Ed Truthers: Structural Engineering and Physics Expertise in the Analysis of the WTC

[ElMondoHummus]

I like my JREF membership. What is the big deal about asking a few questions to an Architect on another forum?

With all due respect, please stop trying to generate page hits for a different site. Architect is here, the people he's directing the OP at are here, there is no need for anyone to go elsewhere for this.

ETA: Architect, possibly it's time to request that the thread go on moderated status, so as to avoid spamming like that. This comment can be deleted, too, along with his, once that happens since it would be a digression from your OP. I'll also stay out of things from here on out.

 

[enik]

I must say, you do bring up a very good point. Ok, I'll let it go.

 

[newton3376]

I'm a member of physicsforums as well as this forum...

I have posted in several electrical engineering and physics threads there and I can tell you that we really don't discuss 9-11 nonsense over there.

Conspiracy crap is not tolerated over there, so it's best to just keep the discussion on this site.

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you suggesting that they aren't?

Dave

The thing is, not all of the laws of physics are fully known and understood, yet.

The Casimir effect is still being worked on, and is not a part of the traditional physics education, yet.

Talk to physicists, and they can tell you with great detail what they have learned, but they can't tell you what they haven't learned.

I ran into this in my pharmacology department. Most of the professors refused to believe that marijuana has efficacy for any disease at all, because that's what they had learned going through school. They also criticized my research because, in their view, marijuana was addictive and dangerous, despite the decades of research proving it isn't. They believed the hype about marijuana, but science doesn't progress by majority rule.

Turns out, those pharmacologists are having to change their tune.

 

[Furcifer]

The Newtonian mechanics that govern this collapse are fully understood. I don't see what finding black matter or Unified Field Theory has to do with it?

 

[tsig]

The thing is, not all of the laws of physics are fully known and understood, yet.

The Casimir effect is still being worked on, and is not a part of the traditional physics education, yet.

Talk to physicists, and they can tell you with great detail what they have learned, but they can't tell you what they haven't learned.

I ran into this in my pharmacology department. Most of the professors refused to believe that marijuana has efficacy for any disease at all, because that's what they had learned going through school. They also criticized my research because, in their view, marijuana was addictive and dangerous, despite the decades of research proving it isn't. They believed the hype about marijuana, but science doesn't progress by majority rule.

Turns out, those pharmacologists are having to change their tune.

I see, some unknown physical law was in effect on 911 but we can't know what it is because physicists don't know what they haven't learned and some unnamed pharmacology professors think marijuana is addictive.

 

[Architect]

The thing is, not all of the laws of physics are fully known and understood, yet.

The Casimir effect is still being worked on, and is not a part of the traditional physics education, yet.

Talk to physicists, and they can tell you with great detail what they have learned, but they can't tell you what they haven't learned.

I ran into this in my pharmacology department. Most of the professors refused to believe that marijuana has efficacy for any disease at all, because that's what they had learned going through school. They also criticized my research because, in their view, marijuana was addictive and dangerous, despite the decades of research proving it isn't. They believed the hype about marijuana, but science doesn't progress by majority rule.

Turns out, those pharmacologists are having to change their tune.

This thread has been set up specifically for Truthers to explain why they believe that broad physics is a more appropriate means of analysing and understanding the WTC collapse than structural engineering and fire modelling.

Now, do you wish to be the first to defend this proposition, in which case I look forward to a detailed discussion on the issue?

Alternatively, the thread about dustification and DEW is elsewhere.

 

[ergo]

In answer to your OP, Architect, i.e., "why broad physics is a more appropriate means of analysing and understanding the WTC collapse than structural engineering and fire modelling,"

I don't know of any truthers making this claim. Of course, structural engineers would have to not only understand basic physics, but would also be more qualified to discuss the basic physics of building collapses.

My argument is that, before 9/11, building collapses did not need to be explained to lay people. Lay people, as far as I know, had no reason to question why a building fell down from an earthquake, for example, or why a chunk of building would be missing after a bomb blast or a wrecking ball hit it, nor why buildings didn't fall after burning for hours (although parts of them may have), nor how controlled demolition could bring buildings down. None of these incidents raised any suspicion with anyone, so nine-year-long debates didn't occur.

The WTC collapses instantly and immediately raised questions for almost everybody. Why else would Zdenek Bazant publish a paper attempting to explain it two days after the event? Did he also write a paper explaining the chunk of building that went missing from the Oklahoma bombing? No, I don't think he did.

