Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Newtons Bit]

Why weren't the EXPERTS talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building within SIX WEEKS on 9/11?



So why didn't the NIST do it?

psik

Possible answers:
1) They were bought off!
2) They were intimidated!
3) They were demanding answers but were censored!
4) They didn't need to know exact quantities to know it would collapse.

Now then, which of these seems more likely? There are thousands of licensed engineers and several times more unlicensed who work in the architectural engineering field. Knowing that, could the big bad NWO buy/intimidate/censor them all off or is it more likely that every one of us engineers are not shocked that the towers collapsed after suffering such massive damage and huge fires?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So why didn't the NIST do it?

psik

Why don't you shoot them an email and ask. They'll probably tell you why.

 

[R.Mackey]

As I have said I downloaded and searched the NIST report. The NIST does not even specify the total quantity of CONCRETE in the towers. You are welcomed to search it yourself.

If you searched the NIST report, then you found specifications of the floor pans -- the most significant amount of concrete above grade -- as well as the concrete around the beam-framed floors in NCSTAR1-1A. You also see the complete structural model in NCSTAR1-2A. The latter model, as I have already described to you, can be used to estimate the weights. This has been verified by poster shagster on these very forums, as I linked in my previous post.

There is no reason to insist on a table of weights per floor. This is not unique enough knowledge to merit its own table. Similarly, you do not find a table listing the specific steel grades per floor, the number of interior stairways apart from the core, specific floor plans, etc. All of that material exists in the Report, it merely isn't summarized in the fashion you require. I fail to see the significance.

If you fix the second link you will see a video of a model I built which has time lapse sequences of the behavior changing due to changes in mass and its distribution as a result of impacts by my airplane simulator.

And if you've modeled the problem, then you know that for small variations in expected mass and distribution, there is virtually no effect on either the impact damage or the eventual collapse. NCSTAR1-2B varied the conditions at impact by roughly +/- 20 percent in multiple dimensions, finding that both the baseline and the more severe cases would lead to both collapses; this result has since been refined by Purdue to show even less dependence with respect to the ultimate outcome. Dr. Greening among others has varied the mass and amount ejected with each floor failure, and demonstrated that the eventual collapse and the timing of collapse is quite insensitive to these parameters.

What this means is unless NIST's estimates are very, very wrong, it won't make that much difference. I would recommend you try to bound this with your model. How much of an unexpected distribution is required to make any meaningful difference? Try it.

The NIST report does say that the south tower oscillated for four minutes as a result of the impacts. The kinetic energy of that plane had two effects on the building. Punching the hole doing structural damage and creating the oscillation. How do you compute the energy that caused the oscillation without the distribution of mass. Doesn't it take more energy to move 200 tons 6 inches than it does to move 100 tons 6 inches. So the mass and movement of those floors needs to be determined because that energy did not do structural damage in the impact area.

Now when has that been discussed in the analysis?

This is discussed primarily in NCSTAR1-2B, where the impulse applied to the structures is computed for you in Figure 9-6 and 9-28. The measurements for WTC 2 are covered in NCSTAR1-5A in Section 7.3 and Appendix K, and the subject is discussed again in Section 2.4.3 of NCSTAR1-5D, with pp. 43-45 of that report providing a simplified analysis of the reactive kinetics.

It should help you, however, to avoid thinking in terms of energy. The quantity under discussion is not energy, but momentum. Think of the aircraft-building system as a ballistic pendulum.

There is a surplus of energy available. Some would be siphoned off in mechanical motion. Some exits the building as kinetic energy of flying pieces. A great deal is consumed in destruction of materials, but this depends on how strongly they are destroyed, and this is almost impossible to estimate. Neither can we estimate the impulse applied to the structure precisely, but this is present in the NIST model. It's a minor correction. As shown by Dr. Greening and since refined, the slower of the two aircraft impacts had enough kinetic energy to totally destroy every column on the impact floor. Of course, it couldn't possibly hit every single column, and a great deal of energy was expended against the structure interior as well as destroying the aircraft itself, so what we observed is pretty much as expected.

Take another look at NCSTAR1-2B. All of the energy in the LS-DYNA model is slowly being reduced as time steps forward. Not all of this is due to destruction of materials. Where is the rest going? You've got it, into accelerating the structure. NIST's models treat the tower sway energy sink rigorously.

