WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

[SezMe]

Gumboot, in your post #85 (which I had missed if you posted it previously) would not sequence #10 explain the "concrete core" photo that Christophera incessantly prattles on about? Was this possibility ever pointed out to him?

PS: Oops a derail. Oh, well....

 

[einsteen]

Well, isn't it totally important what Mr or Mrs So and So thinks, I just like to have the numbers if there are any official available...

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, in your post #85 (which I had missed if you posted it previously) would not sequence #10 explain the "concrete core" photo that Christophera incessantly prattles on about? Was this possibility ever pointed out to him?

PS: Oops a derail. Oh, well....

Yeah, I believe it was presented to him at some point, and I believe his "concrete core" is almost certainly the core of the WTC standing for a few moments after collapse. But as we know, there are no interior core columns, only interior box columns, surrounding an invisible concrete core.

Christophera is his own entire genus of woo.

-Gumboot

 

[kookbreaker]

Wow. 28 and 7 are like the Mexican wrestling tag team of stupid!

 

[Architect]

Not Again!

Can I remind eveyone that 28th has specifically avoided answering the following technical papers which explain - in real terms, not half-arsed assumptions and video interpretation - the engineering basis for the failure?

The Edinburgh one is quite interesting because it takes a slightly different slat on the failure, not that it helps the CTers one iota.

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf


For non-Brits, Sheffield University has a very well respected fire engineering unit who have looked at WTC on at least a few occasions and seem to have no great problems with the official theory. Edinburgh has a bit of a lead in general structures (arguably).

Of course 28th has me on ignore because I've had the temerity to highlight his evasion on this point. To be honest I'm amazed he's now started a new thread on it.

 

[Bell]

Gumboot, in your post #85 (which I had missed if you posted it previously) would not sequence #10 explain the "concrete core" photo that Christophera incessantly prattles on about? Was this possibility ever pointed out to him?

PS: Oops a derail. Oh, well....

We're past that now. It's kittens and recepies now... or kitten recepies.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Here's what the residents of Dsytopia don't understand. Since, "pancake collapse," was a term associated with the impossible for what could have brought down the towers...NIST simply changed the trigger point...and then proceeded to rename the entire collapse. How about calling it a Snowball Collapse? How about calling it a Progressive Collapse?

Even though they changed the trigger of the collapse, they still agreed that the floors collapsed progressively from top to bottom in a sequantial manner (just like a pancake collapse) promulgated that the upper mass increased in size as it fell (just like a sequential top to bottom progressive pancake collapse) and then decided that somehow, even though they are still describing a pancake collapse (detail for detail) that it deserved a new name. What's the name of this new collapse? A non-pancake collapse. Because, if a pancake collapse is impossible...than surely a non-pancake collapse must be possible.

NIST Translation:

Our findings don't support an impossible pancake collapse, because we conclude that there was a sequential progression of collapsing floors from top to bottom, that increased in speed as the upper mass of falling floors pancaked. Thus creating a non-pancake collapse.

If all of you could just break away from your left-brain for a second...and hop over to the right hemisphere...so that you can use your imagination to visualize exactly what they're saying - than you will clearly see that proclaiming the twin towers collapsed like they did (top to bottom in a progressive sequence) due to the weight and gravity force thrust down from the falling upper floors is like saying someone suspended a raw egg twenty feet above a sidewalk. They release the raw egg, sending it crashing to the ground. Upon impact...the raw egg unleashes latent energy that triggers a sequence of events which leaves a mile long crack in the cement.

I promise it's that over the top...

 

[Architect]

See? 28th refuses to address the substantive technical calculations in these papers!

Now why do we all think that might be?

 

[Architect]

If all of you could just break away from your left-brain for a second...and hop over to the right hemisphere...so that you can use your imagination to visualize exactly what they're saying - than you will clearly see that saying the twin towers collapsed like they did, due to the weight and gravity force thrust down from the falling upper floors is like saying someone suspended a raw egg twenty feet above a sidewalk. They released the raw egg, sending it crashing to the ground. Upon impact the raw egg unleashes latent energy that triggers a sequence of events which leaves a mile long crack in the cement.

No, that's a terrible analogy.

The strength and mass of the egg is nothing compated to the pavement, which in any event is a monolthic mass which by its very nature will be strong in compression.

