Much more involved calculations by Kenneth Kuttler, PhD Mathematics BYU are available at Journal of 911 Studies: Look for "WTC1 Collapse Time Calculations".

Don't waste your time with truther crap.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but the flaw in your logic is that you are using simple arithmetic when it would be more appropriate to use calculus.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?


NOTES:
(1) Much more involved calculations by Kenneth Kuttler, PhD Mathematics BYU are available at Journal of 911 Studies: Look for "WTC1 Collapse Time Calculations".

The flaw in the logic is that, firstly, you've misrepresented Kenneth Kuttler's calculations, and secondly, they are not based on the set of assumptions you claim they are. Kuttler has calculated a range of collapse times for different sets of assumptions, and his result taking into account conservation of momentum alone is not the 15 seconds you claim but 12.18 seconds, significantly less than your estimate of the observed collapse time. He then goes on to make wildly unrealistic assumptions about the collapse dynamics, apparently in a deliberate attempt to obtain an unrealistically high result.

For a more detailed critique of Kuttler's assumptions and calculations, refer to my Journal of Debunking 9/11 paper at http://www.jod911.com/kuttleranalysis.pdf.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

Ah! Found another flaw.

While conservation of momentum does WORK in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull, it does not NEGATE Earth's gravitational pull.

Not all momentum is equal, and not all resistance is equal. Think of this extreme example:

I'm watching the sunrise. I take a step towards the sun.

Conservation of momentum is in effect here. As I step forward, the momentum of the Earth's rotation pushes back against me, and my momentum pushes back against the Earth. According to Newton's laws, I have slowed down the rotation of the Earth by stepping in the direction opposite the rotation.

However, the resistance offered by the Earth is so overpowering that the effect I have had on the Earth's rotation is not even close to being measurable. Even if we had the tools sensitive enough to take such measurements, the change would be lost in the background noise of all the other activities taking place on the Earth's surface.

Somewhere between your expectations -- that a building can't collapse in 15 seconds because the structure is so strong -- and my extreme-case example, there is the reality of a collapsing building. The structure of the building does offer some resistance, but not enough to slow down the collapse very much. It's more resistance than the air would offer, but less than would the rotation of the Earth.

This may seem like swatting flies with sledgehammers (metaphorically speaking), but...there you are.

 

[aggle-rithm]

For a more detailed critique of Kuttler's assumptions and calculations, refer to my Journal of Debunking 9/11 paper at http://www.jod911.com/kuttleranalysis.pdf.

Dave

I just looked at that, not realizing it was yours. Nice work.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh, do they mean the one that got bombed?

Yes, I thought that was interesting as well, that those closest to the blast were less likely to hear it.

Please tell us YOUR explanation as to why more people inside a building a block away heard the blast than did people inside the building just adjacent to the explosion?

It can't mean that being inside buildings diminishes the sound, because people in the other buildings who heard the blast were...you know...IN BUILDINGS.

Hint: 29% of those who suffered hearing damage did not hear the blast. What does that tell you about the difference between the subjective experience of hearing something and the objective presence of noise?

 

[sylvan8798]

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

Using the theoretical free fall time from the top to the ground gives a maximum value, while the collapse zone began about the 95th/78th floor and ended with a 7 story high pile of rubble, thus the distance somewhat less than the full 110 stories.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

Somewhat longer, actually, depending on where you claim the end is. In addition, parts of the core stood for several seconds following the main part of the collapses.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate a lower bound of the extra seconds, over and above freefall time, that can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a Tower's mass. That delay due to the resistance of static inertia alone is at least 5 seconds (see note below).

His assumptions lead to 5 seconds. Mine led to about 2.5 seconds. Others have also found less than 5 seconds. Do you have the background to evaluate the reasonableness of everyone's assumptions, or do you base your decision of who is most likely correct on the outcome you want to get?

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of at least 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time can be attributed to the resistance due to the immense structural strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds simply due to Newton's Laws alone and overcoming stationary building mass. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. {Got any calculations to support this contention?} Yet only a second or two delay can be attributed to structural strength since the towers fell in approximately 15 seconds. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples!

Correction: the tower's structure was designed to support its mass in a certain configuration and for a certain set of loadings, which did not include having floors crashing into each other at increasing speeds.

9. Do you actually believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was hardly stronger than the surrounding air? No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

So, in the absence of any calculations, you now appeal to personal incredulity? Fail.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength gave up the ghost with little resistance at all.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second or two! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework of enormous sturctural integrity. I wouldn't call a bunch of long span bar joists fastened to columns by a couple of bolts "enormous structural integrity". How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! Calculations, please? But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?

