westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
Have you done the potential energy calculation?
RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted
- Thread starter GregoryUrich
- Start date
Have you done the potential energy calculation?
Of course. That is the first I did (of course only two months ago when I first seriously studied the matter) ... and which NIST didn't do ... ever. See my paper! The top of WTC1 is 95% air! On top of a lightly compressed structure below. Nothing can happen. It seems the Washington Lyers henchmen were out on the streets of NY 911 and in the media 911 and told otherwise = pure propaganda (check them out - http://www.sott.net/articles/show/146563-The-9-11-Solution-RESTORED-The-Video-Google-Censored ). Small Town Truthers have then difficulties to get their message through.
FCC rules? It seems ABC was fined $1.4 million yesterday to have shown a nude bottom (arse) of a female police between 18 and 22 hrs pm last Friday and that any Small Town Truthers news can only be shown between 03.59 and 04.00 hrs am any local US time, so I understand the latter has problems to get their message out. It is very simple! Buildings built with steel columns as supporting structure never collapses completely due to a local fire high up on some top storeys. It is a fact. The opposite is propaganda.
Do my simple model test and convince yourself.
How do steel buildings fare when fully-fueled commercial airliners slam into them at high speeds? To date, the only two examples we have collapsed. Why are you talking about buildings with small local fires and pretending it has relevance to the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01. You should stop peddling propaganda and learn something about physics. The real scientists and engineers here have made you look ridiculous.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Actually Ron no one here had to make him look ridiculous.
StoneRook
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2004
- Messages
- 55
95% air???
Where do you come up with these figures?
I've talked to two engineers I know, and showed them your "paper" and your "model"..
They said it is completely off...
To wit, they suggested if you wanted to model the WTC, you actually have to make a model that has some connection to the real thing....
Which your "model' doesn't do.
The also warned me not to go into any structure/ship you may have had any hand in constructing....
Good advice I think....
Thanks for the "henceman" comment, just goes to show when you hit someone on the head with reality, they have to flail about and claim people are "in on it",
whatever makes you sleep at night I suppose...
Where do you come up with these figures?
I've talked to two engineers I know, and showed them your "paper" and your "model"..
They said it is completely off...
To wit, they suggested if you wanted to model the WTC, you actually have to make a model that has some connection to the real thing....
Which your "model' doesn't do.
The also warned me not to go into any structure/ship you may have had any hand in constructing....
Good advice I think....
Thanks for the "henceman" comment, just goes to show when you hit someone on the head with reality, they have to flail about and claim people are "in on it",
whatever makes you sleep at night I suppose...
Evidently the top of WTC1 is 95% air volume wise. Then you have 4% concrete, glass, furniture, cabling, etc and 1% steel structure. Like most skyscrapers. And you can slam an airplane into it and destroy part of the steel structure and nothing happens due to structural redundancy. The tower was built very strong! Very low stresses in the structure.
The steel structure takes very little space so an aluminium/plastic plane cannot destroy many steel parts. Most fuel in the plane burns very quickly in a ball of fire and then a normal office fire starts. No big deal. Cannot harm the steel structure. It is like a fire in an iron stove. The stove does not melt, buckle or collapse. If you believe otherwise, you have been fooled.
But let's assume all the steel columns buckle in way of the impact/fire zone. The only result would be that the columns bend and crumple and that the top part of the tower above (95% air) moves down a little. The buckled columns will act as fenders and prevent damage of the tower below. If you believe otherwise, you have been fooled, I have to repeat.
My model will however demonstrate that the columns will not buckle due to the fire.
I have designed and built many steel ships with very good results so you do not have to worry about that. Sleep well.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Except for the fire ball part, this paragraph is completely backwards. It was a big steel strucutre, with many destroyed steel parts, the fire was a big deal, it did harm the steel strucutre, stoves have deformed from too much heat (good oak and a strong wind) and you have been fooled if you believe otherwise.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The 95% part has to do with if it was a solid object. I suspect he mentions this to fool the children that he hopes to convince. You know to sound smart to the uninformed. Why he says it here is beyond me.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
According NIST the WTC1 impact cut 65% of the vertical columns of one wall while the other three walls were 100% intact. Looking through the hole we see some local damage to three floors, that must have sliced the plane horizontally. These floors were originally hanging on the wall and core columns and are not sagging, i.e. were held in place by the core columns after impact.
