Failure mode in WTC towers

[Major_Tom]

Dearest Max, Norseman is fading. Insults are about all he has left.

NB already choked.


Please help them out.

If perimeter sections and core columns are leading the wave of destruction, we won´t have these compressed, enclosed pockets.

This FORCES people explaining the observed phenomena in terms of gravity driven collapse into claiming that condensed, intact flooring acting as a piston is responsible for these ejections. Another logical possibility I am missing, Max?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeaW...eature=related


Trapped air escaping? 10 to 20 floors behind the same phenomenon on the southwest corner?

Is gravity driven collapse continuation consistent with that which was observed?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Dearest Max, Norseman is fading. Insults are about all he has left.

NB already choked.


Please help them out.

If perimeter sections and core columns are leading the wave of destruction, we won´t have these compressed, enclosed pockets.

This FORCES people explaining the observed phenomena in terms of gravity driven collapse into claiming that condensed, intact flooring acting as a piston is responsible for these ejections. Another logical possibility I am missing, Max?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZeaW...eature=related


Trapped air escaping? 10 to 20 floors behind the same phenomenon on the southwest corner?

Is gravity driven collapse continuation consistent with that which was observed?

 

[Max Photon]

Was there explosive demolition during collapse progression?

Major Tom,

I argue that heat-weakening was used to help initiate collapse.

The next question is, "Once collapse started, was any assistance needed?" It appears the big boys say no; gravity was sufficient.

You are trying to argue - even if indirectly - that catalysts were used to control collapse progression. It appears you are arguing that the collapse is better described by explosive demolition.

I'm not seeing it. Some of your curiosos aren't that curious to me.

Your recent link isn't working. (It's always good to check links.) I'll assume the video is of the very low WTC2 "squib". That is the one curioso I have a very difficult time seeing as gravitational-collapse related. I have said that heat-weakening could have been used beyond the impact floors - even if only in a few places - to help aid collapse progression. But this creates the real problem of extra work placing, igniting, and timing the incendiaries.

So, aside from that one very low squib, my model of heat-weakening impact floors only (and gravity doing the rest) seems simple and consistent.

Your implicit model of explosives to assist collapse progression adds many more complexities, not the least of which is high-explosives, which is in direct conflict with NIST's very clear statement about finding no evidence of controlled-demolition due to explosives. I just cannot make the mental leap that the US Government would go on record with such a contradiction. (In fact, the same argument holds true as to why there would be no demolition whatsoever after collapse initiation, let alone demolition with explosives. NIST didn't study collapse progression, so if there were controlled-demolition during collapse progression this would leave the government wide open to criticism.)

Now, in stark contrast, the NIST Report is ambiguous with respect to demolition by heat-weakening using thermite. NIST's model is demolition by heat-weakening, NIST did not check for thermite residue, and NIST does not rule out thermite, but only said it is an unlikely substance for a controlled demolition. If you just read what's there, NIST is shielded by plausible deniability with respect to thermite. (I suspect that doesn't mean much to anyone but me.)

Max

 

[Norseman]

Yes, I 've seen this type of air canon as well. All of these however fire a concussive charge. The type of canon I've seen used is a pneumatic bird banger. They never used it to cause an avalanche per se, but they were able to dislodge fresh snow from an overhang at about about 100m. Whether this was as a direct result of the concussion, or simply a chance occurrence due the wind acting at the same moment is certainly debatable. I'm inclined to agree with you that is was most likely as a result of the latter.

As with many of the myths I've seen busted, this rides the fine line between what is theoretically possible under the exact right cicumstances and what is realistically possible. For your inspection, I give to you "Controlled Demolition"

3bodyproblem, I guess this could be an opportune moment to clear up some details in the avalanche discussion that I have been wondering about since your last post.

Was it a bird scarer of this type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_gun_bird_scarer.jpg

Article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_scarer#Propane_Cannons_.28propane_gas_guns.29

The same principle is used for avalanche control, but with a device on a bigger scale:
http://www.groupemnd.com/tas/anglais/gaz_ex.html
Make sure to see the video here.