Now there are all of those Truthers saying the fires didn't get hot enough to weaken the steel and the steel conducted the heat away but they don't talk about the quantity of steel. What the hell kind of sense does that make? There is also the business of the violation of the conservation of momentum in the speed of the collapse. How do you compute momentum without knowing the mass? So the real question is: Why weren't the EXPERTS talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building within SIX WEEKS on 9/11?

I don't understand your confusion. The steel and concrete, again, are known quantities, probably to within about five percent. Most of the experts who reacted quickly appear to have overestimated the amounts, if we trust Gregory Urich and the SAP2000 models that came out later, so clearly the experts would have been underestimating the structure's vulnerability. Their conclusion that collapse was expected is therefore still quite sound.

 

[jandarian]

Just wanted to offer some support for you R.Mackey, you really are laying this out quite well.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is also the business of the violation of the conservation of momentum in the speed of the collapse. How do you compute momentum without knowing the mass?

I just wanted to highlight this specific point, and comment on its relevance to the truth movement. Steven Jones has made a statement in his recent publication that the collapse violated the law of conservation of momentum. This is a specific claim, for which he has advanced no evidence. If what you're saying is correct, then it's a claim for which he could have no possible evidence. If we were, therefore, to accept (which personally I don't) that the mass distribution of the towers is not well enough known to carry out a sufficiently accurate conservation of momentum calculation, this actually reflects more unfavourably on Steven Jones than on NIST, who to my knowledge have never published a statement that the collapse times did not violate the law of conservation of momentum.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

Greetings,

This is my first post on JREF. I haven't read most of this thread but I did search it for "tons".

After all of these years why don't we have a table telling us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC. I downloaded and burned the NIST report to DVD more and a year ago and searched it dozens of times. I could not tell you the tons of steel on the 81st level of the south tower where the plane hit. But the report says one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

I have also looked at Gregory Urich's spreadsheet.

Here is data from Urich's spreadsheet. It is from the column "core column steel tons". These are the six basement levels. As far as I know the columns were 36 feet long and and each level was 12 feet high. But not only is every level different but they get lighter as you go down. Now how is that possible?

B1 469,32
B2 461,57
B3 453,81
B4 446,06
B5 438,31
B6 430,56

911research (dot) wtc7.net/papers/urich/calcMassAndPeWtc1.htm

Now if you check you will notice that each level is different by 7,75. That looks like some kind of linear interpolation with the lightest on the bottom.

But on floors 1 thru 6 are all an identical 477,07.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. So though I admire Urich's effort I am inclined to be suspicious of the details and wonder how he got such weird numbers. So as far as I am concerned there is no reliable data to base a DEBATE on. We can't tell with any precision what the plane hit.

That is reason to criticize every architectural and engineering schools in the United States. Why isn't every engineering school in the country demanding a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC.

www (dot) youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

PS - Can't post URLs yet.

Welcome Psikey,

The column size data was extracted from the NIST SAP2000 model and released based on a FOIA request. Lon Waters has published shapes and dimensions along with the original data which is available in spreadsheet format on that site. I was pretty surprised by the lowest columns being somewhat smaller that the ones above. There could be some mistake, but there are a few possible explanations.

The structure is different below grade in that there are no "open" floors as in the rest of the building. Thus there are extra columns spread out over the entire floor area. Also the floor height is 10' instead of 12' which raises the buckling strength because of the length factor so they could use slightly smaller members. It is also possible that the lowest columns were all of higher grade steel.

I do use linear interpolation based on the SAP2000 data. All the sources and methods are explained in the article which is a separate file. (See 4.3.3 Variation of Core Column Steel). Note that original steel contracts had more steel than the SAP data. This could be those extra columns so there is surely room for refinement in my calculation. Unfortunately, the amount of information in NIST's NCSTAR reports regarding the lower levels is pretty limited.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why don't you shoot them an email and ask. They'll probably tell you why.

I already have. No response.

I have also emailed Prof. Sozen and christopher Hoffman at Purdue who made that north tower simulation. Hoffman responded but just said to contact Sozen. Sozen has not responded. I have emailed Kevin Ryan, no response.

