WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

[applecorped]

but then i cannot understand how one can stick to "Elementary Calculations".
why is the "official side" not going into FEA simulations of the collapse?
i got told they cant.
i guess Jiang Jianjing and Lu Xinzheng would heavyly disagree.
(i do not support theyr modeling, one could call it fraudelent modeling)

how come Bazant, et al. stick to "Elementary Calculations" and ignore and simplify the things they cant solve?

Who told you they can't?

 

[funk de fino]

buildings do indeed "want to collapse" thats why thay are designed to resist that "natural state" but also other things, like resisting wind, and afaik you do that with "springiness".

And the core was not designed as a building, it was designed as part of a building. Take away the perimeter columns due to the loss of connection between the floors, and the core falls down.

I will repeat an earlier question as you ignored it. If you look at the perimeter columns and the floor and the core columns what do you think the weakest link in the connection of these would have been if something was dropped on them?

 

[DC]

Who told you they can't?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3625114#post3625114

I have only about 15 minutes to write this post so I will be quick. You are wrong for a number of reasons, but a misunderstanding of the nature of modelling is the most severe.

The way the towers collapsed on 9/11 is something that we simply do not have the computational complexity to study. Even if we could run a simulation which would predict what happened after the first second or so we would have absolutely no way to validate whether it was actually correct. For this reason we must develop simplified models of the collapse in order to have a reasonable chance at assessing what happened.

It's important when creating these models that they are biased towards the opposite of the expected conclusion. If you are trying to prove the towers could collapse from gravity forces, damage and fire alone then you must bias your model against this type of collapse. Bazant's model is the first and an excellent example of this in relation to 9/11.

In Bazant's paper, the upper section is modelled as perfectly impacting every steel element on the lower floor. This results in using the maximum possible energy to fail this floor. If this floor fails then we know almost without doubt that the upper section retains enough energy to fail every subsequent section (there is some doubt due to the difference in column geometry). Even so this is not a significant enough bias in Bazants eyes and all steel is also treated with infinite ductility, meaning the steel will absorb far more energy before fracture than it would in reality.

This is not some sort of cheating and not some sort of attempt to sneakily lie about the collapses, this is a very simple model. Hopefully you can understand this, and understand how it does not represent what happened in reality, it represents a best attempt at modelling this 2 days after the fact. Subsequent higher quality and more refined calculations have been constructed by Dr Greening, Newtons Bit, GregoryUrich, David B Benson etc.

Now to Heiwas paper, there is no bias, and no balance. It's practically as simple as that, Heiwa attempts to 'more accurately' reproduce the failure mode NIST claims, but instead he for some reason decides NIST claims the failure mode was compressive, where the upper sections pressed directly vertically downwards and caused the columns to fail in this manner. This is the only bias in his paper and it is towards collapse arrest. Heiwa has balanced his paper towards his expected conclusion, not away from it.

This is classic bad form, and is an easy way of identifying which papers are less likely to be rigorous. His mistake has been endlessly corrected by people far more qualified than himself and he simply refuses to accept it. It's not a matter for debate as we clearly have video evidence of the upper sections tilting. When discussing his Heiwa will make some pretense that the upper sections were horizontally offset, but this is ludicrous. They were tilted, and a tilted upper section misaligns a minimum of 50% of all internal columns, reducing the failure energy for a single floor by nearly 50%. Heiwa's paper is rubbish and an unqualified barely educated simp like myself can see this.

Please take some time to read about scientific modelling and where Heiwas paper falls down, you are making some classic 'conspiracy theory' mistakes and if you continue you'll end up too sure in yourself to correct yourself and be relegated to one of our many 'semitruthers'.

 

[DC]

And the core was not designed as a building, it was designed as part of a building. Take away the perimeter columns due to the loss of connection between the floors, and the core falls down.

I will repeat an earlier question as you ignored it. If you look at the perimeter columns and the floor and the core columns what do you think the weakest link in the connection of these would have been if something was dropped on them?

i supect one of this connections in Detail A. dependent on the particular forces.

and do you know details to the Seat with Stiffener Plate in Detail B?
what kind of connection is that exactly?

 

[beachnut]

and do you know details to the Seat with Stiffener Plate in Detail B?
what kind of connection is that exactly?

rubber

So he went back to work. He had been kicking around the idea of building
shock absorbers into a building, and now he went ahead and developed the
idea, eventually patenting it. Called viscoelastic dampers, they were flat
metal pieces, two and a half feet long, held together with a tough,
rubbery glue developed by 3M. One plate would connect to an exterior
column, and two others would be fixed to the underside of a steel truss.
When the building swayed in the wind, the plates would slide against one
another and damp the motion a little -- a shock absorber. Put 11,000 of
them into each tower, as Robertson did, and they became a very good shock
absorber.​

But this is from Robertson, you called him and me a liar, with your 600 mph ERROR, as in your sig, with my FACT. Cool

I use those dampers on my speakers, with active crossovers. Darn, engineering, got to love it.

 

[DC]

rubber

But this is from Robertson, you called him and me a liar, with your 600 mph ERROR, as in your sig, with my FACT. Cool

I use those dampers on my speakers, with active crossovers. Darn, engineering, got to love it.

Put 11,000 of
them into each tower, as Robertson did, and they became a very good shock
absorber.

btw, i dont call you nor Robertson a liar.
i just didnt agree that it is a fact.

 

[funk de fino]

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/fig_2_6.jpg[/qimg]

i supect one of this connections in Detail A. dependent on the particular forces.

and do you know details to the Seat with Stiffener Plate in Detail B?
what kind of connection is that exactly?

