The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[TruthersLie]

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

Which is exactly what happened. In the first collapse it took 15 secondsish. That is almost 75% longer than freefall. In the second collapse it took over 20 seconds... that is 200% longer than freefall. In wtc7 it took 18 seconds which is almost 300% longer than freefall for the building.

That would be taking "some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place."

I don't disagree that the floors were not designed for dynamic loads. I simply don't think it follows that they would give away with so little resistance.

Personal incredulity and personal ignorance of the engineering. Ok. Got it.

People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

GREAT. I know of Bazant and the other peer reviewed engineering journals which state once it was started it wasn't going to stop.

Please present any truther/doubters paper in a peer reviewed engineering journal which states that it was "too fast" It should be easy to find at least one.

There are plenty of authority figures with the appropriate knowledge and experience on both sides of this issue as well, and as predicted, they come up with exactly the kind of explanations that fit their preconcieved conclusions about the collapses.

Lets see... NIST, Bazant, Purdue University, MIT and a whole boat load of others... with over 100 fully peer reviewed engineering journals which support the common narrative...

and truthers side.... dr griffin... a theologian with NO engineering... Dylan avery and co...

Heiwa who says that if you dropped the top of the towers from 2 miles up it would arrest... but who hasn't got anything published...
Tony S. who can't get past honest peer review...
and those nearly 1000 architectural and engineering supporters (which changed from degreed and licensed, to degreed OR licensed and now it is just "professional" which includes draftsmen, office workers, secretaries etc... )

Please... pretty please find me just one peer reviewed engineering journal which says the common narrative is wrong. Just one. In ANY language. Just one that shows that NIST is wrong or that Bazant is wrong.

I'd love to see it.

 

[TruthersLie]

It's a little dramatic to call it a "lie", don't you think? I'm not saying there are comparable situations, however, as we all agree, those buildings fell fast.

Ummm no. WE don't all agree that they fell fast. They fell down. They collapsed.

Fast is a very relative term.

They fell down at a significant degree longer than freefall. So your "everybody knows" argument falls fast...

Why? There is a reason for everything, and the speed of those collapses is no exception.

Yup.. and it has been explained to you repeatedly and you just want to ignore it.

And I hardly think this is the last leg.

You are right... it is a fully dead horse that has been beaten repeatedly.

I'm not in some "truther" club, and I don't give a damn about making friends here. I just want to have a straight forward conversation with clear answers.

Then you need to move past your personal ignorance and personal incredulity to have those conversations. Once you have feel free to come back.

I know full well that most people here aren't even attempting to have a conversation about this. They would just ridicule and high-five each other and claim "victory" about something. Most here are attempting to end this conversation, not have it.

Then prove it was "too fast." Please provide any support of your incredulity. I'd love to see it.

That's what gets to me: this organization is supposed to be a "skeptical" group of people. That is, people who want a real answer, even if it's uncomfortable. And yet, it's clear that people who question the official story are on the "other side", like it's the Cowboys vs. the Redskins.

No. Personal ignorance is noted yet again. This is a skeptics forum. That means you will have skeptical analysis of information. What you seem to miss is that the truther "side" has NO information that stands up to any indepth analysis of their bs claims.

If the common narrative is wrong, then it should be easy for you to find sources and evidence to show it. Yet after 8 years, you have nothing but personal incredulity and personal ignorance.

Do you want to have a conversation or not?

As soon as you get past the personal ignorance and personal incredulity, I'd love to.

 

[triforcharity]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Sometimes I think this whole issue is more like a rorshach test than any kind of rational argument about anything.

Because trying to figure out the precise second that each beam, joist, and truss failed is IMPOSSIBLE. Based on their years and years of studies, they KNEW that it would not be able to be stopped.

I tend to trust people that have studied a specific field (Engineering, cardiology, quantam physics, plumbing, etc) that I know not much about.
Should I be telling my plumber how to do his job? No. He knows how to do it. Same with my cardiologist, and the guys who change my oil on my truck. They know what the **** they are doing, so who am I to question that?

