WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[jammonius]

Energy Calculation

Here's an interesting OpEd article comparing the energy equivalency data that were quickly generated in connection with the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's in 1980 with the energy equivalency data associated with the equally well observed destruction of the WTC.

In Mt St. Helen's the energy equivalency was 30,000 K tons of TNT and in connection with the destruction of the Twin Towers it was 8.5 K tons TNT. The anamolie here is that the force of gravity can only have contributed as 0.1 ton TNT. Thus, the seen and calculated energy output far exceeded that available through the standard explanation.

But, hey, that was bloody obvious to begin with. The problem is simply that people don't believe their own eyes in connection with 9/11.

See:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7924

Brief excerpt:

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then
debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION.

No spin, FACT:
0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION

 

[tsig]

Really? (Have you read my article?).

My first premise is that the potential energy released at initiation is absorbed 50/50 by lower structure and upper block structure as both parts have equal capabilty to absorb energy. No domino effect! Just a collision of structures.
NIST & Co assume wrongly that all energy is only transmitted into the lower structure - crush down - and that upper block acts as a hammer head (where the energy is stored)!

My second premise is that the potential energy released is absorbed by local failures (overload) in secondary structure (floors) only and by friction between displaced parts in contact and shifting load patterns. The floors are located both in the upper block and lower structures. The first floors to start absorbing energy are evidently the nearest ones above and below the initiation zone.

My third premise is that primary structure (columns) below are not affected at all by the release of potential energy (as described in my articles). Reason is of course that the energy released is not applied to this primary structure below! How can you write that the columns are overloaded one by one? Look at the figure in my article. Evidently the primary structure (columns) below will be loaded more or less as before after collapse arrest! The load of what remains of the upper block is transmitted to the columns below via the damaged floors jammed there.

My fourth premise is that the upper block structure is severly damaged by the absorbtion of energy. In the worst case two outer walls would have sheared off completely and dropped down on the outside in one big piece as débris. As this didn't happen the destruction was not caused by release of potential energy. Another smoking gun?

My fifth premise is that the release of potential energy and absorbtion of this energy as described above will not produce any big amounts of rubble (pieces of cement of the floors, etc). Reason is that the floors that lose their connections at one edge will only hinge down and jam on other floors inside the structure below. The floors will not pulverize, etc. The big amount of rubble produced cannot have been caused by release of potential energy.

How could you misunderstand me so completely?

FYI - I just try to assist NIST to get its report right! Hopefully Shyman Saunder, PhD at NIST, is working on that right now.

He is actually one of my peer reviewers!

You said that your peer reviewers were in kindergarten.

 

[tsig]

On the contrary. No columns of the structure below can collapse because of failures above. No plane punched through any columns below.

Pls, read my article again! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . The strong primary, intact structure below cannot be seriously damaged by by local failures above.

BTW - intelligent comments are always welcome. Make an effort.

You wouldn't make a pimple on an engineers ass.

 

[Dave Rogers]

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then
debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION.

No spin, FACT:
0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION

Except that the 8.5KT "Reaction" is an estimate that assumes that the dust cloud was heated to an energy sufficiently high to roast alive anyone caught within it. This is Jim Hoffman's infamous dust cloud analysis, which assumes that the dust cloud couldn't possibly have mixed with the surrounding air and must therefore have expanded thermally. The disproof of this is that people caught in the dust cloud weren't roasted alive. Hoffman's response to this was to claim that the expansion was due to vaporisation of water. When it was pointed out that there wasn't enough water in the towers by several orders of magnitude, he started work on a new version of the paper which he hasn't finished yet. That was a few years ago.

Sorry, but your 8.5KT is a stupid, stupid number, based on an utterly indefensible assumption, and requiring one of two total impossibilities as a consequence.

Dave

 

[Tbone]

Exactly - it is so simple! The upper block structure should be destroyed and cannot crush down the lower structure ... and when the upper block structure is destroyed ... the destruction ends.

You are claiming that the top part of the structure vapourized or something similar as it hit the lower block? Because that is the only way your thought makes any sort of sense.

 

[~enigma~]

Sorry, but your 8.5KT is a stupid, stupid number, based on an utterly indefensible assumption, and requiring one of two total impossibilities as a consequence.

Dave

Yes it is. The WTC was 1.6 Kilotons while Mount Saint Helens was 10 Megatons and the granddaddy of them all was Thera at a whopping 24000 Megatons.

WTA - The comet that hit Tunguska, Siberia in 1908 was between 10 - 15 Megatons.

 

[phunk]

Here's an interesting OpEd article comparing the energy equivalency data that were quickly generated in connection with the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's in 1980 with the energy equivalency data associated with the equally well observed destruction of the WTC.

In Mt St. Helen's the energy equivalency was 30,000 K tons of TNT and in connection with the destruction of the Twin Towers it was 8.5 K tons TNT. The anamolie here is that the force of gravity can only have contributed as 0.1 ton TNT. Thus, the seen and calculated energy output far exceeded that available through the standard explanation.

But, hey, that was bloody obvious to begin with. The problem is simply that people don't believe their own eyes in connection with 9/11.

See:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7924

Brief excerpt:

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then
debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION.

No spin, FACT:
0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION

0.1 KT? How do you get that number? 100 tons at the height of the roof would have about that much energy. That's several orders of magnitude too low.

 

[~enigma~]

0.1 KT? How do you get that number? 100 tons at the height of the roof would have about that much energy. That's several orders of magnitude too low.

remember what judy woowoo once said. They don't need to bother with numbers

 

[R.Mackey]

0.1 KT? How do you get that number? 100 tons at the height of the roof would have about that much energy. That's several orders of magnitude too low.

