OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It would take more than the energy stored in the upper floors to crush ONE single floor to 60um. That means that if only 1/10 (one tenth) of the floor was crushed to 60um and the rest of the floor was left intact it would still require more energy than that provided by the fall of one floor. Thus making it very hard to keep a sustained reaction. Not to mention the fact that under the concrete there was a sheet of steel that also required energy to be bent just like every other piece of bent steel found in the site.

Can you say gravity induced global collapse?

Gravity is a sort of energy if you think about it. Ever wonder why meteorites are found on Earth & why they burn in the atmosphere?

It's called GRAVITY!

"This is heavy doc!"

 

[A W Smith]

Can you say gravity induced global collapse?

Gravity is a sort of energy if you think about it. Ever wonder why meteorites are found on Earth & why they burn in the atmosphere?

It's called GRAVITY!

"This is heavy doc!"

Chewy, There simply can't be any meteorites found on earth. As evidenced by their fireballs they consume too much energy to reach the earths surface and bounce back into space.

 

[Java Man]

Hm, you left out the interesting half of my message:



Here's an excerpt:

At this point, and for all subsequent impacts [between floors], the energy consumed in pulverizing the WTC 1 concrete was essentially constant and progressively less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy as illustrated in Figure 2.
​

Ok, I'll read into it further. What's your point of view regarding the lack of consideration for the steel?

 

[Java Man]

Can you say gravity induced global collapse?

Gravity is a sort of energy if you think about it. Ever wonder why meteorites are found on Earth & why they burn in the atmosphere?

It's called GRAVITY!

"This is heavy doc!"

But they don't burn when the hit the Moon. Is there no gravity there?

3+ mach airplanes heat up a lot. Are they affected by out of this world gravity?

I can suspend an electrically charged particle in an electrical field so it doesn't fall due to gravity. Have I created anti-energy?

 

[alienentity]

Ok, I'll read into it further. What's your point of view regarding the lack of consideration for the steel?

Don't know if anyone else linked you to this paper but here it is:

pp 10 - 11 of What did and did not cause the collapse of WTC twin towers in New York
Bazant, Le et all, Journal of the ASCE 2008

Discusses and calculates energy required to pulverize concrete.

 

[beachnut]

Small part of the energy sink? Are you kidding me? It would take more than the energy stored in the upper floors to crush ONE single floor to 60um. That means that if only 1/10 (one tenth) of the floor was crushed to 60um and the rest of the floor was left intact it would still require more energy than that provided by the fall of one floor. Thus making it very hard to keep a sustained reaction. Not to mention the fact that under the concrete there was a sheet of steel that also required energy to be bent just like every other piece of bent steel found in the site.

??? nonsense! This is funny, if not so sad to see you try so hard to save the CD delusion.

No need to worry about the energy being gone when it falls on the floor below; the weight of the dust and floors can not be held by one floor in the WTC. Darn, back to work at making up lies to support your need the moronic conspiracy of CD.

Major Tom is trying to prove the WTC can gravity collapse due to the top falling on the bottom! DID YOU READ his paper?

Then Major Tom says, see, you can use a little CD here and there (like your gone energy), and the WTC falls in a gravity collapse.

You are effectively saying Major Tom is wrong. You debunked Major Tom with woo, and failed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

But they don't burn when the hit the Moon. Is there no gravity there?

3+ mach airplanes heat up a lot. Are they affected by out of this world gravity?

I don't typically defend Chewy, but you appear to have missed the part where he talked about "atmosphere". Earth has one. The moon does not.

Duh.

Chewy might not understand how potential energy is a function of gravity, but most of us do.

 

[Java Man]

Then Major Tom says, see, you can use a little CD here and there (like your gone energy), and the WTC falls in a gravity collapse.

I think we're all in agreement by now that buildings can collapse due to gravity alone in a chain reaction. It was gone over with the French patent and the earthquake induced pancaked buildings.

 

[Java Man]

I don't typically defend Chewy, but you appear to have missed the part where he talked about "atmosphere". Earth has one. The moon does not.

Duh.

Chewy might not understand how potential energy is a function of gravity, but most of us do.

That doesn't make gravity a "type of energy". Nor does it allow him to express himself in such a shallow and in a way mocking way.

Things don't burn up in the atmosphere as they come in from space. They heat up. Burning happens when the atmosphere can oxidize the incoming object. The space shuttle for example heats up, but the shields don't burn up. In a pure helium atmosphere things would heat up and burn? No, they'd heat up and melt, change shape and be deformed, but helium being an inert gas would not react with the meteorite. Also potential energy is not only a function of gravity, but of mass to. A sufficiently charged particle (relative to its mass) could be deflected by Earth's magnetic field. Adding or subtracting to the speed induced by gravity.

