Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[Christopher7]

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.


Bazant did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem, if memory serves, it was Boeing, not Ford, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, a FMEA follows a specific format so you may not be technically accurate in saying it's a FMEA, but for all intents and purposes, I believe you are correct in saying NCSTAR is a FMEA.

Curious, I read the rest of the article and they give credit to the US Army coming up with the format in the 1940's. I've never been in the Army but it seems fitting to the methodology.

Yes, I suppose I there is a specific "format", if memory serves you "Identify the Failure"Was it resolved? "If so, what corrective action was taken? If not, what are the Modes? List them. etc. etc.

I guess my point was that as long as you identify the FME and A the process between points is left open to the user. Even if NIST didn't say "We are using the FMEA format in this analysis" That is essentially what they did. Furthermore, if for some reason Bob felt they "technically" left out a step along the way it doesn't mean the methodology is flawed. I've never evaluated the NIST report against the FMEA format, but I find it hard to believe that you couldn't draw enough information from it to say "Yes, it is a FMEA"

It's kinda funny, but it looks like Bob googled "FEMA" "Finite Element Model Analysis" (Which I have heard as opposed to FEA) and then accidentally "FMEA". It looks like he then struck upon a revalation and has become the champion for applying an acronym he knows little about.

To be fair, the use of acronyms has that effect on people. People use them to sound like they know what's going on, but really have no clue. I outlined this in a TPS report to the CEO in Q1. I suggested a 5S report, complete with DCAR's and forwarded it to the VP. He cc'd it to the CFO, but didn't work with out current QMS.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

El Mondo,

Ignore the last post. I hit the "post reply" button accidentally.




But your calculation is easy.

Given: 1 story = 12.3 feet. "g" = 32.2 ft/sec^2. Convenient conversion: 60 mph = 88 ft/sec.


1. Take whatever floor you want, times 12.3'/story. This is the start height. (say 90th floor = 1107')
2. Choose your final height. (say 200')
3. subtract it. difference is 907'.
4. time to fall that distance is given by d= 0.5 g t^2.
5. solve for t = (2 * d / g) ^ 0.5 In this case, t = 7.5 sec.

6. Choose your horizontal speed. (say 56 mph = 56 * (88/60) = 82 ft/sec.
In your calculated fall time (7.5 sec), it can travel the horizontal speed (in feet per second) times t (in seconds)

h = 82 ft/sec * 7.5 seconds = 610 feet.
___

At 76 mph, the drop distance & drop time are the same, so the horizontal distance becomes:

h = 76 mph * (88 ft/sec / 60 mph) * 7.5 seconds = 830 feet.
___

Note the round offs. There is nothing more embarrassing to an engineer than a person doing BOTEs (Back Of The Envelope estimations) and then quoting results to 5 significant digits....
___

Important point: As I said before, I don't believe this to be a PROBABLE mechanism for throwing the beams these long distances. The concepts of collisions & levers seems to me to be far more probable.

Second point: again, energy conservation is simply an upper bound. I would have no problem whatsoever in finding that, even tho an accurate calc said that it could be thrown 76 mph, the fastest one found was only 20 mph.

I would have a HUGE problem if a RIGOROUS energy calc, that included all possible mechanisms and an error analysis, said that the absolute fastest it could be thrown was 76 mph, and I found one that was going 77 mph.

Hope it helps.

tom

Thanks for the work! Much appreciated. And your point about collisions or leveraging as being a more likely mechanism is noted; I don't have the expertise to generate an opinion about that, but it sounds eminently reasonable. Being hit out or leveraged (hinged?) out is probably more likely then getting... well, would it be proper to say "flexed" out? Anyway, given the chaos of the collapse, being smacked by something else pretty much seems like it would be unavoidable.

And yes, your second point about upper bounds is also noted. Makes sense too; the energy calc only shows that it's possible, it doesn't demonstrate that it actually happened. At any rate, the real point of the overall exercise is to demonstrate that the collapse released enough energy to account for pieces across the street in WFC3. And that claims that explosives are needed are based more in incredulity than anything else.

Thanks again!

