Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

reply to post by LaBTop


Yes, you've never made any honest estimates of how much explosives would be needed. The fact is, it's much higher than a ton. I'm being generous.

The impacts registered .5 and .7 on the Richter.

As the seismic activity rises above background "noise" levels during the collapse, those levels are roughly the same as the impacts on the Richter. I believe this is where you claim that these charges went off. If I'm still in error, please tell me where on this graph that you see evidence of the initiating charge(s). This is tower 2.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The planes impact energy (ke) was roughly equivalent of 1600 and 2000 lbs of TNT. And since very little mass,

Originally posted by Griff


Well, since columns hold the floors up and buckled columns still have some strength left and do not just fail as if they were severed (i.e. freefall), there would be no force equal to what everyone wants to equate.

So where does Bazant go wrong then?

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

so the total release of
gravitational potential energy is Wg5mg•2h'232.1 GNm
54.2 GN m. To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper
part, which is equal to the potential energy release, would have to
be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations, i.e., Wp would have to
be larger than Wg . Rather,

Wg /Wp'8.4 (3)

So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plastic
deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy
acquired by the upper part of building.
When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms,
the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has
acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic
energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So where does Bazant go wrong then?

I'm not saying he's wrong, but let's start at the beginning.

In stage 1 ~Fig. 1!, the conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel
spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C.

He needs to prove that the columns got to this temperature for this scenario to work.

According to NIST's samples, they didn't.

According to
this hypothesis, one may estimate that C'71 GN/m ~due to unavailability of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose!.

And my biggest pet peave. Why does he have to approximate the column cross section design again?

Those are two very important assumptions there.

The rest of his paper, I agree with. But, you have to remember that his paper applies to my thermite theory too. Just change high temperature creep buckling with Euler buckling (due to the loss of vertical support) and they match exactly.

As an aside: Before you quote me in a month and try to use it to say I have a theory and I did this and I did that and I'm a dishonest mofo: This theory is a working hypothesis of a scenario that could have produced what we saw. Nothing more. I am not married to this theory.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Yes, you've never made any honest estimates of how much explosives would be needed. The fact is, it's much higher than a ton. I'm being generous.

The impacts registered .5 and .7 on the Richter.

As the seismic activity rises above background "noise" levels during the collapse, those levels are roughly the same as the impacts on the Richter. I believe this is where you claim that these charges went off. If I'm still in error, please tell me where on this graph that you see evidence of the initiating charge(s). This is tower 2.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The planes impact energy (ke) was roughly equivalent of 1600 and 2000 lbs of TNT. And since very little mass,

LOL, my post got cut off. Guess I should check my posts.

Anywho.... and since very little mass,

ETA: forget it. It happened again..... I'll try later

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Griff

In stage 1 ~Fig. 1!, the conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel
spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C.

He needs to prove that the columns got to this temperature for this scenario to work.

According to NIST's samples, they didn't.

According to
this hypothesis, one may estimate that C'71 GN/m ~due to unavailability of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose!.

And my biggest pet peave. Why does he have to approximate the column cross section design again?

1- read it again. Does it say that the beams got to 800C, or does it say that it was exposed to temps of 800C? Then go check here: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk... and tell me why it couldn't get to 600C in 20 minutes if you disagree with his assumptions.

Here's a graph of typical fire temps: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

2- go here : wtcmodel.wikidot.com... and pick a column in the impact zone. Correct his math and then show why he's wrong.

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

I'll try this way.....

And since very little mass,

ETA:

WTF!!!!!

ARRRRRGH!!!!!!!

I quit...




[edit on 4-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Yes, you've never made any honest estimates of how much explosives would be needed. The fact is, it's much higher than a ton. I'm being generous.

The impacts registered .5 and .7 on the Richter.