In the case of WTC a whole stack of floors impacted a series of joints which were not designed to take that kind of dynamic load and (gasp) failed, pretty much instantly. As any mathematical model (Greening et al) will confirm.

If that's your idea of a good comparison, then it speaks volumes for your powers of deduction.

 

[Horatius]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2183921#post2183921

Jon Magnusson, CEO of structural engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, recalls that attendees at a 2002 workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Science & Technology had difficulty agreeing on a definition of progressive collapse. "The only thing that everyone could agree on was that the World Trade Center performed very well in resisting progressive collapse," he says, noting that one of the towers held despite the loss of two-thirds of its columns on the side impacted by a jetliner. "Its collapse was progressive, but it didn't fit the traditional definition," he says.

So, even professional engineers have trouble agreeing on a definition, particularly when applied to the WTC1&2. So why do you expect us to be any better?

Why do you expect a total failure of two of the world's largest buildings, after suffering a massive amount of damage beforehand, should be easily classified as a "this type" or "that type" of collapse? I'm sure there were aspects of the collapse that could be called "pancaking", but there are other aspects that would not. I've posted other documents that list some different types of collapses, that just discuss floor collapses. I'm sure there were probably elements of all of these types in the Towers. Add in the collapse of the perimeter and core columns, and it gets even more complicated.

Why do you assume that such a massive and chaotic event should be simple to understand? It just isn't simple! Deal with it!

 

[Horatius]

Here's what the residents of Dsytopia don't understand. Since, "pancake collapse," was a term associated with the impossible for what could have brought down the towers...NIST simply changed the trigger point...and then proceeded to rename the entire collapse. How about calling it a Snowball Collapse*? How about calling it a Progressive Collapse?

Even though they changed the trigger of the collapse, they still agreed that the floors collapsed progressively from top to bottom in a sequantial manner (just like a pancake collapse) promulgated that the upper mass increased in size as it fell (just like a sequential top to bottom progressive pancake collapse) and then decided that somehow, even though they are still describing a pancake collapse (detail for detail) that it deserved a new name. What's the name of this new collapse? A non-pancake collapse. Because, if a pancake collapse is impossible...than surely a non-pancake collapse must be possible.

And how do you expect the floors to fail, when a huge egg section of the upper part of the building is dropped on it? Did you expect the bottom floor to fail first? Or what?

Seriously, how do you think the building should have failed?

What you need to understand is that sequential =/= panckae. Sequential > pancake. A pancake collapse is sequential, but not all sequential collapses are pancakes. All "sequential" tells us is, there's a distinct order in which the events of the collapses occured. It says nothing about what those events are.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.

There are more types of collapses than just pancake.


Can you get it now?


*And you could at least give credit where it's due for this term. Plagiarist!

 

[Mancman]

If all of you could just break away from your left-brain for a second...and hop over to the right hemisphere...so that you can use your imagination to visualize exactly what they're saying - than you will clearly see that proclaiming the twin towers collapsed like they did (top to bottom in a progressive sequence) due to the weight and gravity force thrust down from the falling upper floors is like saying someone suspended a raw egg twenty feet above a sidewalk. They release the raw egg, sending it crashing to the ground. Upon impact...the raw egg unleashes latent energy that triggers a sequence of events which leaves a mile long crack in the cement.

I promise it's that over the top...

Dropping the sidewalk on the egg would be more apt.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If all of you could just break away from your left-brain for a second...and hop over to the right hemisphere...so that you can use your imagination to visualize exactly what they're saying - than you will clearly see that proclaiming the twin towers collapsed like they did (top to bottom in a progressive sequence) due to the weight and gravity force thrust down from the falling upper floors is like saying someone suspended a raw egg twenty feet above a sidewalk. They release the raw egg, sending it crashing to the ground. Upon impact...the raw egg unleashes latent energy that triggers a sequence of events which leaves a mile long crack in the cement.

I promise it's that over the top...

Your promise is worthless as you are clearly talking outside of your expertise.

The fundamental error you're making is to use pop-tart thinking to try and make sense of a supercollider world.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Do you know why a full pancake collapse is impossible on the WTC Towers? Because a pancake collapse can only happen on a simple concrete structure like a parking garage. The WTC Towers were built with an extremely complex web of steel core columns, perimeter columns and an outer steel grid. It's scientifically impossible for this type of vertical steel network to collapse downward in a sequential progression - top to bottom. (floor by floor)

If the trusses were to be disconnected from the core columns and perimeter columns, than they might have some chance of pancaking down, but the core columns and perimeter columns wouldn't crumble down with them. Why? Because the columns and floors are constructed in two entirely different directions. The floors are stacked horizontal to the ground, but the columns are built vertical to the ground.