 

[Christopher7]

given the chaos of the collapse, being smacked by something else pretty much seems like it would be unavoidable.

The exterior framework was pushed outward as the collapse progressed. If the core columns were being crushed and the floors collapsing at a rate of 5 - 10 floors per second, then what could collide with a section of exterior frame work already outside the perimeter with sufficient lateral force to accelerate it to 70+ mph?

 

[Furcifer]

And that claims that explosives are needed are based more in incredulity than anything else.

I can honestly say I don't think it's from incredulity. Amused me for a moment and consider the truther sequence of events.

They are all trying to tie in the use of explosives (silent ones, exotic sooper secret stuff) and the near free fall speeds.

It follows due to poor reasoning, that the only way for the upper section to descend at the rate it did is for the lower section to "get out of the way" and offer no resistence except possible due to inertia. Recall bill's earlier question of me in regards to the 4 ton chunk, he clearly asks how it can be ejected by colliding with another piece, both of which are in free fall. It is clear in his mind the precursory explosive wave must have already severed this column and by his logic it cannot be imparted with any momentum laterally.

If you allow yourself to think this way you will see that it really isn't arguement by incredulity, but the desperate belief explosives were used.

I use the term desperate for a reason. They (truth movement) desperately need an incidious "mechanism" to explain the fall of the towers. Without it the whole conspiracy comes tumbling down.

All but the very fringe part of this movement is already accepted that the planes were hijacked and flown into the towers. Sure, there is some hand waving when pressed, but over the last few years we have seen a drastic move away from no planers, holograms and government drone planes. The woo camp has all but dropped this notion, realizing it distances them from public favour.

The key then becomes the controlled demolition of the towers. Or more importantly the controlled demolition of the towers with explosives. Again, over the last year or so, we have seen a drastic move away from thermite and it derivatives. The mystical properties have been all but stirpped from the substance; the logistics of its deployment torn to shreds; the effects of which do not fit the observations.

It then becomes essential to the movement to prove the use of explosives to implicate Government involvement and continue the conspiracy.

I see this as a last ditch effort. There is no evidence to support the use of explosives in the collapse. Aside from a few misinterpreted accounts of the noise or poor video observation, nothing. Just a hope and a prayer.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The exterior framework was pushed outward as the collapse progressed. If the core columns were being crushed and the floors collapsing at a rate of 5 - 10 floors per second, then what could collide with a section of exterior frame work already outside the perimeter with sufficient lateral force to accelerate it to 70+ mph?

A building component.

Yes, that was a smart-aleck answer. Because you asked a dumb question. What matters is that the energy was available in the absence of explosives. The details of how the energy expended itself not important. We have the column across the street, we have the energy available to send it there without requiring explosives. End of story.

 

[BenBurch]

A building component.

Yes, that was a smart-aleck answer. Because you asked a dumb question. What matters is that the energy was available in the absence of explosives. The details of how the energy expended itself not important. We have the column across the street, we have the energy available to send it there without requiring explosives. End of story.

Compressed air absolutely was a component. The air had to go somewhere...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I can honestly say I don't think it's from incredulity. Amused me for a moment and consider the truther sequence of events.

They are all trying to tie in the use of explosives (silent ones, exotic sooper secret stuff) and the near free fall speeds.

It follows due to poor reasoning, that the only way for the upper section to descend at the rate it did is for the lower section to "get out of the way" and offer no resistence except possible due to inertia. Recall bill's earlier question of me in regards to the 4 ton chunk, he clearly asks how it can be ejected by colliding with another piece, both of which are in free fall. It is clear in his mind the precursory explosive wave must have already severed this column and by his logic it cannot be imparted with any momentum laterally.

If you allow yourself to think this way you will see that it really isn't arguement by incredulity, but the desperate belief explosives were used.

I use the term desperate for a reason. They (truth movement) desperately need an incidious "mechanism" to explain the fall of the towers. Without it the whole conspiracy comes tumbling down.

All but the very fringe part of this movement is already accepted that the planes were hijacked and flown into the towers. Sure, there is some hand waving when pressed, but over the last few years we have seen a drastic move away from no planers, holograms and government drone planes. The woo camp has all but dropped this notion, realizing it distances them from public favour.

