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

[Dave Rogers]

Because the obvious energy of the collapses does not match any known natural building failures.

Please quantify how much energy was obviously released in the collapses, and how much is released in known building failures. Physics is about measurement, calculation and prediction, not about saying things are obvious.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

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.

Wrong, and it all goes to your failure to comprehend physics. E=mgh, can you do the math? The collapse had more energy than 150 2,000 pound bomb just because of Gravity, and you can't grasp that fact. Your 9 years of failure to understand 911 is due to lack of knowledge in science; the schools failed you, you failed the schools, and you remain in ignorance; good job

 

[Architect]

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.

Are you suggesting that there is no need to carry out structural analysis because "there are no other natural collapses in history that give us this appearance"? Is this your argument for the use of broad physics theory rather than structural engineering techniques?

 

[ergo]

Are you suggesting that there is no need to carry out structural analysis because "there are no other natural collapses in history that give us this appearance"? Is this your argument for the use of broad physics theory rather than structural engineering techniques?

No, I'm saying that very basic questions arise from simply looking at the collapses. Questions which should be able to be answered without having to allude to hidden, "inner" processes which defy everyday, intuitive understanding of gravity and Newtonian physics.

For example, the Ronan Point collapse, while it was necessary to determine what exactly went wrong, was not a collapse that defied basic laws of physics. I don't think the entire building collapsed because a minor gas leak exploded, did it? And it wasn't even steel-framed.

The railway bridges collapses were attributed to flaws in the iron manufacturing, as I understand. The manner in which they collapsed I'm guessing didn't particularly perplex anybody. The entire bridge didn't self-pulverize, sending out chunks of rail and wooden ties hundreds of feet because of a weak spot in its construction.

Do you see the differences?

 

[Furcifer]

No, I'm saying that very basic questions arise from simply looking at the collapses. Questions which should be able to be answered without having to allude to hidden, "inner" processes which defy everyday, intuitive understanding of gravity and Newtonian physics.

This is funny because it's the conspiracy that proposes some "inner" process. It's simple physics, things get weak when they get hot and things fall down due to gravity.

The conspiracy theorists don't possess the collective knowledge to even realize how silly they sound. It's something you should seriously consider.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For example, the Ronan Point collapse, while it was necessary to determine what exactly went wrong, was not a collapse that defied basic laws of physics.

Neither were the collapses of the WTC towers. They've all been analysed repeatedly, virtually ad nauseam, using nothing more than Newtonian mechanics and known properties of materials, and found to be completely understandable. The fact that you have neither the knowledge, the inclination nor the intelligence to reproduce these results doesn't invalidate them in any way.

Or, putting it more simply: We know why the towers fell, so why is it our problem that you don't?

Dave

 

[Bad_Doggie]

No, I'm saying that very basic questions arise from simply looking at the collapses. Questions which should be able to be answered without having to allude to hidden, "inner" processes which defy everyday, intuitive understanding of gravity and Newtonian physics.

For example, the Ronan Point collapse, while it was necessary to determine what exactly went wrong, was not a collapse that defied basic laws of physics. I don't think the entire building collapsed because a minor gas leak exploded, did it? And it wasn't even steel-framed.

The railway bridges collapses were attributed to flaws in the iron manufacturing, as I understand. The manner in which they collapsed I'm guessing didn't particularly perplex anybody. The entire bridge didn't self-pulverize, sending out chunks of rail and wooden ties hundreds of feet because of a weak spot in its construction.

Do you see the differences?

More and more I find myself coming here for its comic value than for information.

Thanks for your contribution. Pure gold.

Woof!

 

[TruthersLie]

No, I'm saying that very basic questions arise from simply looking at the collapses. Questions which should be able to be answered without having to allude to hidden, "inner" processes which defy everyday, intuitive understanding of gravity and Newtonian physics.

are these the same bits of intuition that have you say things like "loose particles" can't damage something?

Are these the same bits of intuition that cause you to not understand that a ton of sand collapsing will do almost the same amount of damage as a ton block of marble?

Are these the same bits of intuition which has consistently not been able to do something as simple as a free body diagram which shows how your intuition should work?

Really? Go figure.

ETA: P.s. that little bit o gold was stundied... I think you may win it again.... you go boy!!!
p.p.s. have you figured out how that car was so damaged by the "loose particles" of water yet?

 

[ergo]

Neither were the collapses of the WTC towers. They've all been analysed repeatedly, virtually ad nauseam, using nothing more than Newtonian mechanics and known properties of materials, and found to be completely understandable.

I think Architect would beg to differ. He says physics alone cannot explain it.

 

[ergo]

Are these the same bits of intuition that cause you to not understand that a ton of sand collapsing will do almost the same amount of damage as a ton block of marble?

A ton of sand "collapsing", eh? What does that look like?

 

[TruthersLie]

A ton of sand "collapsing", eh? What does that look like?

a lot like an avalanche... or a large bucket of water.... or a tsunami (if you are under it)... you know all of those things made up of "loose particles" which you swear won't damage things.

How was that car destroyed again? Hmmm?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think Architect would beg to differ. He says physics alone cannot explain it.

From what I can tell, the TM uses a bastardized interpretation of physics to begin with which is compounded by you guys having never, ever touched any architecture or engineering concepts.