Who are you to question the many many many scientific publications that have been peer reviewed in reputible journals? Do you know more than what those people know?? Highly doubtfull.

 

[Furcifer]

Who are you to question the many many many scientific publications that have been peer reviewed in reputible journals? Do you know more than what those people know?? Highly doubtfull.

There's a bizarre sense of entitlement that comes with a highspeed internet connection and a mouse.

He is the King of Googleverse! He sits in his underpants and pokes holes your theories, your PhD's and years of experience are no match! His sense of intuition and common sense trumps all. His questions must be answered! Hail to the King Baby!

In reality, none of these guys would ever put on a pair of jogging pants and drag their asses down to the University to actually get some answers. There's so many people at colleges and universities that would eagerly answer and legitimate questions these guys have.

If I ever found myself doubting something science related that's where I'd be heading. I'd head over to the University to find a prof or a grad student, and say "Listen, do you have second. I've been discussing this on the internet for 8 years and I'm just not convinced. This is what they are telling me. What's up with this?"

I've never heard of 1 person doing this. Ever. Not a single person has taken the time to actually go out and speak with someone, someone they know for sure has the specific knowledge they seek, and ask them a direct question.

jay's just asking questions. He seems to think they a legitimate questions that need some serious consideration. Why haven't you gone and asked someone? Do you have any idea what just one professor could do to jump start the revolution? Think of the chaos you could create around here if you got a grad student to get a membership and say "Jay showed me what you guys are saying, and man you guys are way off"

Why not jay? Why not ask someone you know for sure, someone who's probably never heard of this and is totally objective, why no one has come up with a realistic collapse model?

 

[tsig]

Why is it so incredulous to ask why the buildings, whose supporting members below the respective crashes were purportedly intact, fell at such a rapid rate as to incite a debate about whether they fell at free fall speeds or slightly less?


.

Intact!! They were hit by an plane and burnt for an hour. There are college courses on this.

 

[tsig]

<insert insane cackling here>

Sorry. I've had just about enough of these Truthers who think they know more about Engineering than people who have studied and worked in the Engineering field all their adult lives.

Where do they get that level of arrogance from? Can they seriously believe that watching Youtube and reading PrisonPlanet is the equivalent of a University degree in Engineering?

Yes, All you have to do is watch the tube. Truth comes thru the eyes.lol

 

[tsig]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Sometimes I think this whole issue is more like a rorshach test than any kind of rational argument about anything.

Only to you.

 

[tsig]

Just because it wasn't built for dynamic loads doesn't mean all the weld, bolts and fasteners will simply crumble without any resistance either. It takes some amount of energy greater than zero to crush, mangle or otherwise move a welded, bolted joint out of place. On this, again, we can all agree.

I don't disagree that the floors were not designed for dynamic loads. I simply don't think it follows that they would give away with so little resistance. People have done the math on this on both sides and come to exactly the conclusions each side set out to initially prove. Telling.

There are plenty of authority figures with the appropriate knowledge and experience on both sides of this issue as well, and as predicted, they come up with exactly the kind of explanations that fit their preconcieved conclusions about the collapses.

Are you denying the building fell because you can't do the math?

 

[tsig]

ROFLMAO

yep, probably added the height of the towers, to acelleration due to gravity and came up with the time of collapse should have been.

You really have to factor in the blue of the sky.

 

[R.Mackey]

jay, in case you wonder why no one takes you seriously, it's because this sentiment:

I just want to have a straight forward conversation with clear answers. I know full well that most people here aren't even attempting to have a conversation about this. They would just ridicule and high-five each other and claim "victory" about something. Most here are attempting to end this conversation, not have it.

... is totally incompatible with this:

Oh, hell, it was a Scottish guy whose name escapes me. I'd like to continue this tomorrow.

We've already had the conversation. Eight years ago. The answer is settled. You aren't taking part in it.