The key then becomes the controlled demolition of the towers. Or more importantly the controlled demolition of the towers with explosives. Again, over the last year or so, we have seen a drastic move away from thermite and it derivatives. The mystical properties have been all but stirpped from the substance; the logistics of its deployment torn to shreds; the effects of which do not fit the observations.

It then becomes essential to the movement to prove the use of explosives to implicate Government involvement and continue the conspiracy.

I see this as a last ditch effort. There is no evidence to support the use of explosives in the collapse. Aside from a few misinterpreted accounts of the noise or poor video observation, nothing. Just a hope and a prayer.

Ok, I think I see your point. It's a reasonable argument.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, I think I see your point. It's a reasonable argument.

It's the general feeling I get. I haven't really paid attention to the latest truther propaganda, but recently some friends were posting videos on Facebook. Typical video, blatant lies, misquotes, and speed metal in the background.

I rather intelligent friend of mine commented that "Buildings that get hit from the side don't fall straight down, think about it"

You can't really argue with that logic. I kinda realized if you want to believe then there's little anyone can do. Then a little piece of me died.

 

[chillzero]

Off topic posts moved to FM. Please stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you allow yourself to think this way you will see that it really isn't arguement by incredulity, but the desperate belief explosives were used.

I use the term desperate for a reason. They (truth movement) desperately need an incidious "mechanism" to explain the fall of the towers. Without it the whole conspiracy comes tumbling down.

I think it's a classic example of Ryan Mackey's concept of irreducible delusion. In this case, the irreducible delusion is that explosives and/or thermite were used to demolish the Twin Towers. Any evidence to the contrary (which is to say, all the evidence) must be either (a) discarded or (b) re-interpreted, misrepresented or simply deliberately altered to suggest that explosives and/or thermite were used. Since one item of evidence against explosives is the very possibility of steel structures collapsing without being blown up, this possibility must be discarded, however rational. Since another item of evidence against explosives is the fact that normal hydrocarbon fires are capable of weakening steel, all human knowledge about the thermal properties of steel must be discarded. The Sherlock Holmes misquote by bill smith, about eliminating all the possibilities, is a very illuminating one; it is indeed not the impossibilities, but the possibilities, that the truth movement is trying to eliminate, in order to justify their impossible conclusion.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I think it's a classic example of Ryan Mackey's concept of irreducible delusion. In this case, the irreducible delusion is that explosives and/or thermite were used to demolish the Twin Towers. Any evidence to the contrary (which is to say, all the evidence) must be either (a) discarded or (b) re-interpreted, misrepresented or simply deliberately altered to suggest that explosives and/or thermite were used. Since one item of evidence against explosives is the very possibility of steel structures collapsing without being blown up, this possibility must be discarded, however rational. Since another item of evidence against explosives is the fact that normal hydrocarbon fires are capable of weakening steel, all human knowledge about the thermal properties of steel must be discarded. The Sherlock Holmes misquote by bill smith, about eliminating all the possibilities, is a very illuminating one; it is indeed not the impossibilities, but the possibilities, that the truth movement is trying to eliminate, in order to justify their impossible conclusion.

Dave

Dave I posted this video yeserday.You can let it fully load and then drag the button from side toside with the mouse to get a picture of what is happening. Two questions. Did you see any rotation at the top of the building ? could the antenna, which is atteched to the hat truss through the top five floors be moving down THROUGH the lower floors of block C as it falls ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

 

[e^n]

Dave I posted this video yeserday.You can let it fully load and then drag the button from side toside with the mouse to get a picture of what is happening. Two questions. Did you see any rotation at the top of the building ? could the antenna, which is atteched to the hat truss through the top five floors be moving down THROUGH the lower floors of block C as it falls ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Here is a rare video from the opposite site where a tilt is much clearer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvrF1gIgfXg

 

[bill smith]

Here is a rare video from the opposite site where a tilt is much clearer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvrF1gIgfXg

Thanks but I think he closer video gives much more detail. In fact it looks to me now that the antenna fell into the building before there ws ant other sign of movement. There is a clear view of the corner of the building right to the top as well. There iis a LOT of information to be gleaned from this video. Does it look toyou like the antenna fell into he building well prior to collapse initiation ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k Antenna

 

[MetalPig]

Does it look toyou like the antenna fell into he building well prior to collapse initiation ?