You cannot address in detail, a complex engineering problem with a high school level physics equation. Not every construction system is as straightforward as post and lintel (aka Post and beam) framing, there's specialized constructions for certain building types. Gage doesn't even compare and contrast materials in construction when he makes a comparison because they apparently don't matter to him - in his world, steel has the same insulative properties against fire as reinforced concrete

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I think Architect would beg to differ. He says physics alone cannot explain it.

Architect is the ultimate authority on what he meant, but I believe he has been saying that physics explains the collapses just fine. His point is that structural engineers with experience in the specialized area of tall buildings are more qualified to apply the principles of physics to understand and to explain the collapses of tall buildings than are physicists.

I don't see any real controversy there. As I understand his argument, it's just a matter of specialization. A physicist's training emphasizes basic principles across a wide range of physics. A structural engineer's training emphasizes only the narrow areas of physics (and other subjects) that are relevant to structural engineering, but treats those areas in far greater detail and depth, emphasizing practical applications over scientific fundamentals.

Architect will surely correct any major errors I have inserted into my summary of his argument.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Neither were the collapses of the WTC towers. They've all been analysed repeatedly, virtually ad nauseam, using nothing more than Newtonian mechanics and known properties of materials, and found to be completely understandable.

I think Architect would beg to differ. He says physics alone cannot explain it.

Did you miss the words "and known properties of materials", or are you just sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping they'll go away?

Dave

 

[Architect]

I think Architect would beg to differ. He says physics alone cannot explain it.

Not at all and I suggest that you re-read the both of the opening posts.

Structural engineering is a specialist branch of applied physics which looks at the performance of materials within structural systems. It's a highly specialist and necessarily complex field of study; not only do different materials perform in different ways, but the structural system employed is critically important.

There are, however, a number of Truthers here who seek to apply very broad physics issues such as thermodynamics and the like. Such posters will typically hand-wave away the need for structural analyses in order to understand the WTC collapse. Very often such claims are interspersed with something to the effect of "it's simple" or "it's obvious".

I have asked why such people, apparently including yoruself, believe that an understanding of physics in this broad sense is to be preferred over detailed structural analysis.

 

[ergo]

And I have already answered your incorrect question. Twice.

 

[Architect]

No, I'm saying that very basic questions arise from simply looking at the collapses. Questions which should be able to be answered without having to allude to hidden, "inner" processes which defy everyday, intuitive understanding of gravity and Newtonian physics.

So you are saying that you believe that an understanding of structural engineering is not necessary to understand the collapse of WTC1 and 2, then?

For example, the Ronan Point collapse, while it was necessary to determine what exactly went wrong, was not a collapse that defied basic laws of physics. I don't think the entire building collapsed because a minor gas leak exploded, did it? And it wasn't even steel-framed.

With respect, that doesn't make sense. At Ronan Point, the lack of any mechanical restraint between the panels meant that localised failure led to dispropportionate collapse. However it was not possible to determine this without an investigation, and one which focussed on (a) building construction techniques together with (b) structural calculations.

By your argument, we could simply apply "Newtonian Physics" and still arrive at the same result.

The railway bridges collapses were attributed to flaws in the iron manufacturing, as I understand. The manner in which they collapsed I'm guessing didn't particularly perplex anybody. The entire bridge didn't self-pulverize, sending out chunks of rail and wooden ties hundreds of feet because of a weak spot in its construction.

Sorry, are you trying to draw a parallel between the Tay Bridge Disaster and the collapse of WTC?

Do you see the differences?

It's not me I'm concerned about.

 

[excaza]

By your argument, we could simply apply "Newtonian Physics" and still arrive at the same result.

To be fair, they did.

 

[TruthersLie]

And I have already answered your incorrect question. Twice.

Really?

I must have missed it. (but then again I was gone for over a month).

Can you provide a link to it?
or your free body diagram, either one would be nice...

 

[X]

"Because it did not look right" is not a valid answer to the question Architect posed.

On what basis does that claim lie? On what expertise?
Not all of engineering is straightforward. Stress analysis can be tricky, complex and frequently counter-intuitive.
Just saying "it didn't look right" does not explain anything. You have no basis, no experience, no training and no expertise on which to base this claim. And even worse, it doesn't have anything to do with what Architect asked!

He asks why truthers seem to prefer broad-brushed generalities to specialized analyses, and you spout off about appearances. If you wish to debate that point (warning: you'll get it handed to you) please take it elsewhere. In this thread, either answer the question or don't post.


For my part (and I'm not a truther, so forgive my speculations), I think it's because basic physics is relatively easy. Most people have at least a high-school level understanding. Many have a basic understanding of stress and strain. But how many know how to apply that to a statically loaded structure with multiple inter-connected columns, beams and trusses of different profiles, materials and properties? How many can analyze a connection joint?
For an example from my education*: Many people could calculate the load on a wing spar in a general sense. But how many can analyze that wing spar with reference to it's cross-sectional profile? Especially if it consists of multiple different elements instead of a plain-old beam?


It is not easy. It's why it takes years to get even a bachelor's degree in Engineering or Architecture.

First year physics, on the other hand, is relatively easy to get and looks impressive enough to the layman without being confusing and difficult.

So, I think truthers prefer broad-based physics because it is easy. Target audience, remmeber?


And now I'll return this thread to Architect, and echo his desire that it remain on-topic and free of clutter.





* I should point out that I am neither an architect nor a structural engineer. My degree is in mechanical engineering, with a concentration on aerospace.


Side note: Yes, I did steal your avatar. Hope you don't mind...