The only reason you think a conversation is still going on is because of your conspiracy-minded bias. We have peer-reviewed journal articles, many of them, all in agreement. We have simplifications at many levels all the way down to freshman high school physics (I present one in Appendix B of my whitepaper).

What do you have? You think you might have heard of some guy somewhere who disagrees. Seriously. That's enough for you to believe that the result is still in doubt.

That's called an unreasonable standard of proof. Since you've adopted one, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to talk to you. It's a waste of time.

This is why the Truth Movement never went anywhere, and why Truthers are and should be, until they come up with a valid objection, treated with distain. You're not part of the conversation. You haven't done your homework. Nor will you ask for help and try to learn. Those who have are all moved on by now, leaving only folks like yourself.

Not our responsibility to change you, jay. I'm quite dismayed that in the two years since you first started here, you've made no discernible progress whatsoever -- but I'm not surprised at all.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Sometimes I think this whole issue is more like a rorshach test than any kind of rational argument about anything.

OK, then.

let's work through tis a bit and see how far we get.

let's start with a a few data points.

0ne) the exterior columns were observed to be bowing inward across several floors prior to the collapse initiation. This indicates that the collapse initiatied through a buckling mechanism rather than a conection failure.

so, for the sake of a discusion, let's just assert that it was a buckling failure to sttart with. Do you agree with this?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Why don't you want a specific answer?

Two: Forensic eveidence from the lower floors of the building indicate that as the weight of the building came down, the floor joists were ripped out of the angle clips on the exterior columns, many of which were found to be bend downward and ripped at the bolt holes. This suggests that at some point after the initial buckling failure, the primary method of collapse propogation was the failure of these mechanical connections to support the loads of the upper part of the building as it crashed downward.

For the sake of argument, let's just say this is so.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

three: OK, let’s talk for a minute about the nature of structural design. I have noticed that there is a tendency among some people to think that a given floor supports the loads of al the floors above it. This is not the case. All the tenant floors were designed to support the same quantity of static and dynamic loads. The floors transmitted these loads to the building columns. It was the columns that were designed to carry the load of that particular floor and all the floors above it. This is a very important concept and I want to make sure you grasp it fully. There is a vast difference between the loads that a floor is designed to hold and the loads that a column is designed to hold.

With the exception of perhaps the top few floors, none of the floors were designed to hold loads any greater than a tiny fraction of the loads held by the columns.

This is an extremely important point. The floors were designed to hold the loads of the office furnishings and the tenants. They were not designed, nor were they intended to hold up the top of the building. The mass of the top of the buildings including the tenant floors above, were many orders of magnitude greater than the mass of one tenant floor of office equipment, paper and people.

Please respond that you understand this concept, as we can go no further until you do.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That's just a bare assertion. Yes, the tops of the structures were extremely heavy. But that doesn't make the impact point "trivial". That's exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific dismissal that makes my head spin at this site. Why don't you want a specific answer?

Sometimes I think this whole issue is more like a rorshach test than any kind of rational argument about anything.

Four: getting back to my earlier point about the initiation of the collapse through a buckling mechanism. Let’s assume for worst case scenarios, that the buckling occurred over one floor and one floor only. This was not the case, as the photos clearly show that the inward bowing of the exterior columns extended across several floors.

Now let’s assume, for the sake of discussion that when the columns buckled, that the weight of the top of the building came down and rested on the floor below. Not on the columns, but on the floor itself. It would be somewhat silly to imagine that the columns from the top of the building landed squarely on the top of the columns for the bottom of the structure. Furthermore, lets assume that these columns didn’t punch right through the 4” thick concrete slabs when they hit the floor, but instead landed square and flush so that the the impact of the top portion of the building was equally distributed throughout the entire slab. Unrealistic, yes, but this would be the best possible scenario for the floor slab to arrest the collapse.

Consider WTC 1. there were about 12 floors above the impact point, including the mechanical floors at the top of the building.

