Correct speed of building collapse

[tsig]

The only way you'd know if I am pissing down my leg is if you are under my desk. Monica, is that you? By the way that's not a cigar and you shouldn't inhale.

no i own teh plumber.

 

[tsig]

So you have some fantasies about what degrees I may or may not have. Maybe you would get some information instead of inventing your own reality.

Reality is and can not be invented. If you think not you are demented.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Reality is and can not be invented. If you think not you are demented.

I agree. So in reality, I have an engineering degree. Since you are inventing that I do not, you must either be mistaken, a slanderer or demented. Which is it?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Show us your calculations for the collapse time, please.

 

[eeyore1954]

Gregory you sem to be a person who has more than just the basic understanding of the situation. so if the actual time was 13 seconds and your final calculated time was 21 seconds how would CD account for that difference. You surely don't subscribe to the old truth mantra that the explosions were planted all the way down the building and timed to go off ahead of the collapse. If any one had planned to bring the buildings down with explosives why would they have done it that way. I cant imagine any one who knows anything about the subject would have thought once the bulding had fallen more than a few floors anything could stop it from continuing to the ground .

If explosives were added to just a small area of the support and done in such a way that it would not be noticed how would that have sped the collapse appreciably.

Look at the pictures clearly there was buckling up until the time of the collapse. Clearly the collapse started around the point of impact and there is no evidence of explosives anywhere during the collapse .

From a logical point of view why would the nefarious inside job planners have not thought that flying the planes into the buildings would have been enough of a catalyst to spur the public to whatever ends they had planned. Why would a scheme where discovery would have been a real threat devised?

 

[uk_dave]

Easy bud, I've only been on the case for a year and put in about 400 hrs on the mass analysis which has direct bearing on this.

Oh dear.

So if anyone asks who benefits from 9-11, we can comfortably mention your name, right? Otherwise that's 400 hours of your life you just wasted.

Such a shame.

 

[proxywar]

This thread wouldn't be complete without at least one reply mentioning the clunkety-clunk theory

"Then there was Sofia, who took great pains to tell us that even a "prominent Republican" (whom she neglects to name) espouses her theory that each floor would have to make a "clunkety-clunk" sound as it caved into the next, proving that the 110-story buildings couldn't possibly have collapsed as quickly as they did without a controlled demolition. Apparently this anonymous Republican repeated the "clunkety-clunk" sound 110 times against the second-hand of his watch. And guess what? It took him ten minutes! So that proves with certainty that explosives planted inside the buildings are to blame for their collapse, and not the massive, fuel-engorged passenger jets slammed into them at dizzying speeds by Islamic terrorists. Make sense? If it does, you might just be a truther."

 

[proxywar]

I agree. So in reality, I have an engineering degree. Since you are inventing that I do not, you must either be mistaken, a slanderer or demented. Which is it?

Or he could just be skeptical because you've provided no proof of an engineering degree. Saying you have a degree is not the same as showing
you have one, espiecally over the internet were demented people make things up about themselves due to delusions of grandeur.

I don't mean to come off like a heckler or anything but you have to admit you can see how he would be skeptical about you.

 

[DGM]

Or he could just be skeptical because you've provided no proof of an engineering degree. Saying you have a degree is not the same as showing
you have one, espiecally over the internet were demented people make things up about themselves due to delusions of grandeur.

I don't mean to come off like a heckler or anything but you have to admit you can see how he would be skeptical about you.

I've had enough experience with Gregory's work to know that he does indeed have an engineering degree. Although I don't agree with him I think what we're seeing here is no more than a peeing contest between two posters.

 

[stateofgrace]

You could simply confirm that your are not a typical JREF heckler (see some classic examples from TSIG above). In that case you can explain why you said I was "trying to get you to indulge in my fantasies". Which fantasies do you mean?

If you can't be intellectually honest about this simple issue, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

ETA: There you go again. Now you have a fantasy that I have some alternative theories. Which theories do you mean?

And you are simply confirming you are a typical truther. you have gone out of your way to label me, as a heckler, a typical Jreffer with preconceived notions and beliefs. You have gone out of your way to dismiss my layman questions and call me intellectually dishonest, in true truther style. It is not nice being labelled is it? Maybe you should keep your belittling, stereotyping remarks to yourself for here on in and address the questions I have asked of you, can you do that or is more insults from you to be expected?