No logic, just flaws.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There is also another severe mistake being made in truther collapse analyses. It is that during collapse, the lower segments could provide any sort of meaningful resistence to begin with.

We have to remember these two things:

1. The design of the tower was such that the columns depended on the floors for lateral bracing. When the inward bowing occurred well before collapse, the floor(s) immediately below that area were already compromised: Perimeter columns, at least, were already pulled well out of alignment, and that in turn was already causing stresses and redistributing loads in ways the towers were not designed to handle. When those floors in the area that the collapses started finally failed, the colulmns for the floors immediately below that lost the top part of their lateral bracing. And those floors themselves had been suffering eccentric loads the entire time before that. So they were already severely compromised once the rubble hit them. So the first point is: Why presume significant resistence? The first floor below the initial failure point was already seriously weakened before anything fell on it, and when that one gave way, the next floor below it ended up being in the same boat. Truthers (and sometimes many of us here) act as though the floors were sitting there just fine and fully stable until the rubble hit them. But the reality is that when a given floor failed, the part of the structure immediately below that weakened and became far less able to support any increased load before anything landed on it.
   
   Others have said this before, but it bears emphasis: You cannot presume that any section of the tower would properly function and bear increased loads once its integrity was compromised. Lose a floor above an arbitrary point on the towers, and the floor below weakens because that floor depends on the structure above it remaining intact for it to properly support loads.
   
   
2. The majority of impacts would be on the floors themselves, not on the load bearing elements (i.e. the columns). That would cause failures at the floor truss to column connections, and those would be far weaker than any column to column connection even in a fully intact tower, nevermind one where those connections were stressed due to out-of-axis forces on the columns themselves.

I keep on seeing so many arbitrary criteria being used by conspiracy advocates for why the tower should've displayed more resistence and collapsed slower. But none of them - none of them - even acknowledge the central issues behind why the towers collapsed. If you do not consider column susceptibility to lateral forces once floors fail, and if you do not pay attention truss-to-column connection strength (or in this case, relative weakness), you do not understand the collapse issues properly. All explanations of the collapse must acknowledge these issues because they are fundamental. And to be blunt, truther explanations do not. And that is one of their great failings.

 

[TruthersLie]

You must feel like you're losing the argument if you have to resort to TruthersLie' isms. Pathetic.

Edited by kmortis: 

Correctly spelled poster's username

Does this mean you have figured out the difference between into vs onto?

if you have you can see how Bazant is right and YOU are wrong. yet again.

I'm sorry that basic prepositions are above and beyond your comprehension.

Is there a difference between into and onto?

 

[triforcharity]

into vs onto
essentially vs actually
footprint
center of mass vs debris field the size of the moon
about
exponentially

shall we continue?

Yes V No

From his newest argument about the OKC bombing and barotrauma injuries.
LOL!

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes V No

From his newest argument about the OKC bombing and barotrauma injuries.
LOL!

Here I thought his latest flailing around was to say that barotrauma doesn't occur in bombings... but that they do occur in bombings when close to the bomb.....

But hey, since he defines the footprint of a building to include the roof of an adjacent building, I think he has plenty of other problems.... basic things like grammar, spelling and correct use of terms is rather far down his list.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second or two! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework of enormous sturctural integrity. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

Here is the calculation using Truth-me-tic:

Crush - (/?) steel infrastructure + (*?) a second or two = Humongous energy!!!!



Guide to Truth-me-tic operators:

- (?/): I don't know whether to subtract or divide here

+ (?*): I don't know whether to add or multiply here

!!!!: My calculations are correct

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes V No

From his newest argument about the OKC bombing and barotrauma injuries.
LOL!

Wait, I've got ergo on ignore. What did he try to say about barotrauma?

ETA: Read the next post, Mondo!

Here I thought his latest flailing around was to say that barotrauma doesn't occur in bombings... but that they do occur in bombings when close to the bomb.....

Where does he get that notion? I realize that a majority of the medically documented cases were exterior explosions, but that's due to the prevelance of bus bombings in Israel. That doesn't negate the notion that such can occur inside structures, and indeed, that's a ridiculous presumption. Within a structure, the pressure waves would be contained and the pressures would be more extreme. I'd go so far as to guess that injuries would be more extreme and cause more fatalities if they were recieved within a structure.

I've got a PDF back from when I looked at this discussing medical identification of barotrauma from criminal and terrorist events; I'll dig around for it. It was a listing of the sorts of barotrauma's that can be inflicted by the various types of attacks, and how to classify them.