For our scenario, you have to assume that 1) even without considering the effect of any impact energy, that the floor slab would have been strong enough to hold the loads of those floors as well as the loads from the structure (columns and floor slabs) no being imposed upon it.

Do you really think that is possible?

What if we consider the impact energy of the load hitting the slab?

Is your imagination so impoverished that you can not see how the mechanical connections of the floor would simply be unable to handle the loads suddenly imposed upon it?


As I said, the ability of the floor slab to suport a given load would be trivial compared to the energy of the loads being imposed upon it.

 

[sylvan8798]

Poor Jay's head is spinning now.

Good job on the explanation, Packer.

 

[TruthersLie]

Four: getting back to my earlier point about the initiation of the collapse through a buckling mechanism. Let’s assume for worst case scenarios, that the buckling occurred over one floor and one floor only. This was not the case, as the photos clearly show that the inward bowing of the exterior columns extended across several floors.

Now let’s assume, for the sake of discussion that when the columns buckled, that the weight of the top of the building came down and rested on the floor below. Not on the columns, but on the floor itself. It would be somewhat silly to imagine that the columns from the top of the building landed squarely on the top of the columns for the bottom of the structure. Furthermore, lets assume that these columns didn’t punch right through the 4” thick concrete slabs when they hit the floor, but instead landed square and flush so that the the impact of the top portion of the building was equally distributed throughout the entire slab. Unrealistic, yes, but this would be the best possible scenario for the floor slab to arrest the collapse.

Consider WTC 1. there were about 12 floors above the impact point, including the mechanical floors at the top of the building.

For our scenario, you have to assume that 1) even without considering the effect of any impact energy, that the floor slab would have been strong enough to hold the loads of those floors as well as the loads from the structure (columns and floor slabs) no being imposed upon it.

Do you really think that is possible?

What if we consider the impact energy of the load hitting the slab?

Is your imagination so impoverished that you can not see how the mechanical connections of the floor would simply be unable to handle the loads suddenly imposed upon it?


As I said, the ability of the floor slab to suport a given load would be trivial compared to the energy of the loads being imposed upon it.

And Alfred as we know Bazant did the same exact thing with his first paper, which showed that even if they struck BEAM ON BEAM for the collapse (you know the BEST case scenerio) that it still would have been completely destroyed.

 

[1stClassAlan]

I think that all of us engineering types are failing to recognise some very important parts of C.T. - that the Towers must be proved to fall faster than freefall - because they believe that this automatically proves the use of explosives.

They are driven to this belief because explosives literally blow the building downwards!!!
When I realised this - I couldn't even engage them in serious debate any more - what a waste of time and energy - they are beyond help.

 

[TruthersLie]

I think that all of us engineering types are failing to recognise some very important parts of C.T. - that the Towers must be proved to fall faster than freefall - because they believe that this automatically proves the use of explosives.

They are driven to this belief because explosives literally blow the building downwards!!!
When I realised this - I couldn't even engage them in serious debate any more - what a waste of time and energy - they are beyond help.

The biggest problem is that freefall or no freefall it doesn't show that it was CD.

AlienEntity had a great video on youtube (I'm not sure of the code) which shows that even buildings which are CD do not fall at freefall...

so it doesn't matter... cd or not cd it won't fall at freefall. Which seems to quite often be COMPLETELY overlooked

 

[jay howard]

jay, in case you wonder why no one takes you seriously, it's because this sentiment:



... is totally incompatible with this:

? Not sure what incompatability you're talking about. Is it incompatable that i want to have an adult conversation AND was making a reference that, yea, I could've looked up but thought it was enough to refer to the guy by nationality--a reference correctly picked up on by just about everyone that responded?

We've already had the conversation. Eight years ago. The answer is settled. You aren't taking part in it.

The only reason you think a conversation is still going on is because of your conspiracy-minded bias. We have peer-reviewed journal articles, many of them, all in agreement. We have simplifications at many levels all the way down to freshman high school physics (I present one in Appendix B of my whitepaper).

What do you have? You think you might have heard of some guy somewhere who disagrees. Seriously. That's enough for you to believe that the result is still in doubt.