The fantasies that you indulge in bud are the ones whereby you can do the above and expect no reaction. Yours fantasies include labelling individuals as typical , stereotypes as such dismissing individuals as hecklers and being intellectually dishonest.

Having said that,you have stated that the collapse of the towers should have taken 21 seconds, you have spent over 400 hours on this and believe it to be of importance, if not then you have simply wasted you time. So tell me why it is so important, if you are not supporting an alternative view point why have just spent 400 hours on something that is completely irrelevant? If your calculations are correct and the towers should have fell in 21 seconds does this in anyway conflict with the common perception of the events of sept 11th ?

Now these are basic , simple questions. they are the type of question that anybody would ask of somebody who spends such a length of time on a project. So , again, what exactly is your point? State it clearly and precisely and cut out any further belittling remarks.

Can you do that ?

 

[proxywar]

I've had enough experience with Gregory's work to know that he does indeed have an engineering degree. Although I don't agree with him I think what we're seeing here is no more than a peeing contest between two posters.

Has he showed it to you though? I'm having a real hard time believing anyone would give him a degree. Though If he has one like you say I will retract my assumptions.

 

[DGM]

Has he showed it to you though? I'm having a real hard time believing anyone would give him a degree. Though If he has one like you say I will retract my assumptions.

I haven't seen it but have no reason to believe he's lying. I've seen enough correspondences between him and other engineers (on other forums also) to have no doubt (or he has one hell of a script writer). He does like to delve into the conspiracies and can be extremely stubborn at times but that is more of a personality trait than a sign of his education.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Or he could just be skeptical because you've provided no proof of an engineering degree. Saying you have a degree is not the same as showing
you have one, espiecally over the internet were demented people make things up about themselves due to delusions of grandeur.

I don't mean to come off like a heckler or anything but you have to admit you can see how he would be skeptical about you.

Only thing is. He never asked if I had an engineering degree. He never asked me to prove it. He just suggested I didn't have one out of the blue.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Show us your calculations for the collapse time, please.

OK, my spreadsheet is here.

Things one should know about this calculation:

1. it is preliminary and may contain errors
2. the duration calculated is for "crush down" only (in the B&Z sense) from floor 97 -ground level for WTC1
3. floor by floor buckling is assumed with losses due to strain energies and momentum (inelastic collision) subtracted on a floor by floor basis
4. "hard top" is assumed so there is no damage of the upper part which favors a faster fall time
5. it uses what many consider to be a more accurate mass on a floor by floor basis (mass calculation can be seen here.)
6. the strain energy is removed from the PE during the initial collapse. This can be adjusted by changing the formula in cell G5.
7. the combined elastic and plastic strain energies for floor 97 is 500 MJ. This can be adjusted by changing the value in cell G2.
8. the strain energies are scaled linearly with the strength of the building: approximately 1:10, top to bottom.
9. mass shedding is ramped up from 0-20% over the first 10 impacts and is then constant (no mass loss from top block)
10. row 5 is actually the top block, so the mass is for floors 98-roof
11. mass is in kgx10^3
12. average floor height is assumed to be 3.66m
13. strain energies are a topic unto themselves (I'll probably start a new thread) but are assumed to include: columns, horizontal members and floors, concrete comminution, and floor flexion.

Note: I don't yet have faith in this type of 1-d modeling, but at least it helps get your head around the main issues and enables us to see which factors are most important. Also, the strain energies are approximate and more work is needed to establish a more accurate value.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Gregory you sem to be a person who has more than just the basic understanding of the situation. so if the actual time was 13 seconds and your final calculated time was 21 seconds how would CD account for that difference. You surely don't subscribe to the old truth mantra that the explosions were planted all the way down the building and timed to go off ahead of the collapse. If any one had planned to bring the buildings down with explosives why would they have done it that way. I cant imagine any one who knows anything about the subject would have thought once the bulding had fallen more than a few floors anything could stop it from continuing to the ground .

If explosives were added to just a small area of the support and done in such a way that it would not be noticed how would that have sped the collapse appreciably.

Look at the pictures clearly there was buckling up until the time of the collapse. Clearly the collapse started around the point of impact and there is no evidence of explosives anywhere during the collapse .