So not only did these "collapses" immediately and instantly raise questions for everybody, but the way the buildings fell was so obviously not the way any other buildings have ever fallen from natural causes (because nobody is saying that the planes knocked the buildings down) that it was obvious not just to physicists and engineers but lay people as well. The energetics (if I may use that word) of the destruction is so obvious that it doesn't actually take a physicist or engineer to say, "yeah, that's not right." With all due respect, while building construction obviously requires sound, highly detailed plans and extensive technical knowledge, building collapses don't---well, maybe controlled demolition does. But pretty much everyone can understand the principles of natural building collapses. As I said, nobody questions the collapse of an earthquake-hit building.

So, as I've stated here and elsewhere, although there are obviously lots of technical issues involved, the fact that two separate investigations needed to be done to come up with something that still doesn't even approximate natural collapse by fire is that much more damning to what most of us, experts and lay alike, know is simply not right.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The thing is, not all of the laws of physics are fully known and understood, yet.

Since the point I was making was not that the laws of physics are completely known but that they are independent of which Internet forum they're being discussed in, your post is irrelevant.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

My argument is that, before 9/11, building collapses did not need to be explained to lay people.

You're a little over 150 years out there.

On 24 May 1847 the new railway bridge over the river Dee collapsed as a train passed over it, with the loss of 5 lives. It was designed by Robert Stephenson, using cast iron girders reinforced with wrought iron struts. The bridge collapse was the subject of one of the first formal inquiries into a structural failure.

Structural collapses^WP page. Of course, I'm sure a truther could argue that a bridge is not a building, so let's see if we've got any examples of a public enquiry into a high-rise building collapse.

Pressured by the public, the government formed a panel to investigate the collapse. The panels report was issued later that year (Griffiths et al., 1968). ​

http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/Ronan%20Point.htm

A public enquiry brought about by public demand to have a building collapse explained to them, and 33 years before 9/11. Apparently, sometimes lay people not only need to have building collapses explained to them, but positively demand to have them explained to them.​

​

Lay people, as far as I know, had no reason to question why a building fell down from an earthquake, for example, or why a chunk of building would be missing after a bomb blast or a wrecking ball hit it, nor why buildings didn't fall after burning for hours (although parts of them may have), nor how controlled demolition could bring buildings down. None of these incidents raised any suspicion with anyone, so nine-year-long debates didn't occur.

Since we've seen that this premise is completely wrong, we can discard all the arguments that follow from it. In the real world, rather than the fantasy world inhabited by truthers, the cause of major disasters is rarely obvious at first glance, and sometimes isn't even known for certain after considerable study. To this day, there are three competing theories of the exact cause of the Tay Bridge disaster^WP, the subject of a public enquiry (another one of those pesky things!) back in 1880, so it appears that, occasionally, 130-year-long debates occurred.

So, back to the drawing board, ergo. Keep on making things up, though. By the law of averages, sooner or later you'll accidentally produce a post that isn't riddled with laughable factual errors. Once you've overcome that hurdle, perhaps you'd like to produce a new draft of Hamlet.

Dave

 

[Furcifer]

Of course, structural engineers would have to not only understand basic physics, but would also be more qualified to discuss the basic physics of building collapses.

Instead we have...you?

My argument is that, before 9/11, building collapses did not need to be explained to lay people.

Or after. In fact, there is never, ever a reason for lay people to explain things they know nothing about. That's why we have schools.

This is a classic CT delusion. The poster fancies the notion that the entire World has lost its collective ability to reason rationally. The professionals, who deliberately distanced themselves from the lay people with education and experience, can no longer be trusted because they've been blinded by the nefarious plotting of the NWO. Instead, it is time for "Common Man" to rise to the occasion. Using his power of "innate commonsense" only he can see what years of experience and education can't!

Conspiracy and comic books, empowering works of fiction

The energetics (if I may use that word) of the destruction is so obvious that it doesn't actually take a physicist or engineer to say, "yeah, that's not right." With all due respect, while building construction obviously requires sound, highly detailed plans and extensive technical knowledge, building collapses don't---well, maybe controlled demolition does. But pretty much everyone can understand the principles of natural building collapses. As I said, nobody questions the collapse of an earthquake-hit building.