The whole reason I joined this thread was to reach common ground. It's not like i'm all over the internet talking about "pods" and "energy beams". My thought was, how could anyone argue with the fact that the towers fell at an exceptionally fast rate? Was it free-fall? No. But it was close. Those who want to say it was 200% slower than free fall sound like toothpaste commercials.

I'm not disagreeing that the event was unprecidented. I'm just saying that anyone ANYONE watching the collapses would have to say "damn, those towers fell fast." And to disagree with that sentiment is bull-headed to the point of irrationality that smacks of dishonesty.

That's called an unreasonable standard of proof. Since you've adopted one, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to talk to you. It's a waste of time.

And yet you cannot help but waste your time talking to me. Seriously, if you don't want to respond, then simply don't. If you feel talking to me is a waste of time, then by all means, do not respond. Yet, you want to waste your time by pointing out what a waste of time it is to reply to me. And no doubt you will reply to this--again wasting your time pointing out how "useless it is..." to have a conversation with me. Please.

This is why the Truth Movement never went anywhere, and why Truthers are and should be, until they come up with a valid objection, treated with distain. You're not part of the conversation. You haven't done your homework. Nor will you ask for help and try to learn. Those who have are all moved on by now, leaving only folks like yourself.

Haven't done my homework? From the guy who had to have falsifiability explained to him over and over and over again? Correct me if i'm wrong but there never was a falsifiable statement pulled out of the entire 10,000+ pages of the NIST report, was there? Did I miss this?

Seriously, Ryan, if you have something to add to this, I'm all ears. If you just want to lather your condesension in the hope it will read like wisdom, save it.

Not our responsibility to change you, jay. I'm quite dismayed that in the two years since you first started here, you've made no discernible progress whatsoever -- but I'm not surprised at all.

From an investigative standpoint the real tell is what people do with new evidence or new information. Whatever one believes, it makes sense that they will try to fit the new observations into the existing theory. In some cases that means ignoring evidence or somehow consigning it to the dustbin for one reason or another.

At some point however, the amount of evidence or information that must be ignored or recategorized so as to not rock the boat starts to form an appreciable amount. The history of science is filled with glittering instances of just such an evolution of thought. Some of these stories took hundreds of years to come full circle. Everyone knows about the Copernican revolution and the math of epicycles that ran the geocentric model for centuries.

Initially, the math for predicting the cycles for heavenly bodies was simpler for the geocentric model than the math for making the same predictions from the heliocentric model--this was thought to be clear evidence of the failure of the heliocentric model to match reality.

You can go through my posts with a fine-toothed comb and you will not find me explicitly advocating CD. I do however, have a problem with the way the official theory deals (or doesn't deal) with the totality of evidence. It leads me to believe the official theory is only a fraction of a complete answer. I think better answers exist. I'm not sure what they are. But I do know this: if Theory A must ignore or otherwise categorize some evidence as "unreal" or "trivial" and Theory B ignores nothing, then B is more powerful.

There is a better theory. And when people cannot even say, "damn, those towers fell fast," without a bunch of qualification as to "not anywhere near free fall speeds" and the like, then it starts sounding like epicycles and unnecessary justifications.

Peoples' theories are like their children. They protect them from harm and outside influences. This is human nature, but it's not good science.

 

[TruthersLie]

? Not sure what incompatability you're talking about. Is it incompatable that i want to have an adult conversation AND was making a reference that, yea, I could've looked up but thought it was enough to refer to the guy by nationality--a reference correctly picked up on by just about everyone that responded?

So when I use any type of support, I'll just say "that american guy, ya know." And you will accept it? This from someone who wants an "adult" conversation? Really?

ROFLMAO.

The whole reason I joined this thread was to reach common ground. It's not like i'm all over the internet talking about "pods" and "energy beams". My thought was, how could anyone argue with the fact that the towers fell at an exceptionally fast rate?

