Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

[tfk]

chris,

Hundreds?

Yep, hundreds. Now, it doesn't really matter if its thousands, hundreds, dozens or just a handful. Please provide any viable explanation how a 120 - 140 dB explosion could be absent on dozens of recordings, but still have occurred?

Please provide an answer to this question.

Some of them do have sounds of explosions.

Please post url's to a couple.

Are a demolitions expert? Do you know how much the sound can be muffled? Remember, no one has ever tried to mask the sound of a CD before so you have no idea how much it can be done.

Nah, I'm not a demolitions expert. I do, however, have a background in acoustics.

And my acoustics background says that explosions that occur 1000 feet in the air are audible for miles around. You are, I suspect, familiar with sound transmission, reflection, & absorption at ground level. Well, chris, the rules are different far above ground. With nothing to bounce off of or absorb it, sound will travel for miles.

Others have posted the statements of REAL demolitions experts. Brent Blanchard has spoken to exactly this point. And his expert opinion is that there is no way that the buildings could have been demo'd.

Here's his assessment:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Regardless of ways to suppress the transmission of sound in air, there would have been absolutely no way to suppress the transmission of the acoustic signatures THRU the columns & into the bedrock. Please explain why it is that Protec's seismic equipment, that was in place for the specific purpose of monitoring seismic vibrations from controlled demolitions.

It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.
...
It couldn't be a CD because it wasn't loud enough.

No, Chris.
It wasn't a CD because:

1. there were NO explosions that had the needed volume.
2. there were NO explosions that had the needed quantity.
3. there were NO explosions that had the needed shockwave velocity.
4. there were NO explosions that had the needed acoustic signature.
5. there were no explosions that happened at the right times.
6. there were no seismic waves.
7. there were no extremely distinctive blast injuries.
8. there were no broken windows on the FAR side of buildings (which WOULD have happened with blast pressure waves bouncing off of buildings.
9. there were no beams that had the very distinctive evidence of explosive deformation.
10. there were no beams that were cut.

Note this last one carefully, chris. There were NO cut beams.

How did all those beams reassemble themselves after they were blown apart, chris? I gave you the urls for several hi-res photos of ground zero. Where are the 10,000 - 15,000 cut beams, chris?


tom

 

[Heiwa]

Car Shredding versus WTC 1 destruction

Back from the ski slopes I see that this thread goes on without me. Here some new food for thought why steek structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone.

When WTC 1 top (say 14 stories total 33 000 ton of which say 16 % was steel – 84% concrete/glass) dropped one storey (3.6 m) it released say 1.22 GJ of energy (340 kWh) and compressed or crushed down one storey (say 2 357 ton) below into a 0.9 m thick layer of rubble in 1 second according BLGB. Quite impressive to say the least! Only 0.14 kWh/ton of rubble! This crushing was then repeated 97 times at much higher speed so that WTC 1 first became an 87 m high heap of rubble in say 15 seconds. Rubble producing rubble! Then the WTC 1 top part self-destructed in a crush up and became rubble too.

Compared with high tech car shredding, e.g. http://mreasia.trustpass.alibaba.co...ap_And_Car_Shredder_Plant_1250_HP_6000hp.html
you need abt 4410 kWh to shred 120 ton of cars (pure steel) or say 120 cars of 1 ton each. That is why you cannot drop say 30 cars (30 ton) on 90 cars (90 ton) to produce 120 ton of shredded cars due to gravity alone. Gravity alone produces too little energy of shred cars by dropping some cars on other cars to produce shredding or rubble. No, to shred cars you have to push them into this machine and you need 37 kWh to shred 1 ton of steel or a car or 260 times more energy than used when crushing the first storey of WTC 1. I wonder why!

 

[bill smith]

Back from the ski slopes I see that this thread goes on without me. Here some new food for thought why steek structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone.