From a logical point of view why would the nefarious inside job planners have not thought that flying the planes into the buildings would have been enough of a catalyst to spur the public to whatever ends they had planned. Why would a scheme where discovery would have been a real threat devised?

I think a reasonable range for the actual time is 12-16 seconds. Based on the type of modeling we are doing it would be difficult to claim nefariously assisted collapse with out corroborating evidence. I have seen no convincing explanation of how or why a controlled demolition would have been implemented. However, I have seen no convincing explanation that the plane impact and fires would have caused the collapse to initiate or procede so rapidly.

While I am an electrical engineer, I actually find structural engineering more interesting. I have no pet theories ragarding an inside job, but on the other hand I wouldn't put anything past Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Inc. Then again maybe it's a design or contruction related problem. I am interested in doing honest research and analysis and letting the cards fall where they may.

 

[Thunder]

Two words:

"Who" and "cares?".

=)

 

[GregoryUrich]

Has he showed it to you though? I'm having a real hard time believing anyone would give him a degree. Though If he has one like you say I will retract my assumptions.

What degree do you have? Are you posting your credentials online? How easy would it be to make a bogus pdf and post that? Should I mail the original diploma to each numbnuts who asks for proof? Essentially what this is about is people without the knowledge to examine my work for themselves, trying to find a way to cast me in a suspicious light.

If you go to the University of Buffalo Alumni Center (SUNY) and type in "Urich" in the search you will see that I graduated in 1990. Unfortunately, the type of degree (B.S.E.E.) is not given. If I was making this up, wouldn't I at least have masters degree? Not that it matters but I also got a BA in music 1987 from the same school.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Oh dear.

So if anyone asks who benefits from 9-11, we can comfortably mention your name, right? Otherwise that's 400 hours of your life you just wasted.

Such a shame.

What would that benefit be? If you mean some sense of value I get from contributing to the general understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, sure. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[deep]

When evaluating the collapse of the twin towers, I think that you really must consider a minimum of two separate times:

• the total duration of the collapse (which can vary greatly depending on the criteria used to determine the point at which a building has completely collapsed).

• the speed of the visible collapse front relative to free-fall speed.

The latter timing would be the most scientifically-significant measurement, in my opinion, because it's a more specific measurement and there's little room for interpretation.

For example, pretend you're trying to figure out how fast a certain car was going. If you're told that the car traveled 100 miles in 100 minutes, do you have all the information you need to determine if the car exceeded the speed limit? No, because it could have reached the 99th mile at the 30 minute mark, and then traveled roughly 2 mph the rest of the way.

The same holds true for the collapse of the twin towers - you're missing some critical information by only considering the complete collapse time (in addition to the problem of defining when a collapse is "complete").

 

[GregoryUrich]

And you are simply confirming you are a typical truther. you have gone out of your way to label me, as a heckler, a typical Jreffer with preconceived notions and beliefs. You have gone out of your way to dismiss my layman questions and call me intellectually dishonest, in true truther style. It is not nice being labelled is it? Maybe you should keep your belittling, stereotyping remarks to yourself for here on in and address the questions I have asked of you, can you do that or is more insults from you to be expected?

The fantasies that you indulge in bud are the ones whereby you can do the above and expect no reaction. Yours fantasies include labelling individuals as typical , stereotypes as such dismissing individuals as hecklers and being intellectually dishonest.

Having said that,you have stated that the collapse of the towers should have taken 21 seconds, you have spent over 400 hours on this and believe it to be of importance, if not then you have simply wasted you time. So tell me why it is so important, if you are not supporting an alternative view point why have just spent 400 hours on something that is completely irrelevant? If your calculations are correct and the towers should have fell in 21 seconds does this in anyway conflict with the common perception of the events of sept 11th ?

Now these are basic , simple questions. they are the type of question that anybody would ask of somebody who spends such a length of time on a project. So , again, what exactly is your point? State it clearly and precisely and cut out any further belittling remarks.

Can you do that ?

None of your posts yet have convinced me that you are at all interested in a legitimate discussion. Please prove me wrong. Nonethelss, I hope my answer to The Red Worm here and Eeyore1954 here will answer most of your questions. If you have others, I will try to answer them.

Clarification: I have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 hrs on the mass analysis which is a precursor to any collapse analysis.