All I can say is WOW! The "energetics" of the WTC collapse is possibly the most complex applications of Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics I can think of (except maybe the 3 body problem ). Between the planes and the fires and the structure it's got it all. You want to take all of that and say the average person can look at it from a YouTube video and know what's going on. Inherently. As if hundreds of years of knowledge in these subjects has been encoded into out genes? Unbelievable.

What's even more unbelievable is that despite knowing it takes some sort of expertise to put these buildings together, you presume to know more about taking them apart than the experts

 

[ergo]

You're a little over 150 years out there.

Structural collapses^WP page. Of course, I'm sure a truther could argue that a bridge is not a building, so let's see if we've got any examples of a public enquiry into a high-rise building collapse.

A public enquiry brought about by public demand to have a building collapse explained to them, and 33 years before 9/11. Apparently, sometimes lay people not only need to have building collapses explained to them, but positively demand to have them explained to them.[/SIZE][/LEFT]

I think you're missing the point here.

The inquiry into the Ronan Point failure was not to explain to the public why the building corner collapsed the way it did, but what caused the initial failure. Same with the bridges: what caused the failure? Not why the structures collapsed the way they did.

People looking at the collapses of the Twin Towers wondered how the buildings could descend so rapidly and why were they spewing out dust and debris like a fountain. The way the buildings collapsed was what drew suspicion. Had the buildings simply kept burning, or, alternatively, had the upper blocks simply slumped into the damage zone (or, in the case of WTC2, fallen to the side, as it appeared to start doing) few would be questioning this. What's in question is how a minor portion of the building could descend through the rest of it with such speed and obvious energetics.

So I think you're the one who needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you're missing the point here.

The inquiry into the Ronan Point failure was not to explain to the public why the building corner collapsed the way it did, but what caused the initial failure. Same with the bridges: what caused the failure? Not why the structures collapsed the way they did.

Because it's often not until these disasters happen that unseen vulnerabilities, neglect, or otherwise are discovered. It falls to designers to ensure that such issues avoided to prevent it from happening again. And as collapses are concrened, we design to prevent it from beginning in the first place. Speaking of which "they way the fell" is synonymous with understanding why the collapse propogated, and with the Ronan Point Plaza, the collapse continued because of a localized overloading of the structure supporting the section that failed. That's why we know that it initiated at the 18th floor and then caused the floors above to fall. The weight of those floors hit the next one, then the next, then the next, in a progressive collapse. Gee, not too different in principal to the trade centers is it?

We design buildings in such a way to prevent this kind of collapse from starting in the first place, not when it's already begun.

 

[Furcifer]

I think you're missing the point here.

I think we get it, it's irony right?

People looking at the collapses of the Twin Towers wondered how the buildings could descend so rapidly and why were they spewing out dust and debris like a fountain.

What people?

The way the buildings collapsed was what drew suspicion.

What suspicion?

Had the buildings simply kept burning, or, alternatively, had the upper blocks simply slumped into the damage zone (or, in the case of WTC2, fallen to the side, as it appeared to start doing) few would be questioning this.

Few are questioning this. What are you talking about?

What's in question is how a minor portion of the building could descend through the rest of it with such speed and obvious energetics.

No it isn't. It's barely the musing of a madman, let alone a question.

So I think you're the one who needs to go back to the drawing board.

Ahh, the irony again, now I get it. You're being ironic. Very clever.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think you're missing the point here.

The inquiry into the Ronan Point failure was not to explain to the public why the building corner collapsed the way it did, but what caused the initial failure.

No, it wasn't. The cause of the initial failure was well known to be a gas explosion in an upper flat. What was surprising about the collapse was, firstly, the amount of damage caused to the structure by the initial explosion, and secondly, and very specifically, the way it then progressed to ground level. Had the collapse been limited to the initial explosion site, all of the four people killed in the collapse would have survived, and most of the 17 injured would have been largely unaffected; most of the latter and all of the former were in lower flats that collapsed because of the propagation, not the initial failure.

So, epic fail there. I don't know what's more impressive, your total ignorance or your belief that you can get away with making things up and not get called on them. Ronan Point is a perfect example of exactly what you're saying never happened, and you've simply (as usual) made up the first lie that entered your head to try and give the false impression that it wasn't. Stop revelling in your ignorance and dishonesty, and try and actually present something from a basis of knowledge and understanding. At the moment you're portraying your whole movement as a bunch of ignorant, arrogant liars.

Dave

 

[Architect]

I think you're missing the point here.