100 tons TNT equivalent is the correct figure. See Appendix B of my whitepaper for a rough derivation. 100 tons at the height of the roof, 311 meters, has 100,000 kg * 10 m/s * 311 m = 3.11 x 10⁸ J of potential energy, or approximately 74 kilograms of TNT equivalent -- 0.074 tons. TNT has 4184 kJ/kg of energy.

Regarding Hoffman's insane energy estimate, for those of you who are barbequeing over this holiday weekend, just for fun estimate the size of the smoke cloud rising from your grill. Then apply Jim Hoffman's method, which assumes the smoke can't mix -- oh, no, it must be all from thermal expansion -- and then calculate how much energy your grill must have put out. You will be shocked! And, hopefully, you'll realize that it's a lie.

 

[phunk]

100 tons TNT equivalent is the correct figure. See Appendix B of my whitepaper for a rough derivation. 100 tons at the height of the roof, 311 meters, has 100,000 kg * 10 m/s * 311 m = 3.11 x 10⁸ J of potential energy, or approximately 74 kilograms of TNT equivalent -- 0.074 tons. TNT has 4184 kJ/kg of energy.

* nevermind I didn't notice you switched from J to kJ.

 

[tsig]

Yes, the forces are equal. Cannot be otherwise. Luckily the roof of my house, built 1590, is very strong and anything dropping on it bounces off since then. Except a Swedish cannon ball 1640 (the town + my house was under attack by the Swedes) but it just punched a hole in the roof and broke an internal wooden spandrel. And nobody has bothered to fix that broken piece since. I can send you some photos, if you like. The hole in the roof was of course fixed. To stop the rain. In Saxony we like tight roofs. Glück auf!

Your home hardly equals the towers.

 

[tsig]

According FBI M. Atta's passport was picked up somewhere on Manhattan and handed in to FBI on 911. Maybe Mr. Atta throw it out of the cockpit before landing inside WTC1? According Atta's father, a lawyer at Cairo, Mr. M. Atta, the son, phoned a few days later and wondered what he should do! Maybe they discussed the lost passport?

He died with it in his pocket. As his body was being ripped apart by the forces he had unleashed the passport blew out.

 

[~enigma~]

He died with it in his pocket. As his body was being ripped apart by the forces he had unleashed the passport blew out.

Why are alot of otherwise rational people believing in this. Ok....can a rational person show me some evidence that Atta's passport blew out of the plane?

 

[phunk]

Because everyone's heard that it happened to one of the hijacker's passports but many don't know specifically which one.

 

[~enigma~]

Because everyone's heard that it happened to one of the hijacker's passports but many don't know specifically which one.

Yes and I understand why truthers could care less about verifying the information but when an otherwise rational poster (and there have been a few) mindlessly repeats this drivel and actually concocts an explanation for the falsehood is inexcusable.

 

[tsig]

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese. Something slammed into it and made a hole in the cheese, fire erupted and the cheese started to melt around the hole. Above the hole was a big, upper block of 33 000 tons of cheese. Below the hole was a much bigger block of cheese! 250 000 tons.
Now we are told the upper block started to move down, releasing potential energy, as the cheese below was melting around the hole. The upper cheese block, 33 000 tons, hits the lower cheese block, 250 000 tons, and compresses it. The hole disappears and molten cheese is squeezed out. What happens then?

Cheese structure has built in strength that can absorb potential energy. The strength can be likened to the amount of strain energy the hard cheese can absorb before being crushed. The amount of strain energy is almost constant per ton of cheese. Same in the upper and lower cheese parts.

Simple math shows that 33 000 tons of cheese above cannot compress 250 000 tons of cheese below when both parts absorb the same amount of strain energy at the compression. No global collapse.

Unless you fit some extra stuff in the lower cheese. But then cheese rubble and debris are ejected in all directions and reveals the bluff.

Fondue explains it all.

 

[GeeMack]

WTC1:s structure was very much like a cheese. Something slammed into it and made a hole in the cheese, fire erupted and the cheese started to melt around the hole. Above the hole was a big, upper block of 33 000 tons of cheese. Below the hole was a much bigger block of cheese! 250 000 tons.
Now we are told the upper block started to move down, releasing potential energy, as the cheese below was melting around the hole. The upper cheese block, 33 000 tons, hits the lower cheese block, 250 000 tons, and compresses it. The hole disappears and molten cheese is squeezed out. What happens then?

Cheese structure has built in strength that can absorb potential energy. The strength can be likened to the amount of strain energy the hard cheese can absorb before being crushed. The amount of strain energy is almost constant per ton of cheese. Same in the upper and lower cheese parts.

Simple math shows that 33 000 tons of cheese above cannot compress 250 000 tons of cheese below when both parts absorb the same amount of strain energy at the compression. No global collapse.

Unless you fit some extra stuff in the lower cheese. But then cheese rubble and debris are ejected in all directions and reveals the bluff.

You can't possibly expect any sane, intelligent human being to accept that as a realistic analogy.

 

[tsig]

Why are alot of otherwise rational people believing in this. Ok....can a rational person show me some evidence that Atta's passport blew out of the plane?

The fact that we have the passport shows that it happened. Unless you believe it was all staged.

911 was not a rational event.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Heiwa thins that the top and bottom portions of the buildings were whole solid objects and we are expected to think that he is an engineer? Is this some kind of joke? I don't see the hidden cameras.

 

[~enigma~]

The fact that we have the passport shows that it happened. Unless you believe it was all staged.

911 was not a rational event.

We have Atta's passport....give me a cite.