 

[pgimeno]

Ok, I'll read into it further. What's your point of view regarding the lack of consideration for the steel?

It makes me think that that paper is incomplete, if you're right (I admit not having read it, but I've already seen you draw incorrect conclusions out of it). However the other paper deals with it. Here's another excerpt from page 18 of it:

Finally we need to evaluate the term E_p(steel) - the plastic strain energy dissipated by the buckling of columns in the damage zone of WTC 1. E_p(steel) may be estimated from the area under a load vs. vertical displacement curve for a representative WTC column.
​

http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

ETA: Added source, just in case someone forgot what paper I'm talking about.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That doesn't make gravity a "type of energy". Nor does it allow him to express himself in such a shallow and in a way mocking way.

Things don't burn up in the atmosphere as they come in from space. They heat up. Burning happens when the atmosphere can oxidize the incoming object. The space shuttle for example heats up, but the shields don't burn up. In a pure helium atmosphere things would heat up and burn? No, they'd heat up and melt, change shape and be deformed, but helium being an inert gas would not react with the meteorite. Also potential energy is not only a function of gravity, but of mass to. A sufficiently charged particle (relative to its mass) could be deflected by Earth's magnetic field. Adding or subtracting to the speed induced by gravity.

Yea, there's a reason why some of us have Chewy on ignore.

 

[Major_Tom]

What we have found is that to understand the earliest movement of WTC1 you have to measure it.

The NIST obviously has no clue how WTC1 actually moved. Since little or no original research has been done by any of you on the subject, it is safe to say that you are equally clueless as to how WTC1 crept for about 9 seconds before the first visible movement, how it began to move and at what angles the columns must have failed.

Most all of you seem to remain totally clueless about how quickly the west wall must have failed across it's entire length, even though the time interval is measurable.


Crazy idea: Let's measure some key anchor points over time on the perimeter and antenna. This has been done and the results show a totally different scenario than the one which the NIST describes.

I'm showing a small sample of the results....... Totally ignored by most every poster.

How did most of you apply your scientific method to the study of WTC1 collapse initiation with no measurements of the perimeter drop, the antenna drop or any creep measurements from the pre-release stage?

Answer: You didn't. You just believed the wrong description given by the NIST and called it "science".

The written record clearly shows that the NIST describes a collapse initiation process for WTC1 that has nothing to do with the actual event and that the large majority of yourselves couldn't spot the error for years.

It is joke to call yourselves critical thinkers.

Some of the posters want to talk about WTC2 instead without even making the smallest drop measurements of WTC1. While remaining willfully ignorant of the true sequence of events during the WTC1 collapse initiation, let's change the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WTC2:

I bet by just looking at the image you can guess on which floors the splice connections are located.

Hint: What is the lowest elevation that inward bowing (IB) begins? Where does it reach a maximum? Where is the highest point that IB is detectable?

Answer: Splices are located on floors 77, 80, 83. Once again, the IB appears over a 6 floor region where the lowest, highest and center points line up with the splice connections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why study WTC1 first? Because the measurements of traced points along the perimeter and antenna contain a wealth of information which the geniuses at the NIST completely ignored. When you understand the data and the images of WTC1 collapse initiation, we can look for the same or similar features in WTC2.

Why remain willfully ignorant rather than studying the data?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What we have found is that to understand the earliest movement of WTC1 you have to measure it.

The NIST obviously has no clue how WTC1 actually moved. Since little or no original research has been done by any of you on the subject, it is safe to say that you are equally clueless as to how WTC1 crept for about 9 seconds before the first visible movement, how it began to move and at what angles the columns must have failed.

Most all of you seem to remain totally clueless about how quickly the west wall must have failed across it's entire length, even though the time interval is measurable.


Crazy idea: Let's measure some key anchor points over time on the perimeter and antenna. This has been done and the results show a totally different scenario than the one which the NIST describes.

I'm showing a small sample of the results....... Totally ignored by most every poster.

How did most of you apply your scientific method to the study of WTC1 collapse initiation with no measurements of the perimeter drop, the antenna drop or any creep measurements from the pre-release stage?

Answer: You didn't. You just believed the wrong description given by the NIST and called it "science".

The written record clearly shows that the NIST describes a collapse initiation process for WTC1 that has nothing to do with the actual event and that the large majority of yourselves couldn't spot the error for years.