Oh, last: There were indeed issues of barotrauma associated with the WTC collapses; I distinctly recall finding cases of burst eardrums, eye injuries, etc. a couple of years ago when I was looking into this. However, those did not match the types of severe injuries associated with actual bombings, and I made those comparisons against both the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the various Israeli bus suicide bombings. The types of barotrauma reported were not even remotely the same, that's true, but again, it's ridiculous to say that this class of injuries cannot occur within structures.

I'll look for that PDF soon.

 

[Animal]

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate a lower bound of the extra seconds, over and above freefall time, that can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a Tower's mass. That delay due to the resistance of static inertia alone is at least 5 seconds (see note below).

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of at least 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time can be attributed to the resistance due to the immense structural strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds simply due to Newton's Laws alone and overcoming stationary building mass. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. Yet only a second or two delay can be attributed to structural strength since the towers fell in approximately 15 seconds. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples!

9. Do you actually believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was hardly stronger than the surrounding air? No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength gave up the ghost with little resistance at all.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second or two! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework of enormous sturctural integrity. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?


NOTES:
(1) Much more involved calculations by Kenneth Kuttler, PhD Mathematics BYU are available at Journal of 911 Studies: Look for "WTC1 Collapse Time Calculations".

take 50 sheets of paper and space then inches apart in a row. Now fire a rifle though them. How much does the paper slow the bullet? That is equivalent to the structural mass of the towers passing through the floor structure.

All good little troofers falsely assume that the WTC collapse was a continuous column to column to column impact. That is was is absurd.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait, I've got ergo on ignore. What did he try to say about barotrauma?

Here's the post here. I've quoted Ergo in it, so you don't have to take him off ignore.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7238761#post7238761

Where does he get that notion?

His posterior.

I realize that a majority of the medically documented cases were exterior explosions, but that's due to the prevelance of bus bombings in Israel. That doesn't negate the notion that such can occur inside structures, and indeed, that's a ridiculous presumption. Within a structure, the pressure waves would be contained and the pressures would be more extreme. I'd go so far as to guess that injuries would be more extreme and cause more fatalities if they were recieved within a structure.

Yes, if the bomb/explosive was within the structure. In the case of the OKC bombing, the truck was not within the walls of the structure. But, you know this already.

I've got a PDF back from when I looked at this discussing medical identification of barotrauma from criminal and terrorist events; I'll dig around for it. It was a listing of the sorts of barotrauma's that can be inflicted by the various types of attacks, and how to classify them.

I've seen it too, but due to a recent computer upgrade, I lost it.

Oh, last: There were indeed issues of barotrauma associated with the WTC collapses; I distinctly recall finding cases of burst eardrums, eye injuries, etc. a couple of years ago when I was looking into this. However, those did not match the types of severe injuries associated with actual bombings, and I made those comparisons against both the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the various Israeli bus suicide bombings. The types of barotrauma reported were not even remotely the same, that's true, but again, it's ridiculous to say that this class of injuries cannot occur within structures.

I'll look for that PDF soon.

Please link it here for us.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey Tri: While digging around for that doc, I stumbled across something else that, while a slight digression, was still oddly pertinent:

"Blast Injuries: Bus Versus Open-Air Bombings--A Comparative Study of Injuries in Survivors of Open-Air Versus Confined-Space Explosions", Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care: December 1996 - Volume 41 - Issue 6 - pp 1030-1035

Link: http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abs...ries__Bus_Versus_Open_Air_Bombings__A.15.aspx

I'm digging right now to see if I've got access to it somehow. Anyway, it's weird how serendipitous this finding was.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.
...

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?
...

See also this, this and this.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For the record, to anyone keeping up with the thread: That article I just linked up above was not the one I mentioned in my previous post. I just happened across it and thought it was interesting and oddly on-topic.

Anyway, to deeper substance: That piece had this to say about barotrauma in enclosed spaces:

Considering our results, the following observations are germane:

1. An overall increased mortality rate is associated with explosions in confined spaces.

2. Immediate survivors of explosions within confined spaces suffer more severe injuries and present to the emergency departments in a less favorable physiologic condition (higher ISS, lower RTS).

3. Victims of bombings in confined spaces have a higher incidence of primary blast injuries, with a predominance of the more severe pulmonary injuries rather than perforation of tympanic membranes.

I'll stop there, since this is all ultimately a digression. But it is in interesting point regarding barotrauma. And, as I recall from my previous foray into the issue: I could find multiple citations on extreme and fatal barotraumatic injuries in writeups on the Madrid case as well as the Israeli bus bombings, but the few cites I found for September 11 were nowhere near the same severity. Again, a rescue worker here with a burst eardrum, a firefighter there with the same. There were more than I thought, but the pattern that could be built from the information available indicated a different set of barotraumas than what was observed in genuine, confirmed bombings.