Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[Mr X]

I'm sure we'd all love to hear why. Perhaps you could draw us a diagram to demonstrate it.

Dave

It's fiction..... why waste energy on it. If you and others here want to waste time on it.... that your choice.

 

[twinstead]

Well. Mr X says it's fiction. Must be fiction then.

 

[Mr X]

Well. Mr X says it's fiction. Must be fiction then.

I refer you to my previous answer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I refer you to my previous answer.

Mr X....... hate to be the one to point this out.

Your previous answer is of no consequence.

Dave

 

[Mr X]

Mr X....... hate to be the one to point this out.

Your previous answer is of no consequence.

Dave

You know.. your doing not bad for someone who ran off when he was asked to explain his ideas with a diagram.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You know.. your doing not bad for someone who ran off when he was asked to explain his ideas with a diagram.

Clearly I did a very bad job of running off, since I'm still here. Meanwhile, your diagram doesn't seem much in evidence. Since you can't advance an argument, can you draw me a picture that shows what's wrong with Seffen's analysis?

Dave

 

[Mr X]

Clearly I did a very bad job of running off, since I'm still here. Meanwhile, your diagram doesn't seem much in evidence. Since you can't advance an argument, can you draw me a picture that shows what's wrong with Seffen's analysis?

Dave

You're still here cos you haven't got anything else to do...... no?

Regarding: '.....that shows whats wrong with Seffen's analysis'.
Kind of get the feeling that you'll be arguing till you're blue in the face that you're so right.

Anycase, I don't care if you believe his analysis or not.

 

[applecorped]

If you don't care what Dave believes then please stop posting.

 

[chillzero]

Please stop bickering.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're still here cos you haven't got anything else to do...... no?

Yes, that's right. Funny how everyone who disagrees with you either runs away or has nothing better to do than argue with you, whereas you either defend your position bravely against all comers or have important business elsewhere.

Regarding: '.....that shows whats wrong with Seffen's analysis'.
Kind of get the feeling that you'll be arguing till you're blue in the face that you're so right.

Arguing against what? At the moment you're claiming victory when you haven't even turned up for the game.

Anycase, I don't care if you believe his analysis or not.

Clearly not, otherwise you'd have made multiple posts to try and convince us it was false.

Hang on.....

Dave

 

[applecorped]

I have last year written a paper about WTC1 for children that I copied Nist of course and then Nist changed opinion and suggested that 6-11 floors dropped down and caused global collapse. My paper has then been noted at JREF and there we are. No need to call anyone at Nist or contributing to Nist a fool. They are just working for the government.

You wrote a paper that has been noted at JREF. That's it? No peer reveiw?
No Journal publication? And why exactly are you writing papers about 9/11 for children that contains so much (dubious) technical information. Are you trying to turn another generation into CTers?

 

[DGM]

It's fiction..... why waste energy on it. If you and others here want to waste time on it.... that your choice.

Why don't you tell us in detail what happened then? You know layman's terms. Go for it, tell a 30 year construction professional how it was done (don't be afraid of using trade terms I'll understand).

 

[Heiwa]

You wrote a paper that has been noted at JREF. That's it? No peer reveiw?
No Journal publication? And why exactly are you writing papers about 9/11 for children that contains so much (dubious) technical information. Are you trying to turn another generation into CTers?

You are right. I have published an article on my website about 9/11 (or rather the WTC1 collapse) for children. Why should I have it peer reviewed? Actually, the children do the review. Some of them got worried when they saw WTC1 collapsing. But they are good observers. And reality must be rooted in observations.
Dubious information? Pls specify!
Purpose is, if you read the conclusions of my article, that some 'experts' should re-do their analysises. Based on real observations. A time table would also fit well. But no differential equations based on erroneous assumptions, please. Write for children!

Heiwa

PS Children do not read Nist reports and I doubt many parents read it for children. Or at all?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are right. I have published an article on my website about 9/11 (or rather the WTC1 collapse) for children. Why should I have it peer reviewed? Actually, the children do the review. Some of them got worried when they saw WTC1 collapsing.

I'm sure they've all been a lot less worried since you pointed out to them that their government is trying to kill them. And, of course, they're all a lot safer since you pointed out to them that they can trust terrorists never to do anything nasty to them. Next, you should write them a paper explaining how the scissor-man will cut their arms off if they bite their fingernails, and that there's really no need to look both ways before crossing the road because cars never hit children who've been good.

Purpose is, if you read the conclusions of my article, that some 'experts' should re-do their analysises. Based on real observations. A time table would also fit well. But no differential equations based on erroneous assumptions, please. Write for children!

If you honestly believe that, you're mad. By all means, when you've done the analysis properly, a summary for non-technical people is a good thing, and pitching such a summary at the level of comprehension of an intelligent child is an excellent approach for doing so. What you're suggesting, however, is that the analysis should be carried out at the level of an intelligent child. Do that, and you're more or less guaranteed to be wrong. Which more or less explains your paper.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:

You have to accept that treating the upper block of WTC 1 as a rigid mass is just an approximation; but I would say it's not a bad approximation. The upper block did NOT immediately disintegrate as you claim. On the contrary, all the columns and floor slabs in the upper block remained more or less interconnected for the first half of the collapse. Thus the upper block moved as a single unit and acted as a single mass of ~ 33,000 tonnes on the structure below. Thus you are incorrect when you argue that the upper section simply broke into a million pieces, and that these pieces mostly by-passed the structure below as they fell............., Heiwa, this is NOT what happened!