So I would say that your story looks plausible.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem, I guess this could be an opportune moment to clear up some details in the avalanche discussion that I have been wondering about since your last post.

Was it a bird scarer of this type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_gun_bird_scarer.jpg

Article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_scarer#Propane_Cannons_.28propane_gas_guns.29

The same principle is used for avalanche control, but with a device on a bigger scale:
http://www.groupemnd.com/tas/anglais/gaz_ex.html
Make sure to see the video here.

So I would say that your story looks plausible.

The first one looks more like what I saw used. I can't recall, but it is possible they used propane and not compressed air. I say this because these "folk" looked like they would also have a potatoe cannon in addition to this bird banger. Again they did not cause an avalanche per se, but they did manage to shake the snow off a few tree tops at fairly close range. The thing is the amount of snow they moved was unlikely to cause an "avalanche" unless there were ideal conditions.

Like perhaps a large impact site in the snow bank followed by an office fire allowed to burn uncontrolled for more than an hour.

The gasex is a whole other animal now isn't it? The overpressure from the shock wave is rated at 25mb @ 100m! There is substantially more volume of air out the nozzle on that baby. THe only thing I can think of more powerful would be this:

 

[pomeroo]

Major Tom,

I argue that heat-weakening was used to help initiate collapse.

The next question is, "Once collapse started, was any assistance needed?" It appears the big boys say no; gravity was sufficient.

You are trying to argue - even if indirectly - that catalysts were used to control collapse progression. It appears you are arguing that the collapse is better described by explosive demolition.

I'm not seeing it. Some of your curiosos aren't that curious to me.

Your recent link isn't working. (It's always good to check links.) I'll assume the video is of the very low WTC2 "squib". That is the one curioso I have a very difficult time seeing as gravitational-collapse related. I have said that heat-weakening could have been used beyond the impact floors - even if only in a few places - to help aid collapse progression. But this creates the real problem of extra work placing, igniting, and timing the incendiaries.

So, aside from that one very low squib, my model of heat-weakening impact floors only (and gravity doing the rest) seems simple and consistent.

Your implicit model of explosives to assist collapse progression adds many more complexities, not the least of which is high-explosives, which is in direct conflict with NIST's very clear statement about finding no evidence of controlled-demolition due to explosives. I just cannot make the mental leap that the US Government would go on record with such a contradiction. (In fact, the same argument holds true as to why there would be no demolition whatsoever after collapse initiation, let alone demolition with explosives. NIST didn't study collapse progression, so if there were controlled-demolition during collapse progression this would leave the government wide open to criticism.)

Now, in stark contrast, the NIST Report is ambiguous with respect to demolition by heat-weakening using thermite. NIST's model is demolition by heat-weakening, NIST did not check for thermite residue, and NIST does not rule out thermite, but only said it is an unlikely substance for a controlled demolition. If you just read what's there, NIST is shielded by plausible deniability with respect to thermite. (I suspect that doesn't mean much to anyone but me.)

Max

Uh, Max, there's this itty-bitty question that's just a wee bit inconvenient to your fantasy...

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Uh, Max, there's this itty-bitty question that's just a wee bit inconvenient to your fantasy...

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Why don't you tell us who flew them Ron? and also who told you? While you are at it you should also tell us what the evidence is for whoever they say flew the planes.

 

[pomeroo]

Why don't you tell us who flew them Ron? and also who told you?

Gee, you ask easy questions. Nineteen jihadists, fifteen of them Saudi nationals, hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Osama bin Laden, head of the terrorist group al Qaeda, has explained his role in planning the attacks. A comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies working in concert discovered the identities of the hijackers (confirming them by DNA analysis). Saudi intelligence eventually (February 2002) acknowledged the accuracy of those findings.

Next.