The inquiry into the Ronan Point failure was not to explain to the public why the building corner collapsed the way it did, but what caused the initial failure. Same with the bridges: what caused the failure? Not why the structures collapsed the way they did.

People looking at the collapses of the Twin Towers wondered how the buildings could descend so rapidly and why were they spewing out dust and debris like a fountain. The way the buildings collapsed was what drew suspicion. Had the buildings simply kept burning, or, alternatively, had the upper blocks simply slumped into the damage zone (or, in the case of WTC2, fallen to the side, as it appeared to start doing) few would be questioning this. What's in question is how a minor portion of the building could descend through the rest of it with such speed and obvious energetics.

So I think you're the one who needs to go back to the drawing board.

I'm sorry but you don't answer the OP, much as you may thing otherwise.

In order to understand the collapse - and collapse - then we need to analyse both the initiating event and the results. I put it to you that both of these require a detailed understanding of building structures.

Let me give you an example. It is oft stated here that the lower structure should have had sufficient capacity to prevent continuing collapse. I put it to you that, regardless of the merits of such an argument, the proposer must have been in a position to properly assess the loadbearing c apacity and performance of said lower structure.

So, to pose the original question again, why do some Truthers apparently believe that detailed structural analysis can be bypassed in favour of much broader (say) Newtonian Laws? Why do we see thermodynamics proposed rather than structural calculations?

 

[Architect]

We design buildings in such a way to prevent this kind of collapse from starting in the first place, not when it's already begun.

And we make mistakes. I suspect our resident Truthers will be unware, for example, of the Citicorp Tower (obviously they'll now all Wiki it) notwithstanding the fact that it was a compulsory case study for those of us studying the field here in the UK.

 

[ergo]

What was surprising about the collapse was, firstly, the amount of damage caused to the structure by the initial explosion, and secondly, and very specifically, the way it then progressed to ground level. Had the collapse been limited to the initial explosion site, all of the four people killed in the collapse would have survived, and most of the 17 injured would have been largely unaffected; most of the latter and all of the former were in lower flats that collapsed because of the propagation, not the initial failure.

Please indicate your source and show how the failure of this building corner was so confusing to the public that they demanded an investigation.

 

[ergo]

So, to pose the original question again, why do some Truthers apparently believe that detailed structural analysis can be bypassed in favour of much broader (say) Newtonian Laws? Why do we see thermodynamics proposed rather than structural calculations?

Because the obvious energy of the collapses does not match any known natural building failures. It so obviously looks like explosives of some kind are used. There are no other natural building collapses in history that give this appearance. And such an appearance would obviously not be caused by any particular design features of the WTC, since we still only have gravity, supposedly, to account for it. It's not complex at all. It's very obvious.

NIST itself concluded that the building design was sound and there were no design flaws that contributed to the collapse. Why we get into arguments over the obvious is because folks like yourself will deny the basic visual evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please indicate your source and show how the failure of this building corner was so confusing to the public that they demanded an investigation.

After you; you claimed, after all, that there was no uncertainty concerning the mechanism of progressive collapse, because this was the sort of thing that was expected to happen, and the only reason for the inquiry was to determine the initial cause, despite this already being known before the inquiry.

Which is odd, come to think of it. You're arguing that downward progressive collapse is such an unusual phenomenon that it's trivially obvious to the uninformed layman that it can't possibly have happened, except in the case of Ronan Point, where it was such a commonplace phenomenon that it was trivially obvious that it couldn't possibly not have happened. So downward progressive collapse happened for the first time in history on 9/11, despite having been commonplace before 9/11.

Apparently what happened before 9/11 doesn't count as history.

Dave

ETA: Paragraph 1 is perhaps a little unfair, in that I've used a certain amount of deductive logic.

P1: The Ronan Point collapse inquiry was brought about partly by public pressure.
P2: This public pressure arose largely from concern at the number of people killed and injured in the collapse.
P3: None of the deaths occurred solely due to the initiating gas explosion; all were due to the ensuing collapses.
C: The public concern therefore centred more on the collapse than on the initiating event.

A major part of the findings of the inquiry concerned the vulnerability of the structure to progressive collapse and the failure of the designers to consider the possibility of any such collapse. Therefore, it's perfectly clear that there was serious concern, in the Ronan Point enquiry, as to the mechanism of collapse progression. Identifying the initiating event was relatively trivial.