Debunk This

[imstellar28]

"So you're saying that the explosion was of sufficient magnitude that it displaced a large enough quantity of air to exert substantial additional force on the structure and hence lead to a collapse speed in excess of 9.8s-2 (or thereby). I'd like you to think REALLY carefully before answering that."

Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?

 

[Architect]

All designs are built with safety factors--ie 1, 2, 3 etc.

A safety factor of 2 would mean it can withstand loads 200% greater than are to be expected.

No, really, I actually am a qualified architect working on tall buildings. I do know what I'm talking about here.

Please clarify further. What were the safety factors for? Design to capacity ratio? Individual components? Composite assemblies? What forces (and particularly directional forces) were they in respect of? How do these compare to actual collapse force loadings?

Again, think REALLY carefully before jumping into this one.

 

[Architect]

Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?

Ahahaha.

So to be quite clear, are the explosions which you mean the so-called squibs which the CTers point to in the videos?

And you're claiming that these were of sufficient maginitude to create a vaccum which would in turn result in significant additional force to alter acceleration time.

Really?

 

[Mancman]

"Which is total garbage. There are numerous photos of the walls of the WTC towers bowing inward, and floorslabs sagging. The bowing was also reported by an NYPD helicopter."

He addresses this in the article, did you read it?

Yes, I read it and acknowledged it in my post. Did you not read my post?

He presents absolutely nothing to back up his claims of 'optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.'

Refute this for me: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Optical illusion? Faked video?

 

[imstellar28]

What does being an architect have to do with civil or mechanical engineering? An example of a safety factor of 2 would be designing an elevator to support 5000 lbs when at any given time you only expect it to carry a load of 2500 lbs.

 

[332nd]

"So you're saying that the explosion was of sufficient magnitude that it displaced a large enough quantity of air to exert substantial additional force on the structure and hence lead to a collapse speed in excess of 9.8s-2 (or thereby). I'd like you to think REALLY carefully before answering that."

Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?

So the building fell faster than freefall even though debris outpaced the collapse? (Not to mention the buildings collapsed from the top down which no "properly designed building implosion" has ever done.)

 

[AZCat]

"You just needed to read the comments to see the 'faster than gravity' part."


All properly designed building implosions fall faster than gravity because they are "pulled" downward by vacuum. You don't think things can fall faster than gravity? Throw a ball into the ground.

Except a vacuum doesn't ever "pull" anything. Pressure differentials between two opposite sides of an object will apply a net force to the object, but the vacuum itself is not doing any pulling - it's the greater pressure on the other side doing all the work. I've never seen any evidence that this is employed by demolition experts when demolishing buildings, nor can I think of how one would accomplish it. Explosions (or implosions) can create pressure waves, but they aren't going to remove the air from inside the building (at least not for very long). There are too many "leaks" in the building envelope (particularly when it's being demolished) to allow a pressure differential to remain for very long.

 

[imstellar28]

"So the building fell faster than freefall even though debris outpaced the collapse? (Not to mention the buildings collapsed from the top down which no "properly designed building implosion" has ever done.)"

All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true?

 

[Architect]

What does being an architect have to do with civil or mechanical engineering? An example of a safety factor of 2 would be designing an elevator to support 5000 lbs when at any given time you only expect it to carry a load of 2500 lbs.

That would be the architect who is lead consultant and designer on building projects and hence (in the UK at least) has to do compulsory university classes in structural engineering.

But let's get back to your point. Are you claiming that the safety factor issue on a structure as complex as any tall building (especially WTC) is as simple as you state?

I'm not being sarcastic. I want you to really think carefully about this, because you're standing at the edge of a huge precipice.

 

[Architect]

All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true?

It's not true, I'm afraid.

 

[AZCat]

What does being an architect have to do with civil or mechanical engineering? An example of a safety factor of 2 would be designing an elevator to support 5000 lbs when at any given time you only expect it to carry a load of 2500 lbs.

You probably need to read up on what an architect actually does. The exams they have to take in order to become licensed cover the various engineering disciplines as they relate to buildings.

I think Architect is well aware of the definition of a "safety factor". I believe he's asking if you know what the actual numbers were for the towers.

 

[Gravy]

"It's typical truther cherry-picking of data"
what did he leave out?

Well, he doesn't address what NIST says caused the collapses. So that's one thing.

And he doesn't seem to have read the hundreds of pages in which NIST, in great detail, explains how it modeled the fires, how those models interacted with its FEA of the fire floors, how it tested the building materials and assemblies and used those results in its FEA, how the models matched observations, how uncertainty was addressed, and how its models and experiments compare to the models and experiments created in other WTC investigations. So there's that.

"invented safety factors"
what are the real safety factors?

For instance, he comes up with a "safety factor" of 5 for the exterior columns, but provides no source for that number. Safety for what? Axial load? Can you guess what happens to the "safety factor" of such a column when it has already buckled significantly, for instance by the inward pull of the sagging floors?

"and failure to understand NIST's conclusions. "
what is the proper understanding?

From NIST's FAQ":

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Do you think the investigation was conducted in a scientifically sound manner regardless of the real cause?

Yes. I've read the report. Disagree? Then please read it all, address its specifics, don't cherry-pick, and don't use straw man arguments.

 

[imstellar28]

"//video.google.com/videoplay?do...55553528290546"

Like he said, you are looking at the aluminum facade, not the steel columns, In places where the facade is completely gone and you can see the steel columns, the columns are perfectly vertical and not bent.

 

[Mancman]

Like I said, all properly designed building implosions fall faster than freefall. Can you refute this?

Did the WTC fall at freefall speed?

Consider that freefall from 417m is 9.2 seconds. Then consider this:

 

[Mancman]

"//video.google.com/videoplay?do...55553528290546"

Like he said, you are looking at the aluminum facade, not the steel columns, In places where the facade is completely gone and you can see the steel columns, the columns are perfectly vertical and not bent.

Those places were not bowing, so your post is pointless.

And as I said, it is impossible for the facade to bow without the steel columns also doing so. The facade was directly attached to the columns.

 

[imstellar28]

"All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true? It's not true, I'm afraid."

Can you point me somewhere that states that?

 

[Pardalis]

Why do you keep coming here Pdoherty?

 

[332nd]

"So the building fell faster than freefall even though debris outpaced the collapse? (Not to mention the buildings collapsed from the top down which no "properly designed building implosion" has ever done.)"

All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true?

Ah, but you said it in response to

"You just needed to read the comments to see the 'faster than gravity' part."

What babazaroni was saying is that there was no need to read further because the person didn't know what he was talking about.

The towers did not behave like a "properly designed building implosion". Therefore even IF a "properly designed building implosion" could bring a building down faster than freefall, the point is moot.

 

[Alt+F4]

"Who is Wayne Trumpman?"

The president of Uganda, a engineer with 25 years experience, a person who was running out of the world trade center, a member of the demo crew who planted the bombs. Who cares who he is, what does that have to do with his arguments? Just because your a structural engineer or governmental researcher doesn't make what you say true.

Translation: He has no idea who Wayne Trumpman is.

Imstellar: I'm sure YOU understand everything Mr. Trumpman is saying, otherwise why would you post that article.

Could you please explain this equation for me, it's from Mr. Trumpman's article:

PE joules= xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx m

Thanks, math is not my strong suit.

 

[Mancman]

"All I said was that for building implosions they fall faster than freefall, is this or is this not true? It's not true, I'm afraid."

Can you point me somewhere that states that?

Can you produce a video of a demolition that occurs faster than freefall?