Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[funk de fino]

Been there, read that, LMAO

They have all the floors above the first intact floor to be impacted arriving at the same time. That is not what happened.

The floors above the collapse zone were attached to the core and perimeter columns. When the collapse started, the weight of all but one of those floors was on the exterior and core columns, not the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Incorrect again. They explained it and you are shifting goalposts. They are saying the weight of the structure above was more than the connection the floor could take and so the floor collapsed. This added to the floor below that and so on. The collapse could not arrest. This explains the collapse. It does not depend on the floors hitting square on. There is more chance of the collapse progressing if they do not hit square on.

Read the question that produced the answer.

I guess you have never seen snow shoes C7?

You are a liar.

I am the only person here man enough to admit when I am wrong.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4462055#post4462055

Another lie. Many here admit they are wrong. You have done it a few times. I know because I proved you wrong some of those times. This is another time I have shown a claim of yours to be false and you have denied it.

 

[funk de fino]

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

Stop lying please. It's very childish

 

[GStan]

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

Your questions are lame.

[/Kreel]

 

[bill smith]

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

I don't think I've mentioned explosives being used or made a case for their use on this forum ? That may be your impression but it is not borne out by the facts. Therefore there are no questions for me to answer in this respect.

Also you said a few minutes ago that the clear video I showed gave 'an impression' of something happening . Then you said something about this clear video being 'illusory'. Would you like to explain how clear, fairly close up ideo evidence gives only 'an impression' and may be 'illusory'. ?

That's if for some reason you are no longer willing to help analyse the video I have been posting and to discuss it's ramifications.

 

[stateofgrace]

I don't think I've mentioned explosives being used or made a case for their use on this forum ? That may be your impression but it is not borne out by the facts. Therefore there are no questions for me to answer in this rsespect.

Also you said a few minutes ago that the clear video I showed gave 'an impression' of something happening . Then you said something about the clear video being 'illusory'. Wud you like to explain how clear fairly close up ideo evidence gives only 'an impression' and may be 'ilusory'. ?

That's if for some reason you are no longer willing to help analyse the video I have been posting and discuss it's ramifications.

Is there some reason you are incapable, or unwilling to analyse the video yourself? Maybe after you have analyzed it you can tell everybody the ramifications of the said analysis.

Please proceed.

 

[Drs_Res]

Wud(sic) you like to explain how clear fairly close up ideo(sic) evidence gives only 'an impression' and may be 'ilusory'(sic). ?

Ever heard of an optical illusion?

 

[bill smith]

Is there some reason you are incapable, or unwilling to analyse the video yourself? Maybe after you have analyzed it you can tell everybody the ramifications of the said analysis.

Please proceed.

I certainly will do that...but I thought you would all like to brainstrorm it in order to get to the Truth ? Brainstorming is so productive.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

On the contrary, how enough energy to eject 4 ton sections up to 500 feet was redirected is critically important.

Everything was falling and no collision could redirect that much energy 90 degrees.

The floors were collapsing at 5 or more per second. No core column could get past that to collide with the exterior frame.

The exterior framework remained intact until the collapse front had passed, removing support and pushing it outward.


First, deal with the reality that the 4 ton sections embedded in WFC 3, over 400 feet away and 200-240 feet above the ground, were not thrown that far due to falling exterior sections colliding.

Then look for another explanation.

 

[stateofgrace]

I certainly will do that...but I thought you would all like to brainstrorm it in order to get to the Truth ? Brainstorming is so productive.

Did you indeed? Well I am sure everybody is on the edge of their seats awaiting your analysis.

Far be it for me to hold up this ground breaking analysis. Please proceed, in you own good time.

 

[Disbelief]

I don't think I've mentioned explosives being used or made a case for their use on this forum ? That may be your impression but it is not borne out by the facts. Therefore there are no questions for me to answer in this respect.

So then what are you going on about? Are you another of the new breed of truthers - the no-claimers?

 

[Christopher7]

Stop lying please. It's very childish

Stop denying please.

The NIST FAQ explanation of the collapse is childish.

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

They have all the floors above the first intact floor to be impacted arriving at the same time. That is not what happened.

The floors above the collapse zone were attached to the core and perimeter columns. When the collapse started, the weight of all but one of those floors and the rubble from the plane impact, was on the exterior and core columns, not the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That must mean that some other powerful force was secretly at play.

Although there are a lot of indicatons against explosives for the reasons you mention, there seems to be a case for additionl energy coming from somewhere,somehow to eject- for instance he 4-ton chunk the 500 feet we were talking about earlier.

There are explosons to be heard as the buildingcollapses in this video.

Looks like it was blown out there.

Do you think WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition ?

Nah....WTC7 was an obvious cintroled demolition because the outside face (which mirrored what was going on inside the building) did not deform in any way (apart from one momentary crack) as it glided into the ground. If the collapse of the suporting structure hadbeen sequential the outside face would have mirored that. What the outside face actually showed was that there was no resistance to the fall of the shell.Therefore the supporting structure had been removed simultaneously throughout the buillding. Controlled demolition and nothing else could do this.

Th falling of the penthouse was most likely because of the preliminary removal or weakening of column 79.

I don't think I've mentioned explosives being used or made a case for their use on this forum ?

And you're calling me disingenuous.

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

Stop denying please.

The NIST FAQ explanation of the collapse is childish.


They have all the floors above the first intact floor to be impacted arriving at the same time. That is not what happened.

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

What is it about 'conservative' that you don't understand? Hey pal, the analysis is conservative; it makes assumptions that are good for collapse arrest. I.e. what happened was worse.