 

[Furcifer]

Gee, you ask easy questions. Nineteen jihadists, fifteen of them Saudi nationals, hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Osama bin Laden, head of the terrorist group al Qaeda, has explained his role in planning the attacks. A comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies working in concert discovered the identities of the hijackers (confirming them by DNA analysis). Saudi intelligence eventually (February 2002) acknowledged the accuracy of those findings.

Next.

nice handwaving, with your "facts" and "research".. oh wait..."facts" and "research""...

 

[Good Lt]

Gee, you ask easy questions. Nineteen jihadists, fifteen of them Saudi nationals, hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Osama bin Laden, head of the terrorist group al Qaeda, has explained his role in planning the attacks. A comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies working in concert discovered the identities of the hijackers (confirming them by DNA analysis). Saudi intelligence eventually (February 2002) acknowledged the accuracy of those findings.

Next.

This is the first time in history fire has melted steel.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gee, you ask easy questions. Nineteen jihadists, fifteen of them Saudi nationals, hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Osama bin Laden, head of the terrorist group al Qaeda, has explained his role in planning the attacks. A comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies working in concert discovered the identities of the hijackers (confirming them by DNA analysis). Saudi intelligence eventually (February 2002) acknowledged the accuracy of those findings.

Next.

Please telll us how the DNA analysis was done and where they got the before and after samples from.

 

[funk de fino]

Please telll us how the DNA analysis was done and where they got the before and after samples from.

Superb derail away from the mess you have created with your engineering postings in this thread

we almost missed it.............

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Superb derail away from the mess you have created with your engineering postings in this thread

we almost missed it.............

Do you ever post anything but generally dismissive comments with no detail?

Mr. Wieck (pomeroo) brought up the "who flew the planes?" issue, in an attempt to discount Max's hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites, and I am simply asking him to prove what he is saying.

Additionally, why don't you back up your comments about my engineering postings? Can you do that instead of making these silly unsupported snide comments? If you can't, these type of comments should be dismissed as those of a ninny.

 

[pomeroo]

Please telll us how the DNA analysis was done and where they got the before and after samples from.

I think this qualifies as a concession speech. Having been beaten to a pulp by real engineers, you now want to run through this tired drill for the thousandth time. If, after six years of uninformed shrieking, you still don't understand how the investigation was conducted, you might want to do some reading. (Don't let the italicized word frighten you: of course I'm kidding!)

 

[twinstead]

I think this qualifies as a concession speech. Having been beaten to a pulp by real engineers, you now want to run through this tired drill for the thousandth time. If, after six years of uninformed shrieking, you still don't understand how the investigation was conducted, you might want to do some reading. (Don't let the italicized word frighten you: of course I'm kidding!)

Yup. I'm shocked that one who claims to be unbiased and a seeker of truth would do so little investigation that he would need to ask how the DNA investigation was done. I guess there must not be a YouTube video of it.

(Don't let the italicized word frighten you: of course I'm not really shocked)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mr. Wieck (pomeroo) brought up the "who flew the planes?" issue, in an attempt to discount Max's hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites, and I am simply asking him to prove what he is saying.

Note, incidentally, just to bring this back on topic, that the hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites is in fact the NIST hypothesis. Max's hypothesis is an exercise in conspiracist minimalism. He is trying to push a theory that reconciles two apparently irreconcilable points of view:
(1) The events of 9-11 unfolded identically in every detail to the way they are understood to have occurred outside the truth movement (Max's First Postulate), and
(2) A conspiracy within the US Government conspired to bring about the demolition of the Twin Towers (Max's Second Postulate).
He tries to achieve this by claiming that the heat-weakening of structural elements was assisted, rather than caused, by thermite charges.