As the seismic activity rises above background "noise" levels during the collapse, those levels are roughly the same as the impacts on the Richter. I believe this is where you claim that these charges went off. If I'm still in error, please tell me where on this graph that you see evidence of the initiating charge(s). This is tower 2.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The planes impact energy (ke) was roughly equivalent of 1600 and 2000 lbs of TNT. And since very little mass,

Last time....

And since nearly all of the mass (actually, all) imparted energy into the structure, this is the lower bound that could make these seismic traces.

ETA: ok it's working, so I'll finish this time....

Now, I think we can agree that PERHAPS, 172lbs of lsc's could initiate the collapse. But even then it's doubtful that it would go unheard. But this wouldn't register on the LDEO graphs.

You can't have it both ways - 172 lbs might be able to initiate the collapse, but wouldn't be "seen" at the LDEO, so therefore there wouldn't be any seismic data to back your hypothesis..... OR, it would take 2000lbs of explosives to make those graph readings, but it COULDN'T go unnoticed by the people and/or video/audio recorders present during 2's collapse.

But it gets even worse. 2000lbs of TNT equivalent force must be "applied" to the columns in order to impart a .7 Richter. But since even lsc's aren't 100% efficient in transferring their energy, MORE than 2000 lbs equivalent must be used to impart that 2000lbs of TNT equivalent force.

There's no way around either of those points.

You just can't have a small explosion that doesn't register. And you can't have 2000lbs + of TNT equivalent going off without being noticed.


[edit on 4-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- read it again. Does it say that the beams got to 800C, or does it say that it was exposed to temps of 800C?

Actually, just being exposed to temps of 800C isn't going to produce a temperature of the steel of 800C. But, as I'm not a thermodynamics guy, I'd have to see the calcs for them being able to obtain that temp., in the given time. Which, I believe, you posted. I haven't been able to read it yet as for some reason, it locks my computer up when I try to load it. But, I can see the first couple pages and looks pretty interesting.

Then go check here: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk... and tell me why it couldn't get to 600C in 20 minutes if you disagree with his assumptions.

Like I said: As I'm not a thermodynamics guy, I don't know off hand. But, thanks for the link.

Here's a graph of typical fire temps: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

From what I can see though, none of this steel is fireproofed. As I've said, I can only see the first 4 pages, but it looks to be a study of un-fireproofed steel.

Now, I don't discount that the tower's columns got their fireproofing sheared off. Which goes back to one of my other theories of less than code (by today's standards) construction. I say this because the towers had no code that they had to go by, as far as I know.

2- go here : wtcmodel.wikidot.com... and pick a column in the impact zone. Correct his math and then show why he's wrong.

When I get a chance, I'll look at it.

BTW, I'm not here to "correct" anyone's math. If this link has legitimate math and proof, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. Can you say the same? Also, I like that we are having a civil discussion.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- go here : wtcmodel.wikidot.com... and pick a column in the impact zone. Correct his math and then show why he's wrong.

This information was first posted by a member of ae911truth on their website. Are you going to call him a "truther" also then? Just kidding...but not really.[/sarcasm] I knew he was working on this: I remember back when I read his original post on ae911truth. But, that was way before anything like this was put together. Thanks for the link. Unless I'm wrong, but the graphics look the same.

Unless I'm missing something though, this guy is putting together the columns and beams that NIST has fed him. As I say, how can we really be sure this the most accurate way of doing a structural analysis?

But, I'll also say, kudos to him for putting forth the effort. Once I finally get around to learning SAP2000, his work will be priceless to me. But, I didn't know he had his own site. Again, thanks for the link.

This is exactly what I've been meaning to do and I just might get involved.

A further objective of this project is that it be "open". All of the data associated with the models and analysis results will be available for public review and criticism. Additionally, anyone with applicable skills may become involved

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Here's a graph of typical fire temps: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Is this air temperature, fire temperature or steel temperature? It doesn't really say. My apologies if it says in the pdf. I'm still having trouble opening it.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Now, I think we can agree that PERHAPS, 172lbs of lsc's could initiate the collapse. But even then it's doubtful that it would go unheard. But this wouldn't register on the LDEO graphs.