When WTC 1 top (say 14 stories total 33 000 ton of which say 16 % was steel – 84% concrete/glass) dropped one storey (3.6 m) it released say 1.22 GJ of energy (340 kWh) and compressed or crushed down one storey (say 2 357 ton) below into a 0.9 m thick layer of rubble in 1 second according BLGB. Quite impressive to say the least! Only 0.14 kWh/ton of rubble! This crushing was then repeated 97 times at much higher speed so that WTC 1 first became an 87 m high heap of rubble in say 15 seconds. Rubble producing rubble! Then the WTC 1 top part self-destructed in a crush up and became rubble too.

Compared with high tech car shredding, e.g. http://mreasia.trustpass.alibaba.co...ap_And_Car_Shredder_Plant_1250_HP_6000hp.html
you need abt 4410 kWh to shred 120 ton of cars (pure steel) or say 120 cars of 1 ton each. That is why you cannot drop say 30 cars (30 ton) on 90 cars (90 ton) to produce 120 ton of shredded cars due to gravity alone. Gravity alone produces too little energy of shred cars by dropping some cars on other cars to produce shredding or rubble. No, to shred cars you have to push them into this machine and you need 37 kWh to shred 1 ton of steel or a car or 260 times more energy than used when crushing the first storey of WTC 1. I wonder why!

Welcome back Heiwa. A good analogy too. The rebuttals may be interesting as well.

 

[bill smith]

chris,



Yep, hundreds. Now, it doesn't really matter if its thousands, hundreds, dozens or just a handful. Please provide any viable explanation how a 120 - 140 dB explosion could be absent on dozens of recordings, but still have occurred?

Please provide an answer to this question.




Please post url's to a couple.



Nah, I'm not a demolitions expert. I do, however, have a background in acoustics.

And my acoustics background says that explosions that occur 1000 feet in the air are audible for miles around. You are, I suspect, familiar with sound transmission, reflection, & absorption at ground level. Well, chris, the rules are different far above ground. With nothing to bounce off of or absorb it, sound will travel for miles.

Others have posted the statements of REAL demolitions experts. Brent Blanchard has spoken to exactly this point. And his expert opinion is that there is no way that the buildings could have been demo'd.

Here's his assessment:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Regardless of ways to suppress the transmission of sound in air, there would have been absolutely no way to suppress the transmission of the acoustic signatures THRU the columns & into the bedrock. Please explain why it is that Protec's seismic equipment, that was in place for the specific purpose of monitoring seismic vibrations from controlled demolitions.




No, Chris.
It wasn't a CD because:

1. there were NO explosions that had the needed volume.
2. there were NO explosions that had the needed quantity.
3. there were NO explosions that had the needed shockwave velocity.
4. there were NO explosions that had the needed acoustic signature.
5. there were no explosions that happened at the right times.
6. there were no seismic waves.
7. there were no extremely distinctive blast injuries.
8. there were no broken windows on the FAR side of buildings (which WOULD have happened with blast pressure waves bouncing off of buildings.
9. there were no beams that had the very distinctive evidence of explosive deformation.
10. there were no beams that were cut.

Note this last one carefully, chris. There were NO cut beams.

How did all those beams reassemble themselves after they were blown apart, chris? I gave you the urls for several hi-res photos of ground zero. Where are the 10,000 - 15,000 cut beams, chris?


tom

Would you be able to estimate he weight of steel we see on the ground in some of the aeriel photos you posted ? Each building started the day with 100,000 tons of structural steel. Would you say the photos show as much as 80% of that steel in and around the footprints ? Will you repost the photos you use for your estimation ?

 

[Christopher7]

Why is this absurd? Please enlighten the less astute of us "Official Story Theorists" why the state of the core at this point during the collapse is irrelevant.

Because I was pointing out the fatal flaw in the NIST FAQ collapse explanation at the beginning of the collapse.

According to NIST, the top section remained intact.

They calculated that if 6 floors were applied suddenly to the intact floor below the collapse, it would collapse.