A fair distance from the hole is the core with fewer, stronger and wider spaced columns and there is no evidence that even the core columns closest to the hole were damaged as the floors were still in place (apart from some little floor damages just inside the hole). And the tower was still standing = plenty of redundancy. In my opinion 92% of the supporting columns were intact = a small damage. The resultant office fire (mainly furniture) only heated some local steel structure max 500°C and then no serious deformation of steel structure can take place. It was not a closed stove - more an open fire place, BBQ style, you know. The steel equipment you use to grill beefsteaks do not melt or buckle but I agree. It is quite hot just above the burning coal.
I fully agree with NYFD that they could have handled the fires, i.e. contain them, stop them from spreading or let them burn out. No panic! I have actually been trained to do such jobs.
The sudden falling down of the roof 15 meters not associated with any visible damage to the walls at the hole, i.e. the top part telescoping (sliding down into the tower below), is not correctly explained by NIST. It takes place 5 seconds prior to the tower below collapsing. It cannot be the result of columns buckling below the top part as they are seen intact and could never be damaged by the available heat. Do my model test and convince yourself!
The NIST cause "The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure" is therefore wrong. No columns buckled in the fire zone. Why invent that? And of course NIST never shows in its 10 000 pages report that the potential energy released did exceed the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. It is just a nonsense statement by civil servants to please their Masters and not to be harrassed by their henchmen and other hoodlums.
It is not easy to be a civil servant with such Masters.
Last edited:
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
It's been a while since I last perused NCSTAR, but if the above statement is correct (all of it) there's a glaring omission as to damage on the exterior columns on the exit side. Can you please provide direct reference to this, or is this merely your own deduction?
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here but I'd guess it to be as follows: "The floors as seen through the hole in the facade appear to be held in place by connection to the core alone as there is no observed sagging" Without getting into whether or not the floors sagged in the impact area prior to collapse, I'm curious what your answer to the following question would be:
Wouldn't the moment arm created by the now detached floor trusses place a much greater torsional force on the core columns at their connections? Thus remaining attached to the core columns caused more damage (this torsional force applied over time) than if they had merely snapped off at initial impact?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Last edited:
Evidently the floor truss bolted connection to all columns transmits a shear force that compresses the column and a bending moment that bends the column. But looking at the actual connection of the truss to the column the bending moment must be very small - the max bending of the truss is therefore at its mid-length. When one support - at the wall column - is removed, you would expect the truss to sag but it is also held by the thin plate connecting all trusses (and the cement on top) and the weights are small (500 kgs/m²) so the sag is also small.
It's nice to make a joke about it but that was what actually happened. If all kinetic energy of the plane would be available to cut the columns (if we believe the values to cut them) then the block would fall immediately.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Not nice to make a joke, but if it serves to a lesson so be it. What I see in yur retort is a testament to the redundancy of the structure. Despite what many of you see as a sign of conspiracy I see as sign of man's ingenuity. I'm glad that the structure held as long as it did and allowed many to escape, instead of falling immediately and proving yur point.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Clarify please?
Heiwa, 3bodyproblem and bje called you on these two claims. But the words bluff or lie I would think is a far better word than the word claim in this case. When are you going to address them. We are still waiting.
Basic! Shear force is the accumulation of vertical load (500 kgs/m²) on the floor truss that is transmitted to the column via the truss' end connection. It adds to the compression of the column. The shear force also produces bending of the truss around its neutral axis. Depending on the truss' end connection the bending moment may be transmitted to the column. If the end connection is, e.g. a pin joint - just one bolt - no bending moment is transmitted. If the end connection is a bolt + a small angle support some bending moment may be transmitted. I will now transfer to the 'Failure mode in WTC Towers thread.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I think you need to try to answer your own question here, Heiwa. So far you've said that none of the structural members buckled, that there was no damage to the initiation zone and that the building became 15 metres shorter despite the absence of any damage. Clearly, in the absence of any damage or buckling of structural members, the building could not have got 15 metres shorter. Therefore, what you've "proved" is that WTC1 is still standing.
Dave