I contacted Richard Gage in June of 2007 regarding a 36 page paper written by Frank Greening. Greening was supposed ly computing the potential energy and had lots of complex equations in the last half. But he made 2 dumb mistakes on page 3. He divided the mass of the tower by 110 to compute the average mass for each level. The first problem with that is that the building had to be bottom heavy so he was assuming too much weight was too high. Also he ignored the 6 basement levels so even his average was wrong.

Gage responded that I was correct but Greening did not respond. I have read that he uses this board under the name Apollo.

www (dot) freethoughtforum.org/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=645

But I have emailed Gage since then about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level since then but gotten no response.

psik

 

[Newtons Bit]

I already have. No response.

I have also emailed Prof. Sozen and christopher Hoffman at Purdue who made that north tower simulation. Hoffman responded but just said to contact Sozen. Sozen has not responded. I have emailed Kevin Ryan, no response.

I contacted Richard Gage in June of 2007 regarding a 36 page paper written by Frank Greening. Greening was supposed ly computing the potential energy and had lots of complex equations in the last half. But he made 2 dumb mistakes on page 3. He divided the mass of the tower by 110 to compute the average mass for each level. The first problem with that is that the building had to be bottom heavy so he was assuming too much weight was too high. Also he ignored the 6 basement levels so even his average was wrong.

Gage responded that I was correct but Greening did not respond. I have read that he uses this board under the name Apollo.

www (dot) freethoughtforum.org/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=645

But I have emailed Gage since then about the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level since then but gotten no response.

psik

Looks like both the truthers and the "establishment" are both ignoring you. Ever think that this may not be a problem with them and rather a problem in how you're writing emails?

 

[psikeyhackr]

this actually reflects more unfavourably on Steven Jones than on NIST, who to my knowledge have never published a statement that the collapse times did not violate the law of conservation of momentum.

I don't particularly care about Steven Jones or the NIST. I am not judging this on anybody's reputation. I am just talking about the physics.

We are supposed to believe the tops of two buildings which had to lighter than every sequence of equivalent number of floors below could come straight down and not only crush the supporting steel but accelerate their mass for the entire collapse to the ground so that it occurred in almost the free fall time. But then these EXPERTS can't bother to tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. Is that too difficult to do in 3 years with $20,000,000.

When I say FLOOR I am referring to that square donut floor slab. Those are mostly identical except for the technical floors and the basements. By LEVEL I mean all of the mass in a vertical distance of 12 feet including the floor inside the core and the core columns and the exterior columns. The average amount of steel per level would be 862 tons. But a table specifying the tons of steel per level would show the change in weight of steel needed to support the greater weight of the building as you go down. I have encountered contradictory accounts of concrete in the core. The trouble is this is such an easy and comprehensible way to express the information why haven't they done it?

Suppose you have two 100 pounds weights in space. One is stationary and the other is moving at 100 mph. The second impacts the first and you have one 200 pound mass. It will be moving at 50 mph.

(100 lb * 100 mph) + (100 lb * 0 mph) = 200 lb * 50 mph

So momentum is conserved. The velocity goes down just because of increased mass and that doesn't even involve physical supports which would have to be broken in the case of the WTC.

Now with the WTC things get a bit more complicated. The bottom of the falling portion should encounter the top of the intact portion and they should proceed to crush each other and slow the top portion down. But as that top portion comes farther down it must encounter progressively heavier and stronger portions of the bottom. So a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level seems the obvious way to express this problem. Why should it be difficult for the nation that put men on the moon to supply that information about a building designed before the moon landing 38 years after that engineering feat.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Possible answers:
1) They were bought off!
2) They were intimidated!
3) They were demanding answers but were censored!
4) They didn't need to know exact quantities to know it would collapse.

Now then, which of these seems more likely?

I expect experts who claim to know what they are talking about to explain things in a comprehensible manner. I am not going to spend time worrying about why they don't I am just not going to BELIEVE the crap and just focus on the problem myself. Especially if it is just about a grade school physics problem.

Did you watch the video or not?