Max's theory has the advantage, from the point of view of a conspiracist, that it is by definition un-debunkable due to the requirements of Max's First Postulate. Whatever evidence is found about the events can be fitted into the overarching Max Photon belief structure, which is that what happened did indeed happen but it was the Government's fault. It has the disadvantages that it violates Occam's razor - again by definition, since its only variation from any other explanation is that Max's Second Postulate adds a layer of complication ; that it assumes omniscience and perfect planning on the part of the conspirators, since it relies for its substance on a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; and that it is entirely confined at present to the specific initial failure mode of the Twin Towers, and demands for any semblance of plausibility that these two specific events are taken entirely out of context. It's the third of these shortcomings that Pomeroo is addressing, repeatedly, and that Max is repeatedly dodging.

A fourth apparent drawback to the theory, the obvious unsuitability of thermite, which generates very high temperatures over a timescale of tens of seconds, to bring about the gradual heating to intermediate temperatures over a timescale of thousands of seconds, is not actually real, because if it is ever shown up as a failure of the theory so blatantly that Max can't ignore it, he will very quickly revise the theory so as to satisfy Max's First Postulate.

Note, finally, that due to the existence of Max's First Postulate, the MAX-MIHOP theory cannot by definition be predictive, and therefore is of no conceivable use.

Dave

 

[pomeroo]

Do you ever post anything but generally dismissive comments with no detail?

Mr. Wieck (pomeroo) brought up the "who flew the planes?" issue, in an attempt to discount Max's hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites, and I am simply asking him to prove what he is saying.

Additionally, why don't you back up your comments about my engineering postings? Can you do that instead of making these silly unsupported snide comments? If you can't, these type of comments should be dismissed as those of a ninny.

The question, Who flew the planes?, delivers a fatal wound to Max's nonsensical fantasy. His total inability to cope with it has made him a laughingstock. He has ignored various posters who have patiently explained that thermite simply doesn't behave the way he wants--no, requires--it to behave. His fantasy fails at every level, but, he doesn't care. Although thermite cannot be used to weaken steel (Max really needs to explain why all the demolition experts and metallurgists are wrong), if it did what he pretends it does, he still hasn't figured out how it happened to be present on the precise floors the planes hit. He was reduced to arguing that his imaginary conspiracy placed it on almost every floor--you know, just in case!

Okay, Max is Max. He's goofy, but he's not the worst person here. My problem is with you. You claim to be a engineer, but you end up citing the nonsensical fabrications of a know-nothing to support your ostensibly scientific "analysis." Max's sin of inventing a silly hypothesis pales in comparison with yours: accepting and, worse, relying on that hypothesis while posing as a serious researcher.

I am only slightly irritated by the guy who professes to see Bigfoot every morning in his backyard. I get really ticked at the guy claiming to be a zoologist who wants to sell me a book for thirty bucks on the mating habits of Sasquatches and Yetis.

 

[funk de fino]

Do you ever post anything but generally dismissive comments with no detail?

Mr. Wieck (pomeroo) brought up the "who flew the planes?" issue, in an attempt to discount Max's hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites, and I am simply asking him to prove what he is saying.

Additionally, why don't you back up your comments about my engineering postings? Can you do that instead of making these silly unsupported snide comments? If you can't, these type of comments should be dismissed as those of a ninny.

He was asking Max yet you answered?

I read a lot of threads on this board. I like ones like this with NB, GU, Appollo, rugwinn, dave r, crazy chainsaw etc etc. I learn from them. then along comes you and heiwa and spoil them with your rubbish which is stupid even to the laymen

You are also a proven liar if i am not mistaken. You get ripped apart on this forum everytime, dont you ever get tired of it?

Tell me one thing using your engineering expertise. Once the initiation of the collapse took place (regardless of how at the moment) Do you believe the tower should have collapsed as it did?

 

[pomeroo]

Note, incidentally, just to bring this back on topic, that the hypothesis of heat weakening at the impact sites is in fact the NIST hypothesis. Max's hypothesis is an exercise in conspiracist minimalism. He is trying to push a theory that reconciles two apparently irreconcilable points of view:
(1) The events of 9-11 unfolded identically in every detail to the way they are understood to have occurred outside the truth movement (Max's First Postulate), and
(2) A conspiracy within the US Government conspired to bring about the demolition of the Twin Towers (Max's Second Postulate).
He tries to achieve this by claiming that the heat-weakening of structural elements was assisted, rather than caused, by thermite charges.

