Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[Grizzly Bear]

So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

I did a really quick calculation a few months back, and I tried searching the forum for it without any success... but the estimate I got was something like 8g's, which for tower 1 was the equivalent of adding 80 stories to the static load of the upper block, and something like 232 stories for the south tower. At that macro scale no matter how you look at it the individual connections won't be able to take a load that significant. Especially since once the collapse started the columns were no longer aligned. Tony not only believes that there were no out-of-plane loads (which is friggin lunacy), but because there was no visible deceleration in the collapse progression there was no dynamic load.

The lack of a dynamic load claim is bizarre enough on its own (and this write up comes closest to the point I've been trying to communicate), but I'm not quite sure how he expects to pass the latter off when it was clearly discernable that it was wrong: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png. Those lateral stiffness of the elements took into account the torsional effects of wind loads and were intended to keep the building straight, not have 30 story section introduce torsion to them through having the columns buckling. A column is as good as useless if the loads are being applied in any direction other than straight down.

 

[Furcifer]

There are a lot of engineers have serious doubts about how those buildings came down.

"a lot", lol sure Tony. If you came up with 20 I'd be surprised. And 20 isn't a lot, unless they all happen to be on the same bus at the same time. "a lot" would be 2000, now that's "a lot". You get 2000 engineers to express serious doubts then you've got a concern. Heck, if you got 100 PNG's to register here, anonymously, and say "We've got serious doubts" you've got my signature on the petition for a new investigation. 100 PNG's registered here saying they have doubts would consitute a movement.

Any that I know who have looked into it realize there are serious issues with what we have been told and that fire and damage did not bring those buildings down

Tell the ones you know to register here and post anonymously about the concerns they have. It would actually be interesting to see a discussion amongst engineers that disagree on 9/11, instead of the same thing over and over again from the ones here that have let their education, experience and expertise get the better of them.

Here is a link to a non-engineering professor who tells of a civil engineering friend who mentioned it to him and caused him to look into it for himself.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20533

Nice, I see you've been reduced to folklore. lol.

 

[tsig]

You apparently can't walk and chew gum.

Why was most of the steel recycled before it was analyzed? The answer is most probably because the temperatures from heat weakening of joints by thermite were much higher than those which could be produced by fire and an analysis would have shown that.

Unfortunately, for the official story they have no physical evidence of high temperatures, but the extremely high temperatures caused by thermite use wouldn't have helped either and it actually would have blown the cover. What a dilemma, but I can hear certain perpetrators saying don't worry well just use a computer instead of physical evidence and make it show the temperatures had to be very hot.

Do you often hear voices? Or are you an ex post facto mind reader?

 

[tsig]

Do I have to if I show the collapse could not be natural due to a lack of an amplified load?

It would help your case.

On one side I see planes disrupting the load bearing structure of the towers and fire weakening them until they could no longer hold themselves up on the other I see axioms, jolts and unknown amounts of unknown explosives planted by unknown people at some unknown time.

 

[tsig]

dont forget about the rebar made from transparent steel
lol

Would that be the 3" rebar on 4' centers coated with c4?

 

[tsig]

Look at it this way: An empty beer can can easily support the weight of a sledge hammer head. In fact, you could probably stack four or five of them on a can before the weight would collapse it.

And yet...you can easily crush the can by bringing down the sledge hammer on it, even though though the sledge hammer does not noticeably decelerate.

You might say, "But it does decelerate, just at a very small rate."

The WTC towers did the same.




Wow...what did you have to do to get a paper published there? Click "send"?

You clearly underestimate the amount of work involved in the report. You have to first google then cut and paste and only then can you hit send.

 

[Heiwa]

So how do you know the top portion of the WTC didn't apply hundreds of g's? What specifically are you looking for? A jolt? Because there is no jolt when the sledgehammer hits the can.

Isn't it? There is when you drop a beer can on another beer can. Easy to demonstrate. Actually, every time there is an impact, there should be a jolt.

 

[Furcifer]

Isn't it? There is when you drop a beer can on another beer can. Easy to demonstrate. Actually, every time there is an impact, there should be a jolt.

Do "jolts" have units or are they like radians? I bet I can find one if you tell me what they are.

 

[GlennB]

Unless of course the load wasn't straight down on the top of the column anymore, then you'd need much less load.

Nice try phunk, but the previous 50 attempts to get Tony to realise this also failed. He read Bazant, spotted the 'jolt' prediction and cannot move beyond it even though the reality of the collapse was dramatically different from the Bazant model.