I suppose it would be too easy for LAYMEN to understand a table with tons of steel and tons of concrete for each level.

psik

 

[Disbelief]

I expect experts who claim to know what they are talking about to explain things in a comprehensible manner. I am not going to spend time worrying about why they don't I am just not going to BELIEVE the crap and just focus on the problem myself. Especially if it is just about a grade school physics problem.

Did you watch the video or not?

I suppose it would be too easy for LAYMEN to understand a table with tons of steel and tons of concrete for each level.

psik

Why would the NIST report go out of its way to explain things to a layman? They are more concerned with professionals and how they can utilize the information, not to placate layman who either do not care about specifics (most of the country) or those who will never believe unless CD is the answer (truthers).

 

[Apollo20]

Psikeyhackr:

If you have e-mailed me about my calculation and I did not respond, I am not aware of this because I answer ALL my e-mails (that look legit and are not abusive that is!). I therefore challenge you to post your alleged e-mail to me on this thread and I will answer it on this thread. (Maybe not immediately since I will be off-line for a while, starting tomorrow, but I will answer it, as I am answering you now).

As for my "dumb mistakes", I used a constant mass because I wanted simplicity of computation, not because of dumbness! And besides, as you point out, no one had published a table of floor masses when I was doing my calculations back in 2005. Gregory Urich has made a noble attempt to do this more recently and I applaud him for trying.

If a reliable table of masses is available I could re-calculate the collapse time and we can see how much difference it makes. However, I predict it will not make much difference to use precise data, as opposed to a single approximate average value, because the collapse of each tower was mainly under gravitational control. Please remember that Galileo showed, back around 1600, that all feely falling objects, when starting from rest, fall an equal distance in the same time. Now WTC 1 fell at about 2/3 g and WTC 2 fell at about 3/4 g. The fact that these collapses were not at precisely free fall shows that there was resistance to the motion which I quantify in terms of a collapse energy E1. Thus the difference between the observed collapse times and the free fall collapse time of 9.2 seconds is related to the ratio of E1/Mh. Thus we need to know E1 AND M to accurately predict the collapse times. Since the value of E1, (which I can also vary floor-by-foor), is uncertain, why worry only about the mass?

I like to think that my calculation was more about offering a methodology to study the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, than to provide precise collapse times. I used the best data I had available AT THE TIME; other researchers can use any, hopefully improved, input data they want and we will see what difference it makes!

 

[Dave Rogers]

We are supposed to believe the tops of two buildings which had to lighter than every sequence of equivalent number of floors below could come straight down and not only crush the supporting steel but accelerate their mass for the entire collapse to the ground so that it occurred in almost the free fall time.

This is a fallacy. The collapse times were in the range 13-16 seconds, about 50% greater than the time for a free-falling object to fall from the roof of a WTC tower. This means that the acceleration downwards of the tops of the towers was significantly less than gravitational acceleration.

However, there's another fallacy. Nobody's telling you to believe anything. The towers fell. How do you think they fell, if not due to fire and impact damage? At the moment there is no other plausible hypothesis. Explosives? There weren't any bangs loud enough, and at the right time, for that to be possible. The collapses started in the fire zones, where explosive charges would have burned away. The few, and highly dubious, accounts of any suspicious activity in the WTC before 9-11 involve far too short times or the wrong parts of the buildings to account for the placing of explosives. And even if you do try to explain the collapses with explosives, you run into the same problem with the conservation of momentum that you started out with; since the collapses started at the top and progressed downwards, the falling part of the towers had to accelerate the stationary part in exactly the same way. The only way a collapse could have taken place without requiring the falling block to accelerate the lower floors is for the supports at every level to have been severed simultaneously, in which case the collapses would have looked completely different; or for the collapses to have initiated at the bottom of the towers, which they very obviously didn't.

This is a point conspiracy theorists repeatedly fail to address. They claim, usually without adequate justification, that certain aspects of the collapse violate the laws of physics if the collapses were due to fire and debris damage. What they fail to understand is that, even if the collapses were initiated by explosives, they would have progressed in exactly the same way after initiation. Their alternative theories have the exact same flaws they claim with the actual events of the day; the simple explanation being, of course, that those supposed flaws are not flaws at all.

But then these EXPERTS can't bother to tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level. Is that too difficult to do in 3 years with $20,000,000.