What do you mean with: 'On the contrary, all the columns and floor slabs in the upper block remained more or less interconnected for the first half of the collapse.'

My observations of WTC1 are that most of the upper block disintegrates (telescopes into itself) before any collapse of the lower structure below the initiation zone has even started!

Therefore: 'Thus the upper block moved as a single unit and acted as a single mass of ~ 33,000 tonnes on the structure below.' is wrong. An upper block that disintegrates (telescopes into itself) is not a single unit or mass.

And what would this single unit/mass do then? Impact?

There is no impact. It is NOT what happened, It, the impact, is just an invention (or assumption) to fit some theory of conspiracy about shock waves and crush fronts.

I do not see any impact on all the WTC1 videos but I have seen and heard many in reality under other circumstances, none followed by 'global collapse'.

I do not say that the upper block broke into million pieces before 'impact'. The lower part broke into million pieces ... but that could not have been caused by the upper block + gravity. Gravity does not work like that!

Back to the ivory tower, doctor!

 

[Heiwa]

Just out of interest, Heiwa, what would you expect for the density of a cargo ship carrying five cranes? Considering the hull alone it had better be a lot less than 1, otherwise it'll quickly become a cargo submarine. Include the cranes themselves, which have a lot of volume and not much mass, and I'd be surprised if you get an average density much over 0.2. Look at the picture.

http://www.tradership.co.uk/News.cfm?URLID=9

Because a couple of weeks ago in Felixstowe this cargo ship collided with a container crane, causing a global collapse not only of that crane but of the crane next to it. Mind you, those were steel structures, so you can't compare them to the WTC towers, which were, errr....

Funny thing, density. The main thing about it is that it's a different property to weight, or to momentum, or to potential energy, or to structural rigidity, or anything else that's actually relevant to the situation you're describing. And you, of all people, should understand that. Ships are a classic case of structures that require high structural strength at low average density. If you honestly believe that, because an object is no more dense on average than a bale of wool, that it is therefore no more rigid and no more resilient than a bale of wool, then I fear for the safety of anyone who sails on a ship you designed. And if a ship you designed collides with a ship you didn't design, I know which one I want to be on.

What you're doing, Heiwa, is looking through the physical parameters of the WTC towers until you find one that looks small, and then implying that because that one parameter is small, the towers themselves were small. It would be reprehensibly dishonest if it weren't so transparently fraudulent as to be laughable.

Dave

OT of course, but cargo ships often carry cargoes with density >1 or even >4 (ore). And they do not sink! Arkimedes explained why >200 years BC. Smart guy. Google Arkimedes! He is still around!

Note: only cargo has density >1. Would sink like a stone. That's why we have cargo ships to carry cargo with density >1. They float.

FYI, it is quite easy to load a ship (wrongly) and it breaks apart in two pieces, both of which float! Why is that? Local failure. Fairly easy to put the two parts together again. After analysis why failure took place.

Same thing and exactly the same principles for WTC1. Start to explain the local failures. Then I will explain why the structure below will still stand.

You say: Ships are a classic case of structures that require high structural strength at low average density.

At low average density?

No serious person uses such words in engineering. Low? Average? Density? Seffen uses uniform density! Even worse! Low average density!! Have I have to laugh.

Heiwa

 

[CHF]

My observations of WTC1 are that most of the upper block disintegrates (telescopes into itself) before any collapse of the lower structure below the initiation zone has even started!

So the upper block turned to dust and then the collapse started?

Now that I gotta see! I don't think that claim has even been made by anyone other than perhaps Judy Wood.

What, in your opinion, caused this "disintegration" of the upper block, Heiwa?

 

[Heiwa]

So the upper block turned to dust and then the collapse started?

Now that I gotta see! I don't think that claim has even been made by anyone other than perhaps Judy Wood.

What, in your opinion, caused this "disintegration" of the upper block, Heiwa?

No, the upper block did not turn into dust so early as seen on videos. Look at any WTC1 video or check my web page. First sign of anything strange is that the roof starts to move down. And the roof is moving down for at least three seconds and nothing happens at the the initiation zone floors 93-98 below the upper block during that time (and no collapse of structure below floor 93). The upper block apparently becomes 20-25 meters shorter - compressed - in that time ... and noting happens below.

But then things start to happen at the initiation zone floors 93-98. Smoke is ejected through the windows for say 0.5 seconds. The columns are intact.

And then it goes fast. The lower steel structure is destroyed. Difficult to see. Smoke and dust obstructing the view.

And only then the upper block seems to have turned into dust. Not to be seen. It + mast should be seen above the dust/smoke.

It is only the weight of the rigid upper block + mast that is supposed to drive the gravity driven avalanche that chews up steel structure below.

But the upper block is not to be seen.

This is my observations rooted in reality. These observations must be explained in physical (or mathematical) terms. Hopefully layman's terms. No differential equations, please.

Nist has apparently changed opinion about the upper block. In their Dec 07 FAQ they suggest that 6-11 floors above the initiation zone suddenly dropped down and caused the global collapse. I do not believe that either. Why?

There are no observations of 6-11 floors dropping ... and reality must be rooted in observation.

 

[X]

To all you people talking density:
Please enlighten me as to what units you are using.

 

[Minadin]

To all you people talking density:
Please enlighten me as to what units you are using.

Kirkmans.