 

[alienentity]

All of such truther quibbling and desperate speculation is moot when one considers the basic parameters of the WTC tower collapses, as agreed upon by most of the qualified engineers who investigated them - that once the upper blocks began to move, the kinetic energy was easily sufficient to continue the collapse of each tower.

There is no real dispute about this basic idea amongst those who really know what they're talking about. Tony's theories are distractions which attempt to obscure this basic reality, in order to build an artificial case for some other, US government-directed mass murder plot, which truthers are convinced happened.

The truther line of inquiry is not designed to lead to any scientific, empirical truth, but is an attempt to pin the entire blame of the 9/11 disaster squarely on your own government, with absolutely no concern for the damage such scapegoating can do.

It is, first and foremost a malicious and political agenda, not a scientific one. The truther doctrine is very clear: the government did it. Inside Job. The battle lines have been drawn by these people, and anyone who dares to stand in the way of official 9/11 'truth' is merely aiding the vast conspiracy, or is intimidated by it somehow.

There is no room for 'what if we're incorrect?' or such nuance of thought. Instead, the bludgeon of 9/11 'truth' informs all intellectual pursuits, including the work of lesser engineering hopefuls such as Mr. Szamboti. A great example of how powerful the truther doctrine is comes from Mr. Szamboti's insistence on controlled demolition involving thermite/thermate or nanothermite (take your pick), a mythical blend of substances which can act in any way truthers see fit - like a magic powder. Nevermind that it's never been demonstrated to perform the tasks they claim it did - its magic qualities overcome such objections.

Mr. Szamboti did not of course originate any of these ideas, but he believes in them to the point where he will not question whether they're actually true or not. At this point it doesn't matter - the doctrine overrides better judgment.

It's a terrible shame that such people are not just worshiping traditional gods but are instead on a revisionist witch hunt to excuse the real terrorists of 9/11 and pin the blame on a scapegoat. It's a return to the dark ages of thought, courtesy of the minions of 9/11 'truth'.

In 2009 already.

 

[bill smith]

I notice that some people seem to be distancing themselves from the Bazant hypothesis. It's worth remembering that the Bazant hypothesis is the only one in town other than the explosive demolition hypothesis

 

[bill smith]

It stands to reason that if there was no jolt that the core columns, upper nd lower did not meet. Therefore there was no real pressure to distort the fully braced upstanding core columns and the upper part must have impaled itself upon them. Given that there was no deceleration of the upper block either it must have been skewered by those columns as it continued to fall. Been gutted in other words.
The upstanding columns in the body of the upper block would have been kept vertical by that body and been protected from lateral forces that might break the welds.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I did a really quick calculation a few months back, and I tried searching the forum for it without any success... but the estimate I got was something like 8g's, which for tower 1 was the equivalent of adding 80 stories to the static load of the upper block, and something like 232 stories for the south tower. At that macro scale no matter how you look at it the individual connections won't be able to take a load that significant. Especially since once the collapse started the columns were no longer aligned. Tony not only believes that there were no out-of-plane loads (which is friggin lunacy), but because there was no visible deceleration in the collapse progression there was no dynamic load.

The lack of a dynamic load claim is bizarre enough on its own (and this write up comes closest to the point I've been trying to communicate), but I'm not quite sure how he expects to pass the latter off when it was clearly discernable that it was wrong: http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3798/drawing2.png. Those lateral stiffness of the elements took into account the torsional effects of wind loads and were intended to keep the building straight, not have 30 story section introduce torsion to them through having the columns buckling. A column is as good as useless if the loads are being applied in any direction other than straight down.

The write up you link to is a bogus example. Had the five pennies been dropped into the empty jar on the paper they would not have caused the paper to fail. While there would be an amplified load, there is also something not being explained that is allowing the seeming failure with far less weight, and that is that the shear area of the paper was much smaller when the pennies were dropped by themselves, so the stress on the paper was much higher, more for that reason than the dynamic load. The five dropped pennies are not applying more load than the jar full of pennies at all.

From what you say you are an engineering student. What discipline? If you are mechanical or civil you should have figured this out, if you have already had strength of materials and stress analysis courses.