As the core and perimeter columns gave way, the top section fell and the the floor above the intact floor collided with the intact floor adding its weight to the intact floor.

All the rest of the weight of the top section was on the core and perimeter columns, not the intact floor.

But the NIST FAQ says that all the floors above had their weight applied to the first intact floor all at once causing the floor supports gave way.

[FONT=&quot]"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."[/FONT]

But that is not what happened.

The intact floor would not collapse when one floor hit it suddenly, which is what did happen.

NIST has not proposed a valid theory of how the towers collapsed, much less the calculations to back it up.

They will need to calculate how fast the columns will crush instead of how much weight the floors will support, and they will have to figure both towers separately.
They will need to publish the calculations instead of just saying they did them.

 

[Christopher7]

Hundreds of little muffled explosions that blew 4 ton chunks 500 feet laterally. Right.

Wrong. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Yes it can. You are wrong.

Have you been reading this exchange?

You're not really qualified to make any credible statements in regards to what did or didn't happen. I'm not sure why you continue to do so. What is your purpose of posting here?

I'm improving my arguments thru debate, what are you doing here?

 

[Furcifer]

snip. I wonder why!

Because your analogy is flawed. But don't let that stop you from drawing incorrect conclusions.

 

[Christopher7]

Would you be able to estimate he weight of steel we see on the ground in some of the aerial photos you posted ?

No, nor could I say how the buildings were rigged or how loud it would be. That's a given.

What I can do is present arguments that the 4 ton frame sections could not be ripped apart and hurled up to 500 feet laterally by a falling building or debris.

I feel I have done that by establishing that the spring idea would not work and the fact that the building was collapsing a 5 or more floors per second which would drive sections down as they were torn loose. There would be some lateral ejection but nothing close to 400-500 feet.

No one here has a feasible answer so they just say "yes it can" and have shift to "not loud enough".

 

[BigAl]

Compared with high tech car shredding, e.g. http://mreasia.trustpass.alibaba.co...ap_And_Car_Shredder_Plant_1250_HP_6000hp.html
you need abt 4410 kWh to shred 120 ton of cars (pure steel) or say 120 cars of 1 ton each. That is why you cannot drop say 30 cars (30 ton) on 90 cars (90 ton) to produce 120 ton of shredded cars due to gravity alone. Gravity alone produces too little energy of shred cars by dropping some cars on other cars to produce shredding or rubble. No, to shred cars you have to push them into this machine and you need 37 kWh to shred 1 ton of steel or a car or 260 times more energy than used when crushing the first storey of WTC 1. I wonder why!

Essentially no steel was shredded at WTC. Many of the columns broke at the joints made during constrution. What didn't break wound up long twisted sections in the pile. Cutting these beams into truck-length sections was a large part of the work in the cleanup.

I was an eyewitness to some of this.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Falling debris cannot eject 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Some here have tried to suggest that these 4 ton frame sections could somehow spring that far but that has been shot down. There is no way to rip a 3 beam section apart from the surrounding sections and have any spring action.

Like or not, that leaves explosives, Deal with it. Stop denying it and whining about noise levels.

You don't have a clue about the energy of explosions or energy involved with collapse, do you?

 

[DGM]

They will need to calculate how fast the columns will crush instead of how much weight the floors will support, and they will have to figure both towers separately.
They will need to publish the calculations instead of just saying they did them.

Tell you what Chris, Why don't you guy's show that the lower section would arrest the fall of the top. So far no one in your group has produced a valid paper (with calculations) that it would. One paper (I can't remember his name) at the Jones' tried to show the North tower would arrest. The problem is if you use his math on the South tower it doesn't.

Until then I think we'll go with the maths.

 

[Furcifer]

There would be some lateral ejection but nothing close to 400-500 feet.