So theoretically, if you dropped a weight that was in excess of the amount the floor was designed to hold as a static load, which part of the connection would most likely break first?

 

[DC]

rubber

But this is from Robertson, you called him and me a liar, with your 600 mph ERROR, as in your sig, with my FACT. Cool

I use those dampers on my speakers, with active crossovers. Darn, engineering, got to love it.

btw

dont you think that it is more referd to this "Dampening Unit" in Detail A?

 

[DC]

So theoretically, if you dropped a weight that was in excess of the amount the floor was designed to hold as a static load, which part of the connection would most likely break first?

what is the assumed impact area?
what is the thickness of the wledings?
what metal was added in the Welding?

 

[funk de fino]

what is the assumed impact area?
what is the thickness of the wledings?
what metal was added in the Welding?

The floors above drop on the floors below. There is enough weight so that the designed limit for static load is exceeded due to the added momentum. The welding does not matter. What held the floors, perimeter columns and core columns together? What was the connection and what do you think the weakest point would be?

 

[DC]

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7551.html

 

[DC]

The floors above drop on the floors below. There is enough weight so that the designed limit for static load is exceeded due to the added momentum. The welding does not matter. What held the floors, perimeter columns and core columns together? What was the connection and what do you think the weakest point would be?

without the weldings it would have never been able to stand there in the first place

 

[funk de fino]

without the weldings it would have never been able to stand there in the first place

I thought you said the core could have stood on its own? Want to retract that remark after the above statement?

I am talking about the collapse not how it stands. Do you think welds would be the strongest point? The floors collapsing would pull in the perimeter columns as they fell and also pull in the core columns?

If you want to continue dodging and playing games thats fine but it only makes you look childish.

 

[beachnut]

btw

dont you think that it is more referd to this "Dampening Unit" in Detail A?

NOPE it is both, and you are calling Robertson a liar, he was the chief designer, he said no to 600 mph, and now you are supporting a failed idea again. Is it due to poor English (better than mine I being nb), or your lack of physics and engineering?

Read the stuff I waste my time finding for your education

One plate would connect to an exterior
column, and two others would be fixed to the underside of a steel truss.

All three are the rubber stuff. You are showing your lack of research. As in no research. As you learn, and if you learn and understand, 9/11 truth will be seen as a pack of false information merchants.

 

[DC]

One plate would connect to an exterior
column, and two others would be fixed to the underside of a steel truss.

i will any time agree in my lack of proper english, while im not so sure about my lack of physics.
what percentage of your Education time to an Electrical enigeer was used for "mechanical physics"?

 

[DC]

I thought you said the core could have stood on its own? Want to retract that remark after the above statement?

I am talking about the collapse not how it stands. Do you think welds would be the strongest point? The floors collapsing would pull in the perimeter columns as they fell and also pull in the core columns?

If you want to continue dodging and playing games thats fine but it only makes you look childish.

are you sure you want all the connections to give away.
what will ripp apart your core? gravity only?

have you ever seen pictures of the core crossconnections and theyr bolting pattern?

 

[beachnut]

i will any time agree in my lack of proper english, while im not so sure about my lack of physics.
what percentage of your Education time to an Electrical enigeer was used for "mechanical physics"?

two others would be fixed to the underside of a steel truss

See the dark green stuff, it is the rubber glue, 3M, like my speaker face plate.

Seems, you are only 6 years behind me in physics, engineering control theory, systems engineering, stochastic estimation and control, avionics and armament, accident investigation, and 40 years in practical experience. My college degree specialized in system engineer. Gee, I think the WTC was a system. This is why I am able to see the 600 mph error, and you may not; experience, and a lot of time in the books, not google some google lack of knowledge fall for false information education you are displaying post by post.

All three details you showed are the damper system.

You presented stuff you do not understand. Are you learning yet? You will find 9/11 truth does not care if you learn, they keep their members in the dark, like dark ages, they are anti-intellectual biased political hacks.

 

[DC]

Beachnut my big teacher, can you pls show me wich figure is the "rebuild" of the "Seat with Stiffener Plates" ind this document/test.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/fig_2_6.jpg[/qimg]

See the dark green stuff, it is the rubber glue, 3M, like my speaker face plate.

Seems, you are only 6 years behind me in physics, engineering control theory, systems engineering, stochastic estimation and control, avionics and armament, accident investigation, and 40 years in practical experience. My college degree specialized in system engineer. Gee, I think the WTC was a system. This is why I am able to see the 600 mph error, and you may not; experience, and a lot of time in the books, not google some google lack of knowledge fall for false information education you are displaying post by post.

All three details you showed are the damper system.

You presented stuff you do not understand. Are you learning yet? You will find 9/11 truth does not care if you learn, they keep their members in the dark, like dark ages, they are anti-intellectual biased political hacks.

o holy


im pretty sure you would like to retract the green rubber claim

 

[funk de fino]

are you sure you want all the connections to give away.
what will ripp apart your core? gravity only?

have you ever seen pictures of the core crossconnections and theyr bolting pattern?

I am not saying what you say I am. I am asking you what the most likely breaking point would be? You keep dodging and it is noted.

You said the core could stand on its own. Then you said the welding between the floor connections and the columns held the building up. You cannot have it both ways.

If the weight of the floors are dropped onto the ones below which part of the connections will give way first? If you fail to at least try and answer this from a logical point of view and continue to dodge and put words into my mouth then any lurkers can see this.