If the internal (horizontal floors) were removed with a pancaking, than at best, the core and perimeter columns, would fall over to the side...from instability...but they certainly wouldn't or couldn't collapse down upon themselves (telescoping) in a sequential progression from top to bottom without being cut with something like therma/ite.

To say that a sequential building collapse from top to bottom isn't a pancaking is to deny objective reality. The buildings came down top to bottom...so, NIST never even had a chance at a plausible collapse theory, because the only thing that could have been is a pancake collapse.

But, since we have studied the internal structure of the WTC Towers...and now know - that a full pancake collapse is scientifically impossible on the WTC Towers...NIST had no other choice but to engage in Doublethink - in order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.

 

[Spindrift]

The floors are stacked horizontal to the ground, but the columns are built vertical to the ground.

That's why my buildings keep having problems.

I've been building them with the columns horizontal to the ground and the floors vertical to the ground.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you know why a full pancake collapse is impossible on the WTC Towers? Because a pancake collapse can only happen on a simple structure like a parking garage. The WTC Towers were built with an extremely complex web of steel core columns, perimeter columns and an outer steel grid. It's scientifically impossible for this type of vertical steel network to collapse downward in a sequential progression - top to bottom. (floor by floor)

If the trusses were to be disconnected from the core columns and perimeter columns, than they might have some chance of pancaking down, but the core columns and perimeter columns wouldn't crumble down with them. Why? Because the columns and floors are constructed in two entirely different directions. The floors are stacked horizontal to the ground, but the columns are built vertical to the ground.

If the internal (horizontal floors) were removed with a pancaking, than at best, the core and perimeter columns, would fall over to the side...from instability...but they certainly wouldn't or couldn't collapse down upon themselves (telescoping) in a sequential progression from top to bottom without being cut with something like therma/ite.

To say that a sequential building collapse from top to bottom isn't a pancaking is to deny objective reality. The buildings came down top to bottom...so, NIST never even had a chance at a plausible collapse theory, because the only thing that could have been is a pancake collapse.

However, since we have studied the internal structure of the WTC Towers...we now know that a full pancake collapse is scientifically impossible on the WTC Towers...so this fact, left NIST with no other choice but to engage in Doublethink - in order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.

Given enough force, ANYTHING can collapse, even atomic structures (Google "neutron star"). Pancaking was possible in the towers because the floors represented stronger points in the structure than the open areas between them, so the downward force was slowed a bit at each floor, only to become stronger than ever because of the added mass. Towards the bottom they were hardly slowing the collapse at all.


In order to say that it was impossible for it to collapse as it did, you would have to know the value of the downward forces as well as the failure threshold of the structure. You could then compare these two values to demonstrate that one was greater than the other. Unfortunately, all you have are wild guesses.

 

[28th Kingdom]

In order to say that it was impossible for it to collapse as it did, you would have to know the value of the downward forces as well as the failure threshold of the structure. You could then compare these two values to demonstrate that one was greater than the other. Unfortunately, all you have are wild guesses.

That is exactly what you would need to do....and that's the only way you could scientifically prove the upper mass could have brought down the lower floors, core columns, perimeter columns and outer gird. So why didn't NIST calculate this most pertinent equation? I think we know why.

 

[28th Kingdom]

At the sake of sounding like a genius...you could hammer an asteroid from outer space straight down on one of the (undamaged) twin towers...and it would not cause a chain reaction of floor failures from top to bottom. If anything, it would drill the vertical columns into the ground like a nail.

 

[einsteen]

The model in which you use some symmetry in the situation is also an interesting one

 

[Architect]

At the sake of sounding like a genius...you could hammer an asteroid from outer space straight down on one of the (undamaged) twin towers...and it would not cause a chain reaction of floor failures from top to bottom. If anything, it would drill the vertical columns into the ground like a nail.

Yawn, yawn.

You're seriously suggesting that the strength of each column was such that itwould not fail under any imposed loading, but would drive like a pile into the underlying substrate.

Presumably you realise just how ridiculous such a proposition really is?