Max's theory has the advantage, from the point of view of a conspiracist, that it is by definition un-debunkable due to the requirements of Max's First Postulate. Whatever evidence is found about the events can be fitted into the overarching Max Photon belief structure, which is that what happened did indeed happen but it was the Government's fault. It has the disadvantages that it violates Occam's razor - again by definition, since its only variation from any other explanation is that Max's Second Postulate adds a layer of complication ; that it assumes omniscience and perfect planning on the part of the conspirators, since it relies for its substance on a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; and that it is entirely confined at present to the specific initial failure mode of the Twin Towers, and demands for any semblance of plausibility that these two specific events are taken entirely out of context. It's the third of these shortcomings that Pomeroo is addressing, repeatedly, and that Max is repeatedly dodging.

A fourth apparent drawback to the theory, the obvious unsuitability of thermite, which generates very high temperatures over a timescale of tens of seconds, to bring about the gradual heating to intermediate temperatures over a timescale of thousands of seconds, is not actually real, because if it is ever shown up as a failure of the theory so blatantly that Max can't ignore it, he will very quickly revise the theory so as to satisfy Max's First Postulate.

Note, finally, that due to the existence of Max's First Postulate, the MAX-MIHOP theory cannot by definition be predictive, and therefore is of no conceivable use.

Dave

Dave, your post hits the nail squarely on the head. Those of us who were riveted to our TV screens on 9/11/01 were stunned when the Towers collapsed. For people such as myself, who lack a background in engineering or physics, it was incomprehensible that buildings should survive the initial impacts, only to crumble an hour later. Clearly, the matter required elucidation by experts.

Here's where MAX-MIHOP disintegrates under the weight of its incoherence. Supposedly, the evil masterminds knew that the planes could not knock the Towers down immediately--indeed, were insufficient to knock them down at all-- so they planted thermite (why thermite?) to catalyze the collapses. BUT, they also knew that the researchers at FEMA and NIST, along with various independent scientists and engineers, would conclude that the impacts and resultant fires could and did effect the collapses of the buildings.

What's going on here? What is the source of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's special knowledge? Let's recap: the super-villains know that 1) planes are going crash into the Twin Towers--how do they know this?; 2) the impacts won't cause the buildings to fall--how do they know this?; 3) thermite (why thermite?) will somehow weaken structural steel without cutting through it, i.e., it doesn't behave as all metallurgists and demolition experts mistakenly believe it does--how do they know this?; 4) hundreds of researchers--physicists, engineers, architects, fire safety inspectors--will conclude that the impacts of the planes were capable of causing the collapses AND they will be wrong--how do they know this?; 5) no traces of thermite's distinctive signature will ever be discovered--how do they know this?

You see the problem? The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy knows things that contradict the body of accumulated knowledge in several technical fields. All serious researchers will conclude that the planes were responsible for the effects that were observed, but they will all be wrong! Max is, of course, not the least bit disturbed by these crushingly unresolvable dilemmas, but a guy who professes to be an engineer ignores their implications as well.

 

[twinstead]

You see the problem? The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy knows things that contradict the accumulated body of knowledge in several technical fields. All serious researchers will conclude that the planes were responsible for the effects that were observed, but they will all be wrong! Max is, of course, not the least bit disturbed by these crushingly unresolvable dilemmas, but a guy who professes to be an engineer ignores their implications as well.

All this just goes to show that this is merely an intellectual exorcise for Max. I think the more unresolvable dilemmas there are, the happier Max is; it allows him to morph his theory, unrestrained by any physical or logical constraints, to make it be whatever he wants.

He probably gets a kick out of it.