The key word in e^n's post was "tilt".

 

[bill smith]

The key word in e^n's post was "tilt".

Yes I noticed that too. When the antenns tilted out of the upright position what kind of counterbalancing weight brought it back upright? It was more than 300 feet tall. It would have been no easy ask to stop it falling off completely.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks but I think he closer video gives much more detail.

Different detail. The more distant video gives additional information, which, taken together with the closer video, makes it clear that the collapse began with a rotation of the upper section. If you want to understand an event, your explanation needs consistency with all the information available.

In fact it looks to me now that the antenna fell into the building before there ws ant other sign of movement.

That's because you've chosen a video that gives that impression, and rejected another video that shows it's an illusory impression. You've already made it clear that you reject the opinions of people who disagree with your preferred conclusion. It's fairly clear, now, that you'll reject evidence that disagrees with it too.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Different detail. The more distant video gives additional information, which, taken together with the closer video, makes it clear that the collapse began with a rotation of the upper section. If you want to understand an event, your explanation needs consistency with all the information available.



That's because you've chosen a video that gives that impression, and rejected another video that shows it's an illusory impression. You've already made it clear that you reject the opinions of people who disagree with your preferred conclusion. It's fairly clear, now, that you'll reject evidence that disagrees with it too.

Dave

Well now that's not really true dave.If I am presented with incontrovertible evidence of course I will take it on board just as you probably would. We wil never get to the Truth by denial will we ? Did you think the video also showed the building beginning it's collapse at the roof of the top floor after the antenna appeared to begin falling into the building ? Did you watch the entire corner-line from roof to official collapse initiation point? Was that one of those 'squibs' that I saw there ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

 

[GStan]

Well now that's not really true dave.If I am presented with incontrovertible evidence of course I will take it on board just as you probably would. We wil never get to the Truth by denial will we ? Did you think the video also showed the building beginning it's collapse at the roof of the top floor after the antenna appeared to begin falling into the building ? Did you watch the entire corner-line from roof to official collapse initiation point? Was that one of those 'squibs' that I saw there ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

Squibs?

 

[Dave Rogers]

We wil never get to the Truth by denial will we ?

Ironic, given that in your post before last you rejected a piece of evidence for an inadequate reason, and your brief history on this forum is one of denial and ridicule of every contradictory argument.

Anyway, it's about time you started answering questions. Where were the explosives planted that expelled the column trees? How big a charge would be needed to expel them at the speeds observed? If they were placed in contact with the steel to use the Munroe effect, why would they need to be so big as to expel the steel columns so far, given that a much smaller charge could be expected with confidence to do the job? Would it even have been possible for a single charge both to cut the columns and to throw them out sideways? If not, there must have been two sets of charges; what was the second set there for? Why were so many column trees expelled? How many charges must have been placed in the building to do this? Given that these charges must have been set off with a precision of milliseconds in a carefully timed sequence to coincide with the collapse front, how was this achieved? What risk was there of the collapse front crushing detonators lower down the building, preventing the charges from going off? Did every charge explode successfully, despite the fact that they were being set off in the middle of the collapse of the building? Why were the sounds of charges going off not picked up on a phone call from the upper storeys of WTC1, in progress when the collapse began? In any controlled demolition there is an extremely loud explosion, or series of them, heard just before the collapse starts; why wasn't this heard in either WTC collapse, despite there being numerous reports of things sounding like explosions well before the collapses? Why did the detailed inspection of the WTC rubble by over 1000 law enforcement agents and the cleanup by over 10,000 workers not turn up a single piece of identifiable debris related to possible demolition charges, when searchers were under instructions to look for anything suspicious and there was suspicion that secondary explosive devices may have been used?

When you've answered every single one of these questions to my satisfaction, I'll start answering some of yours.

Dave