You can't have it both ways - 172 lbs might be able to initiate the collapse, but wouldn't be "seen" at the LDEO, so therefore there wouldn't be any seismic data to back your hypothesis..... OR, it would take 2000lbs of explosives to make those graph readings, but it COULDN'T go unnoticed by the people and/or video/audio recorders present during 2's collapse.

LOL. so i guess you're finished 'debunking' and have moved into the "i don't know" crowd?

follow the red carpet road, follow the red carpet road....

[edit on 4-8-2008 by billybob]

Originally posted by Griff

Is this air temperature, fire temperature or steel temperature? It doesn't really say. My apologies if it says in the pdf. I'm still having trouble opening it.

[edit on 8/4/2008 by Griff]

That's air temp, correct.

The huge pdf (hate 'em too) has H beams, 305mm (2 ft) in size, getting to 600C in 20 minutes, and 1000C in just under an hour.

Correct, they're uninsulated.

ETA: I've been looking, unsucessfully, to find a formula that predicts how fast steel will heat up, based on its cross section. That would predict how long a given column would take to heat up.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by billybob


Not even close.

Reread that. Labtop is left with 2 choices, IMHO.

Both debunk his hypothesis.

problem is, it takes time to heat up steel, and the plasma(flame) has to be in direct contact with the steel for efficient transfer of heat.
air is a great insulator, and steel a great conductor, so saying the FIRES reached so and so temperature has no direct correlation with the temperature the STEEL reached.

in other words, the air temperature(air being thin,and steel being dense) would have to be FAR greater than steel-weakening temperatures, and for a very long period, before it would affect even unprotected steel.

luckily, NIST's own lab test show this, where they heated trusses to greater than actual temperatures, for longer than actual times, and still the trusses didn't fail.

man, i wouldn't want to be one of you 'desk agents' trying to peddle the lie to an educated public.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob


The trusses were insulated for that test.

Get your facts straight before you try to peddle your tripe....

ETA: and in that pdf, it was a test in an enclosed compartment like an office building, with wood fires, with beams that were similar size to the WTC core columns.

And they got to 600C in 20 minutes, and 1000C in just under an hour.

IOW, you don't know a damn thing about how steel heats up, other than to repeat what you've read from fools like Hoffman, Gage, Jones, etc....



[edit on 5-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

says you.

i passed all my science classes with flying colours, dude.

why don't we talk about the last minute "shotgun test" that was used to show how ALL the fire proofing was stripped off ALL the trusses.

you know, the truth is just there waiting for people who look into it, and your brand of dissuading is very tired after 7 years.

and don't forget, the mock-up floor was only half as large a span as the real floor.

try heating a tool-shed and a church...
which takes more energy?

IF the temperatures were as hot as they NEED to be for the official story, ALL of the windows would have been blown out.
were ALL of the windows blown out? i don't think so, because i don't see flames licking out of them, except for a few small localised places, however, there is no timeline for these flare-ups.

i watched people eat tripe on "fear factor". it was gross.

oh, and, it was the TRUSSES, not the core columns that were tested.

read it, yerself, mr. superior.

reply to post by billybob


More proof of temps. Note the melted alum cladding....

wtc.nist.gov...

The fires on the 92nd floor have caused some interesting effects on the surrounding façade. The variations in the types of smoke marks on the column covers adjacent to the windows have already been mentioned. Inspection shows that in the area immediately above windows 92-223 to 92-228, the aluminum spandrel covers have partially disappeared. The shapes of the missing areas indicate that they mostly likely melted due to heating from the hot fire gases flowing from below. In fact, spots of what appear to be solidified drops of aluminum can be seen on windows below this floor. Based on the melting temperature of aluminum, the fire gases leaving these windows must have been well in excess of 600 ºC.

i34.tinypic.com...

Griff, may I offer you first some hilarious reading from the, by times, amusing vitriolic pen of Gordon Ross, who was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at [email protected].