What is it that makes you feel that displaying your utter ignorance on the matter and your refusal to comprehend the easy to understand abc of relevant science has any persuasive power?

 

[funk de fino]

Stop denying please.

The NIST FAQ explanation of the collapse is childish.


They have all the floors above the first intact floor to be impacted arriving at the same time.

No, it does not. They do not claim this they just speak about the load, weight and whether a load is static or dynamic. Please show us where they claim the floors all have to arive atthe same time.

What is the difference when you walk across an iced over lake in high heels or if you walk across in snow shoes?

Is your weight the same?

Is the force applied to the ice the same?

In which case will the ice more likely break?

That is not what happened.

The floors above the collapse zone were attached to the core and perimeter columns. When the collapse started, the weight of all but one of those floors and the rubble from the plane impact, was on the exterior and core columns, not the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.

NIST did NOT explain how the towers collapsed.

That does not make sense please explain in real terms. The top tilted and the load above hit the floors below. It did not hit square onto columns below it hit offset. That weight could not be borne by the floor below. Correct?

At this first split second of the collapse there was not enough shedding to affect the weight of the top section above. Correct?

Please provide calculations for your claim that the following claim is childish.

Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated

 

[bob the analyst]

perhaps you could post a DVPR. design validation program report for us on the steel vs, fire testing that you have been aligned with... all specified steel coming out of the heats go through this a full 3 years prior to the first girder going up as all of us are well aware....this should be real fun <rolls eyes>

 

[bob the analyst]

I like Chritopher's post, they are light and they are exact, it's a pleasure to see other people that are able to think, to discuss and to analyze the inevitability that all logical people come to the same conclusion.

the fact that in the real world, not make believe land, people with honesty and integrity know that the NIST report is a farce. The facts have been out there fotr years and the NIST report has been thororughly discredited over and over again, as it should be.

 

[GlennB]

On the contrary, how enough energy to eject 4 ton sections up to 500 feet was redirected is critically important.

Fair enough, and an improvement on your earlier stance that redirection with a horizontal component was entirely impossible.

Everything was falling and no collision could redirect that much energy 90 degrees.

Says you. Have you calculated the energy required? Oh - and 90° not at all essential here. The horizontal component of the speed of ejection for lesser angles of ejection would be trivial trig.

The floors were collapsing at 5 or more per second. No core column could get past that to collide with the exterior frame.

Don't recall anyone suggesting core columns had to be involved. Outward pressure - as mentioned by yourself just below - is a candidate though. And core columns colliding with more substantial core columns could very easily send sections of core column towards the exterior walls. In fact these could impact already loosened exterior wall sections.

The exterior framework remained intact until the collapse front had passed, removing support and pushing it outward.

The "collapse front" was not that precise. It was a horrific and ill-defined mess of debris of all kinds hitting a lower section that would itself undoubtedly be coming apart in a chaotic manner.

First, deal with the reality that the 4 ton sections embedded in WFC 3, over 400 feet away and 200-240 feet above the ground, were not thrown that far due to falling exterior sections colliding.

See above. And also see that your assertion carries no weight.

Then look for another explanation.

The energy stored in, and possible initial velocity, of a fully compressed exterior section were kindly provided by tfk in post #1184 last night. Maybe I missed your reply. However, an object falling from 900' to strike an object 200' up and 400' away would - according to my calculations - require a speed of around 40mph, well within tfk's figure.

BenBurch (and no doubt others before and since) was pointing out this kind of simple calculation way back around post #827. But you just keep on making the same assertions with zero effort to do a simple calculation. Argument from Incredulity is all it is and it gets wearisome after a while. Next time please provide your own calculations rather than just waving your hands around.

 

[DGM]

perhaps you could post a DVPR. design validation program report for us on the steel vs, fire testing that you have been aligned with... all specified steel coming out of the heats go through this a full 3 years prior to the first girder going up as all of us are well aware....this should be real fun <rolls eyes>

It's in the NIST report (along with specs for the members), haven't you read it yet?

 

[bob the analyst]

funny how funk de fino acts in a patronizing and parochial way, but yet we he is put to task, he sort of just sits there, afraid to move into a discussion sort of like a frightened rabbit, a frozen bunny.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

On the contrary, how enough energy to eject 4 ton sections up to 500 feet was redirected is critically important.

Everything was falling and no collision could redirect that much energy 90 degrees.

The floors were collapsing at 5 or more per second. No core column could get past that to collide with the exterior frame.

The exterior framework remained intact until the collapse front had passed, removing support and pushing it outward.


First, deal with the reality that the 4 ton sections embedded in WFC 3, over 400 feet away and 200-240 feet above the ground, were not thrown that far due to falling exterior sections colliding.

Then look for another explanation.

See, you've walked right into the exact cognitive trap that 3bodyproblem described. Dead-on into it. And the sad thing is, you're doing so eyes wide open but mind firmly shut.

Feel free to refute the notion of energy being there quantitatively, Chris. If you can do that, if you can rebut tfk's, Ben Burch's, Glennb's, and anyone else's work who's calculated this out, then I'll listen. But not until then. You're basing your argument on a sense of incredulity that a whole, whoppin' big 4 ton piece of building made it all the way across the street. And every time you do that, every time you ignore the vertical distance it started at as well as the amount of energy that was available in the collapse, you demonstrate that you have nothing. And you're trying to sway me with nothing. That doesn't work.

Produce a quantitative rebuttal. That's all I'll listen to. Anything else from you besides that is nothing but hot air.