You really should read Gregory Urich's paper at the Journal of 9-11 Studies (in my opinion it's the only worthwhile paper that "journal" has published so far). He's calculated the weights of the towers, floor by floor, using information provided by NIST. They've done exactly what you're complaining about them not having done. And I'm not the first person to tell you this.

Suppose you have two 100 pounds weights in space. One is stationary and the other is moving at 100 mph. The second impacts the first and you have one 200 pound mass. It will be moving at 50 mph.

(100 lb * 100 mph) + (100 lb * 0 mph) = 200 lb * 50 mph

So momentum is conserved. The velocity goes down just because of increased mass and that doesn't even involve physical supports which would have to be broken in the case of the WTC.

Now with the WTC things get a bit more complicated. The bottom of the falling portion should encounter the top of the intact portion and they should proceed to crush each other and slow the top portion down. But as that top portion comes farther down it must encounter progressively heavier and stronger portions of the bottom. So a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level seems the obvious way to express this problem. Why should it be difficult for the nation that put men on the moon to supply that information about a building designed before the moon landing 38 years after that engineering feat.

psik

Gregory Urich has done that calculation too. He posted the results here for comments a while back. The collapse time came out fine. And Gregory seriously suspected that explosives were involved before he started this work, as I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

I expect experts who claim to know what they are talking about to explain things in a comprehensible manner. I am not going to spend time worrying about why they don't I am just not going to BELIEVE the crap and just focus on the problem myself. Especially if it is just about a grade school physics problem.

Did you watch the video or not?

I suppose it would be too easy for LAYMEN to understand a table with tons of steel and tons of concrete for each level.

psik

But you were asking why the EXPERTS weren't talking about tonnages.

Why weren't the EXPERTS talking about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building within SIX WEEKS on 9/11

And now you're talking about LAYMEN? What gives? Do you still think that the EXPERTS should have been talking about the tonnages? They obviously weren't to the mass media. Why do you think they weren't?

 

[Viper Daimao]

Am I missing something? Hasn't psikeyhackr already been told 3 times that they did include the tons and tons of steel and concrete? I could be wrong because I'm just a layman though.

If you searched the NIST report, then you found specifications of the floor pans -- the most significant amount of concrete above grade -- as well as the concrete around the beam-framed floors in NCSTAR1-1A. You also see the complete structural model in NCSTAR1-2A. The latter model, as I have already described to you, can be used to estimate the weights. This has been verified by poster shagster on these very forums, as I linked in my previous post.

 

[psikeyhackr]

www (dot) freethoughtforum.org/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=645

OK people, I don't recall this coming up before on this website but I am one of those insane people that gets called a tinfoiler and is incapable of believing that an airliner could knock down a WTC tower in less than 2 hours on 9/11, much less two of them.

In an exchange on another site someone brought up a link to an EXPERT that is so dumb I just had to share it. So far my google searches have not turned up anyone else pointing out this stupidity and I find that somewhat shocking. So let's see if anyone here can point out something wrong with my reasoning.

This is an exchange about the grammar school physics of the collapse.

Apparently the experts can get away with really dumb mistakes.

============== First Post by Lurid Larry ================

Maybe with psikeyhacker and "many others" but not with engineers.

When you care enough to read the very best.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

By F. R. Greening

www (dot) 911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Lurid Larry

=============== Firsst Response by Me =================

Greenings report is here:

www (dot) nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

[That link has changed but it had the same info as the previous one]

On page 3 it says this:

For the general case of n floors collapsing we define a collapsing mass Me:

Me = n m(f) ............................(1)

where m(f) is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the entire mass of an entire WTC tower, namely m(f) = (510,000,000 / 110)kg = 4,636,000 kg.

Now the World Trade Center was 116 stories tall. The foundation was sunk into bedrock which was necessary for a building that tall and massive and there were 6 basements. So when people quote figures for the mass of the building are those levels included or not? Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor? If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.

So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.

Why don't you check out the NIST reports yourself Lurid Larry.

Some people need experts ... to tell them what to think.

psik

== Next Response by me skipping a couple by LL that weren't informative ==

If you have a problem with the data, I suggest you do some research.

Lurid Larry

I had already done it, but I think about the research I do not just believe it. Here are some thoughts about yours, maybe you can handle blocks.