You are right that the collapse of the towers would have required something like an 8g amplification of the upper block's load. How much would the upper block have to decelerate in feet or meters/second/second to apply an 8g amplification of it's load? If the velocity loss needed to supply the kinetc energy for deforming and buckling the columns on either side of the collision is approximately 17 feet/second what would be the duration of the impulse?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All of such truther quibbling and desperate speculation is moot when one considers the basic parameters of the WTC tower collapses, as agreed upon by most of the qualified engineers who investigated them - that once the upper blocks began to move, the kinetic energy was easily sufficient to continue the collapse of each tower.

There is no real dispute about this basic idea amongst those who really know what they're talking about. Tony's theories are distractions which attempt to obscure this basic reality, in order to build an artificial case for some other, US government-directed mass murder plot, which truthers are convinced happened.

The truther line of inquiry is not designed to lead to any scientific, empirical truth, but is an attempt to pin the entire blame of the 9/11 disaster squarely on your own government, with absolutely no concern for the damage such scapegoating can do.

It is, first and foremost a malicious and political agenda, not a scientific one. The truther doctrine is very clear: the government did it. Inside Job. The battle lines have been drawn by these people, and anyone who dares to stand in the way of official 9/11 'truth' is merely aiding the vast conspiracy, or is intimidated by it somehow.

There is no room for 'what if we're incorrect?' or such nuance of thought. Instead, the bludgeon of 9/11 'truth' informs all intellectual pursuits, including the work of lesser engineering hopefuls such as Mr. Szamboti. A great example of how powerful the truther doctrine is comes from Mr. Szamboti's insistence on controlled demolition involving thermite/thermate or nanothermite (take your pick), a mythical blend of substances which can act in any way truthers see fit - like a magic powder. Nevermind that it's never been demonstrated to perform the tasks they claim it did - its magic qualities overcome such objections.

Mr. Szamboti did not of course originate any of these ideas, but he believes in them to the point where he will not question whether they're actually true or not. At this point it doesn't matter - the doctrine overrides better judgment.

It's a terrible shame that such people are not just worshiping traditional gods but are instead on a revisionist witch hunt to excuse the real terrorists of 9/11 and pin the blame on a scapegoat. It's a return to the dark ages of thought, courtesy of the minions of 9/11 'truth'.

In 2009 already.

The problem with what you are saying here is that you don't explain that the kinetic energy has to be transferred to cause damage and that requires deceleration and velocity loss. Of course, the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

Why do you leave important pieces of information like that out? Or is it that you just don't know that is important?

I am not on a witch hunt for scapegoats at all, but for whoever actually set up those buildings for demolition and pulled the triggers on them. That is a hunt for identifying the real terrorists/perpetrators who weren't in the planes that flew into the buildings, because science shows it was not aircraft damage and fires that took down those buildings. The planes were nothing more than causal ruses designed to fool people into thinking they were the cause and blaming others.

 

[GlennB]

..... the fall of WTC 1's upper block does not show any deceleration or velocity loss so it's kinetic energy was not transferred.

You might want to ponder that statement of yours for a while ....

 

[NobbyNobbs]

100 PNG's registered here saying they have doubts would consitute a movement.

Nah, that's just an organization.

If they walked in, sang a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", and walked out, now that would be a movement.

 

[funk de fino]

The real question is why there wasn't sufficient resistance to stop the mass from accelerating.

Please don't use fire weakening as an excuse here as there is no physical evidence of the steel experiencing high enough temperatures to even weaken it.

You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It won't work. You should give it up. The buildings were taken down with some form of demolition method.

Not only clueless but a flagrant liar.

 

[funk de fino]

The factors of safety were a minimum of 3.00 to 1 for the core columns and 5.00 to 1 for the perimeter columns. So you need an amplified load to overcome this reserve strength.

In order to get an amplified load the moving object has to decelerate at a rate greater than 1g.

No deceleration means no amplified load, so then you have to ask what caused these columns with all that reserve strength to fail.

The Missing Jolt paper is here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Even a layman can see that paper is junk. Even more so after seeing it trashed on this forum.

The top section of each buidling was skewed, get over it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not only clueless but a flagrant liar.

I would hope you realize that you are the real liar here. Although it is possible that you just don't know and are willing to go out on a limb based on your beliefs.

You have not shown anything, in any way whatsoever, that what I am saying here is untrue.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Even a layman can see that paper is junk. Even more so after seeing it trashed on this forum.

The top section of each buidling was skewed, get over it.

It is obvious that you have no clue, with your simple minded attempt to just say the top section of each building was skewed and that is the answer to why there was no deceleration and velocity loss of the top section.