It is joke to call yourselves critical thinkers.

Some of the posters want to talk about WTC2 instead without even making the smallest drop measurements of WTC1. While remaining willfully ignorant of the true sequence of events during the WTC1 collapse initiation, let's change the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WTC2:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/WTC2_IB_8_53.JPG[/qimg]

I bet by just looking at the image you can guess on which floors the splice connections are located.

Hint: What is the lowest elevation that inward bowing (IB) begins? Where does it reach a maximum? Where is the highest point that IB is detectable?

Answer: Splices are located on floors 77, 80, 83. Once again, the IB appears over a 6 floor region where the lowest, highest and center points line up with the splice connections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why study WTC1 first? Because the measurements of traced points along the perimeter and antenna contain a wealth of information which the geniuses at the NIST completely ignored. When you understand the data and the images of WTC1 collapse initiation, we can look for the same or similar features in WTC2.

Why remain willfully ignorant rather than studying the data?

Why are you still rabbiting on about this??? Have you irrefutable evidence that initiations cannot possibly have been caused by the fire? Or do you have irrefutable evidence that explosives were used?

If you do not then go away till you do as you are just wasting your and everyones else's time. IT DOES NOT MATTER EXACTLY HOW THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED AFTER INITIATION WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT INITIATED THAT COLLAPSE!

 

[beachnut]

...
Most all of you seem to remain totally clueless...

It is joke to call yourselves critical thinkers.
...
Why remain willfully ignorant rather than studying the data?

Have you dropped your failed paper on OOS? Any time-table on learning to use the quote button?

What is clueless? The CD delusion based on zero evidence.

What lacks critical thinking? The CD delusion based on nothing.

How does this off topic tangent work with your OOS attempt at backing in CD?

 

[TexasJack]

It is joke to call yourselves critical thinkers.

What do you call someone who still can't figure out how to use the quote function after nearly 3 years?

 

[pgimeno]

Ok, I will play. (I know I have advantage: I do know how to use the quote function.)

How did most of you apply your scientific method to the study of WTC1 collapse initiation with no measurements of the perimeter drop, the antenna drop or any creep measurements from the pre-release stage?

Answer: You didn't. You just believed the wrong description given by the NIST and called it "science".

For the record, I didn't do either.

It is joke to call yourselves critical thinkers.

Am I a more critical thinker if I measure the collapse initiation? Am I a less critical thinker if I assume an authoritative source to be accurate unless proved wrong by another authoritative source?

WTC2:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/9/WTC2_IB_8_53.JPG[/qimg]

I bet by just looking at the image you can guess on which floors the splice connections are located.

Hmm... no.

Hint: What is the lowest elevation that inward bowing (IB) begins? Where does it reach a maximum? Where is the highest point that IB is detectable?

I'd say, looking at the image, that the answer to the last question is "it's beyond the image limits". There's IB clearly visible above the 83rd floor, but the smoke covers the most interesting part of it (the columns for which the bottom part's displacement starts the farthest down) making it more difficult to evaluate.

About the second question, I'd say that it's floor 81. Assuming the bowing was symmetric, that would mean that it spanned 8 floors, not 6.

Here's a question for you: Were the splice connections located at the height of floor slabs? If so, it doesn't make much sense to put the labels in the middle of the floors. In that case, also, undoubtedly the maximum bowing occurs at the slab for floor 81, with just a few columns maybe exceeding that magnitude at the height of floor 80's slab. With that assumption, also, most of floor 78's slab shows no sign of IB.

Answer: Splices are located on floors 77, 80, 83. Once again, the IB appears over a 6 floor region where the lowest, highest and center points line up with the splice connections.

We don't agree on that point. It would seem that the lowest IB might start at floor 77, but then floor 76 is quite special by itself. But the span is not 6 floors.

 

[bill smith]

Was it creep or was the building settling ?

 

[A W Smith]

The splice connections for the perimeter column trees are staggered and occur on every level Tom

 

[beachnut]

The splice connections for the perimeter column trees are staggered and occur on every level Tom

...

 

[femr2]

The splice connections for the perimeter column trees are staggered and occur on every level Tom

It's usually informative to read thread contents in full, rather than skip it and misinterpret statements.

MT is referring to Core Column splices.

It's always been clear that the focus of threads here is very poor, with a singularly ridiculous noise level from a fair few numbties. I doubt if any of the regular posters here have any interest in retaining any focus.

Beachnut has already directly responded to this point being made previously (#667) but has seemingly *forgotten* the context.