Oh really? What sort of distances do your calculations account for. How close to 400 feet are we talking? What percentage of these distances are due to spring effect? Did you estimate the impact velocities at a height or were they taken from observation? Did you account for the increase in gauge thickness or take an average? Did you use a 1D model or did you extend your analysis to 3D? Did you include friction? What coefficient did you use? What about aerodynamic effects? Did you consider rotational motion imparting a linear motion or was you calculation soley based on deflection? When will your FEA be made available? Did you perform a FMEA?

I'll bet you dodge these questions, offer a new age "touchy-feely" personally biased analysis, then in the same post bash NIST for being "un-scientific".

 

[Disbelief]

Compared with high tech car shredding, e.g. http://mreasia.trustpass.alibaba.co...ap_And_Car_Shredder_Plant_1250_HP_6000hp.html
you need abt 4410 kWh to shred 120 ton of cars (pure steel) or say 120 cars of 1 ton each. That is why you cannot drop say 30 cars (30 ton) on 90 cars (90 ton) to produce 120 ton of shredded cars due to gravity alone. Gravity alone produces too little energy of shred cars by dropping some cars on other cars to produce shredding or rubble. No, to shred cars you have to push them into this machine and you need 37 kWh to shred 1 ton of steel or a car or 260 times more energy than used when crushing the first storey of WTC 1. I wonder why!

Here's an idea, learn how they build cars. Once you do that, you will realize what a bad analogy it is to compare your little tower of cars with the WTC. I already had this discussion with LC, as I am very familiar with how cars are manufactured.

 

[Gamolon]

Can you tell me where Kobe Steel is in Cleveland?

Kobe Steel is not in Cleveland (which is what I believe your point to be Disbelief). It's in Elyria. It's also USS/Kobe Steel, unless something has changed from when I was there.

I used to work for an engineering firm that did many design/construction projects for them years ago. I was a construction supervisor for a blast furnace project (I worked onsite doing greaveyard shift during) and also helped design and layout a hydraulic system for one of their rolling mills.

 

[Gravy]

I'll bet you dodge these questions, offer a new age "touchy-feely" personally biased analysis, then in the same post bash NIST for being "un-scientific".

He already has dodged these questions in this thread, as he's been doing on this forum for years. He "estimates" that columns sections could have landed 100-200 feet from the towers without the aid of explosives. His estimation is based solely on his imagination.

Asking him to support his assertions is silly at this point. It was silly two years ago. He cannot do so and will not try. Dealing with Christopher7's arguments is like crushing a banana with a steamroller, and then running back and forth over it, for years. I think it's important to consider, "At what point is this flat enough?" That's why I use the ignore feature.

 

[GStan]

You keep saying there were no explosions but many witnesses say that there were. In some of the videos the collapse sounds like a freight train and many witnesses make similar comparrisons. You obsess on large explosions when the videos show hundreds of explosions blowing the towers apart and a great many exterior frame sections being ejected hundreds of feet in all directions. This just cant happen without explosives.

There were lots of explosions, and sounds that could be described as explosions. There is no evidence that there were explosives in the tower. Explosions or sounds that could be described as explosions would be expected when a 757 crashes into one of the largest buildings in the world, resulting in one of the largest office fires in the history of construction, and 500,000 tons of steel, contrete et al materials come crashing to the ground. What would be surprising would be to find any witnesses who didn't report hearing an explosion or something that sounded like an explosion.

Falling debris cannot eject 4 ton frame sections up to 500 feet laterally. Some here have tried to suggest that these 4 ton frame sections could somehow spring that far but that has been shot down. There is no way to rip a 3 beam section apart from the surrounding sections and have any spring action.

Why not? Please show your calculations on how much energy was necessary to achieve this and the amount of energy available in the collapse.

Like or not, that leaves explosives, Deal with it. Stop denying it and whining about noise levels.

There is no evidence of explosives. Please share it if you've uncovered some. When you provide the calculations that demonstrate that the 4-ton framing sections could not have been distributed in the manner observed, then there might be something to investigate. So far the only reason to believe that explosives were required to achieve the observed distribution is "because you say so." Please provide something more solid.