Suppose we do some simplified collapse calculations with 3 sets of blocks to get some basic principles settled. The blocks are all 1 unit on the side. Two stacks of blocks are made with sequentially wieghted cubes that weigh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 pounds each. One stack is built with the heaviest toward the bottom and the other with the heaviest toward the top. These stacks weigh 66 pounds so the average is 6 pounds therefore the third stack is built with 11, 6 pound blocks.

                                        Weights
Fall distance     Btm Hvy     Top Hvy     Avg
    10               1           11        6
     9               2           10        6
     8               3            9        6
     7               4            8        6
     6               5            7        6
     5               6            6        6
     4               7            5        6
     3               8            4        6
     2               9            3        6
     1              10             2        6
     0              11             1        6
                    220          440    330

Multiplying the distance fallen times the weight of the block and adding that for all of the blocks in the stack yields 220 for the bottom heavy stack. The top heavy stack is double that amount and the average is right in the middle as expected. But what tall building is going to be built top heavy? And the average stack is 50% higher than the bottom heavy arrangement. Would you want to go into a building designed by supposed engineer that tolerated a 50% error?

Now since I am using 11 blocks and the WTC was 110 stories then 1 of my blocks is representative of 10 floors of the WTC. Your engineer talks about the mass of the top 30 stories so that must mean the south tower and equivalent to my top 3 blocks. The top 3 in the bottom heavy case have a total mass of 6, but the top 3 in the averaged case have a total mass of 18. So if the WTC was in fact bottom heavy then the data your engineer is working with could be way off even if his equations for collapse energy are correct because he is assuming too much mass toward the top.

So what about the bottom heavy case with basements.

                         Weight
Fall distance     Btm Hvy
        10             1   
          9            2   
          8            3   
          7            4   
          6            5   
          5            6   
          4            7   
          3            8   
          2            9   
          1           10   
          0           11   
          0           12    underground sub-basements
                     220

If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

NIST can't be wrong!

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

================ The End ====================

FR Greening is a Canadian chemist. What is a chemist doing getting media time if he is talking about the energy of collapsing masses?

Any comments?

psik

 

[Dave Rogers]

Any comments?

Yes. You've crossed over from stupidity into outright incoherence. Firstly, what makes you think that your fantasy tower made from wooden blocks has any relation to reality? Your suggestion that the bottom 10 floors weigh 11 times as much as the top 10 floors is far less realistice than the approximation that they all weigh the same, since it's only the support columns that need to vary in weight and not the floor trusses or concrete slabs. Secondly, how many times do you have to be told that the information all exists before you stop complaining that it doesn't? Read the paper I already directed you to.

And finally, it's Dr. Greening.

Dave

 

[Pookster]

FR Greening is a Canadian chemist. What is a chemist doing getting media time if he is talking about the energy of collapsing masses?

Any comments?

psik

Yeah, I have a few. Dr. Greening is also male. That makes him a male Canadian chemist. He's also not all that young either. That makes him and older male Canadian chemist. He's also very bright and intelligent, if not cantankerous quite often. That makes him a bright, intelligent, often cantankerous older male Canadian chemist.

I hope that helps.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

Hey genius, all structural steel weighs almost exactly 490pounds per cubic foot. Before you go around accusing other people of not being accurate on steel buildings, why don't you go out and learn the basics of the material properties of steel.

 

[psikeyhackr]

But you were asking why the EXPERTS weren't talking about tonnages.

And now you're talking about LAYMEN? What gives? Do you still think that the EXPERTS should have been talking about the tonnages? They obviously weren't to the mass media. Why do you think they weren't?

The NIST says this on their website:

Why is NIST doing this investigation?
NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator.

www (dot) nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

Now Americans are dying in Iraq as a result of crap started on 9/11.

So why shouldn't people that do not have degrees in physics or architecture or structural engineering be able to understand how a 175 ton airliner could cause a 500,000 ton building to collapse straight down to the ground and why is the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on each level too much to ask?

I am not interested in these so called debates that go off on tangents arguing about words instead of focusing on accurate data about the problem.

If the top portion of that building came straight down encountering and crushing everything below than it encountered TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE level by level. The EXPERTS should have noticed that.

psik