Ummm. No. Fast is relative. You may think they fell at an "exceptionally fast rate." Do you have ANY science or engineering to support that bald faced assertion?

What? Oh.. personal ignorance and incredulity. Ok. Got it. Now go to any college engineering department and ask them to explain it to you. Then come back.

Was it free-fall? No. But it was close. Those who want to say it was 200% slower than free fall sound like toothpaste commercials.

Again, personal ignorance noted. 15 seconds is NOT CLOSE to freefall for the first tower. And 20 seconds is NOT close to freefall.

Your personal ignorance of the engineering or the forces involved is showing.

I'm not disagreeing that the event was unprecidented. I'm just saying that anyone ANYONE watching the collapses would have to say "damn, those towers fell fast."

Compared to what? Again and again you make bald faced assumptions based on personal ignorance.

Now if you had any scientific support I'd love to read it.

And to disagree with that sentiment is bull-headed to the point of irrationality that smacks of dishonesty.

No. it is how scientists and engineers work. To make bald faced assertions based on personal ignorance smacks of dishonesty.

From an investigative standpoint the real tell is what people do with new evidence or new information.

Please provide some that stands up to more than a cursory inspection. YOu know, peer reviewed scientific journals or the rest.

Have you found a single peer reviewed journal which shows what NIST got wrong? In any language, from any country in the world?

Whatever one believes, it makes sense that they will try to fit the new observations into the existing theory. In some cases that means ignoring evidence or somehow consigning it to the dustbin for one reason or another.

Ah... the explosives... oooops there were no sounds of explosives.... thermite... yes... No... lots of sulphur... thermate.... no.... nanothermtie..... as "matches" for conventional explosives.....which would make too much noise?

At some point however, the amount of evidence or information that must be ignored or recategorized so as to not rock the boat starts to form an appreciable amount.

Yes it does. Still waiting for any truther evidence. Got some? Present it.

The history of science is filled with glittering instances of just such an evolution of thought. Some of these stories took hundreds of years to come full circle. Everyone knows about the Copernican revolution and the math of epicycles that ran the geocentric model for centuries.

Ah yes... the "we will be looked on as correct in the future because they are so backwards today" bs.

if you have evidence which supports your bs claims, then please present them.

come up with a even slightly comprehensive narrative to explain the events of the day. Then present your proof.

8 years on and still waiting... why is that?

You can go through my posts with a fine-toothed comb and you will not find me explicitly advocating CD. I do however, have a problem with the way the official theory deals (or doesn't deal) with the totality of evidence.

You mean the totality of the evidence that overwhelmingly supports that 19 islamic fanatics took over 4 jets and crashed 3 of them into buildings and a fourth into a field in pennslyvania?

that totality of the evidence?

or do you have some other form of totality of the evidence? If so present it. I'm all ears.

It leads me to believe the official theory is only a fraction of a complete answer.

Oh you mean the datamined, out of context quotes? Or the fact that it was a hugely complicated mess of a day where there are some conflicting accounts?

I think better answers exist. I'm not sure what they are. But I do know this: if Theory A must ignore or otherwise categorize some evidence as "unreal" or "trivial" and Theory B ignores nothing, then B is more powerful.

Again, my MOTHRA did it theory has just as much evidence as anything truthers have presented. I'm still waiting for nist to have tested for giant lizard poo, or pixey dust...

There is a better theory. And when people cannot even say, "damn, those towers fell fast," without a bunch of qualification as to "not anywhere near free fall speeds" and the like, then it starts sounding like epicycles and unnecessary justifications.

Then present a comprehensive narrative which is supported by the science. In science and engineering halfs of a second are a HUGE deal. FUll seconds are massive and important.

Please, pretty please provide just one peer reviewed engineering journal which state that a 15 to 20 second collapse of the towers is too fast. Just one.

Peoples' theories are like their children. They protect them from harm and outside influences. This is human nature, but it's not good science.

So far, you haven't presented any science. Just arguments from incredulity and ignorance. Provide some good science and we will see.