The first link you should read is his hit piece on the JREF forum alumni :
gordonssite.tripod.com...
Sorry Dr. Greening et al. (This is btw not an apology. It is a description.)

An excerpt:

The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available.

That will push your attention meter up some notches. Go ahead, start reading.

Then you should read the serious stuff in his making-fun-of parts regarding some JREF names:
David B. Benson, Mark Ferran, R. Mackey, and Dr. Greening.

After recovering from that LOL, we move on to the more scientifically based arguments, written by Gordon Ross.

A rebuttal of the simple analysis published by Bazant, and an even simpler one by Greening.
gordonssite.tripod.com...
MOMENTUM TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE UPPER STOREYS OF WTC1.

Next, we move on to:

In this study I intend to show how the collapse of the towers was deliberately caused by the use of explosive and or incendiary devices placed at identified points within the structure.
The demolition of the WTC towers was achieved using a four phase attack. These attacks weakened the tower structure, initiated the collapse, progressed the collapse, and finally completed the collapse.

gordonssite.tripod.com...
How the Towers were demolished.

Next, we read his two other pages:

gordonssite.tripod.com...
Reply to NIST.
gordonssite.tripod.com...
Home page.


Now, I’ll quote some lines from Gordon’s papers, which quite precisely indicate the posting technique from Butz:

"You have quoted figures and unsubstantiated and questionable assertions without reference, without workings, without any detail of their derivation or assumptions made and these are demonstrably false even within the confines of your own analysis."

I have two questions for Butz :

1. Just curious, are you Mark Roberts, the NY Tour guide, also posting on JREF? If not, are you a member there? What screen name do you use there. My screen name is everywhere the same, also at JREF.
Otherwise I’ll ask BillyBob, he knows all of you and your style.
He can search JREF for your avatar number,
forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar16445_3.gif

2. When are you going to produce that famous 2000 lbs phrase of mine, which I demanded you to do multiple times, but you keep ignoring it and falsely using it in all the following replies to me.
You'll be forewarned, I have found the specific part already for days and bookmarked, and it is clear as hell, that you only wanted to read my lines with the false prejudice I am now used from you.

If you don’t come up with that link to my phrase, I must consider that you are intentionally lying, to try to get some petty advantage in an online debate, and try thus to influence the non-suspicious members here to come into your camp.
Deliberately lying is a ban-worthy offense of the playing rules on this forum.
So better apologize, after finding my 2000 lbs phrase, and reading it carefully.

After that, I will address all your other vagueness and unsubstantiated and questionable assertions without reference, whatsoever.


[edit on 5/8/08 by LaBTop]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Damn. What a drivel. Constant hijacking this thread with WTC 1 and 2 subjects, while it clearly has this title:
Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition.

You still act as if you don’t understand the right order in which you have to read and address my thesis. I doubt that it is by chance, it looks pretty obvious that you try to address the wrong things first, intentionally.
You have to begin addressing my thesis by studying WTC 7.

When will you understand at last that something with the combination of the NIST and LDEO time frames is very wrong, thus proving the biggest energy event exists 6 seconds before any real NY-time movement outside or inside WTC 7 could be observed at all in all existing videos or photos?
Only after you have understood that my evidence of an energy event, bigger than the whole following collapse is undeniable, and you have done what you could to prove me wrong, then you’ll have to conclude, that the same reasoning will follow for the WTC 2 and 1 collapses.

You act as if you haven’t read and understood one piece of my thesis.
Then suddenly you come up with a collapse diagram, which you could easily link to a better one in my thesis, with a much better scale, showing exactly the WTC 2 and 1 preceding energy events.
Again, nothing about WTC 7.

You deliberately act as a simpleton, but you probably have a psychological schooling, trying to irritate your opponents with endless repetitions.

Won’t work with us, hardcore believers with substantial evidence in our hands.
If you don't stay on topic from now on, the alert button will be hit.