 

[GStan]

Actually, you guys are the ones obsessed about sound.

Silent explosives do not exist. Quiet explosives do not exist. If your claim requires that they exist, please provide proof of their existence.

On the contrary. They wanted to make it look and sound like a structural collapse.

So they "blew" the column trees 500 feet away from the building? Like in a structural collapse. Wait, if that's what a structural collapse looks like then why are you...? Ahhh nevermind.

This was like no other CD so don't compare it to other CD's.

Finally we can agree. You are correct. It was nothing like a CD.

Smaller debris was ejected up to 600 feet.

How small? The dust clouds expanded even further than that.

You are still in "it can't be because mode" and comparing this to other CD's. You are trying to disprove the obvious.

Think outside the box.

Never mind. You are so fanatically tied to the Official Collapse Theory you can't do that.

It is a theory that is consistent with the evidence. There are no other theories worthy of consideration at this point.

 

[funk de fino]

Because I was pointing out the fatal flaw in the NIST FAQ collapse explanation at the beginning of the collapse.

According to NIST, the top section remained intact.

They calculated that if 6 floors were applied suddenly to the intact floor below the collapse, it would collapse.

As the core and perimeter columns gave way, the top section fell and the the floor above the intact floor collided with the intact floor adding its weight to the intact floor.

All the rest of the weight of the top section was on the core and perimeter columns, not the intact floor.

But the NIST FAQ says that all the floors above had their weight applied to the first intact floor all at once causing the floor supports gave way.

[FONT=&quot]"Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly."[/FONT]

But that is not what happened.

The intact floor would not collapse when one floor hit it suddenly, which is what did happen.

NIST has not proposed a valid theory of how the towers collapsed, much less the calculations to back it up.

They will need to calculate how fast the columns will crush instead of how much weight the floors will support, and they will have to figure both towers separately.
They will need to publish the calculations instead of just saying they did them.

You completely fail to understand what the explanation that you claimed did not exist means. How ironic.

Once the top section tipped enough it broke free - correct?

Or do the columns magically stay connected?

 

[T.A.M.]

So we are to believe that the evildoers decided upon a controlled demolition NEVER BEFORE TRIED, to bring down the two tallest buildings in New York. In so doing they risked it failing, and then in subsequent examination of the partially or non-collapsed building, having their failed explosives/thermite discovered.

The web it becomes infinitely tangled.

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

Why don't you guy's show that the lower section would arrest the fall of the top. So far no one in your group has produced a valid paper (with calculations) that it would. One paper (I can't remember his name) at the Jones' tried to show the North tower would arrest. The problem is if you use his math on the South tower it doesn't.

Until then I think we'll go with the maths.

So you missed my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm ? Actually, you do not need math to prove it. Just common sense. The upper part C is evidently smaller than the lower part A and as both parts destroy each other at contact assuming part C is dropped on part A; upper part C will be destroyed before lower part A. However, upper part C can only apply potential energy on lower part A. When part C just rests on lower part A there is no problem - part A is just compressed a little as compressive stresses in part A are just 0.3 of permissible stresses. That's how the towers were built. Now, if you drop part C on part A (how? - using a crane), there will be an impact but what contacts what? Two perimeter walls of part C will no doubt miss part A below and the other two walls will just contact the top floor of part A. It will not crush down part A. Just damage the top floor. Part A perimeter walls on the other hand will destroy the bottom floor of part C - the upper part! .

So if that really happened, part C would be sliced in two parts by part A from below. No crush down of part A by part C. No, a real upper cut from below of part C by part A.

But, rest assured. There is to little potential energy involved. Part C will just get stuck up on top on part A.

Because - steel structures cannot globally collapse or, rather, be crushed down due to gravity alone when you drop a small part of the structure on the remainder below!

I just said it in message #1 of this thread and nobody seems to able to prove it is wrong.