Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

Originally posted by Valhall

Actually, you are wrong

Let's start over here:

1- I made a comment that heat would be a factor for collapse initiation, but not for progression, since I believe that the rate of collapse progression would be determined by the strength of the floor connections.

2- you said that you believed that to be false, citing the core seats being not as bent as the ext column seats. Because of this, you believe that the cores and floors fell together during the collapse progression.

3- you then asked a question if I had an alternative explanation for how/why the core seats wouldn't be bent as much as those from the ext columns. These are all below the impact/collapse initiation zone.

4- I gave my view of why the core seats wouldn't be bent as much as the ext seats. namely, that the core connection would fail first during the progression, allowing the floors to swing somewhat, whch would tear the ext column seats downward to a greater degree than the core seats, which would be pulled straight out.

Do you care to focus on this line of discussion or not?

That's equivalent to "it can be shown" or "obvious to those skilled in the art". Unfortunately, this time it's not obvious to anyone truly "skilled in the art".

Sorry, but this doesn't include you.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

Actually, you are wrong

Let's start over here:

1- I made a comment that heat would be a factor for collapse initiation, but not for progression, since I believe that the rate of collapse progression would be determined by the strength of the floor connections.

2- you said that you believed that to be false, citing the core seats being not as bent as the ext column seats. Because of this, you believe that the cores and floors fell together during the collapse progression.

Actually, no I didn't say that. If you are going to continue this discussion you need to at least pay attention to it. I said that you were wrong that the statements I made about the NIST report apply only to the elements at the zone of collapse initiation and not to progression of the collapse. They do not only apply to the initiation and they do not only apply to the progression - they apply to both.

3- you then asked a question if I had an alternative explanation for how/why the core seats wouldn't be bent as much as those from the ext columns. These are all below the impact/collapse initiation zone.

4- I gave my view of why the core seats wouldn't be bent as much as the ext seats. namely, that the core connection would fail first during the progression, allowing the floors to swing somewhat, whch would tear the ext column seats downward to a greater degree than the core seats, which would be pulled straight out.

Do you care to focus on this line of discussion or not?

Yes, I'll focus on it all you want. Unfortunately, and apparently, you will continue to ask the question like a mental patient stuck in an OCD do-loop because I'm answering different than you want to here.

YOU ARE CONTRADICTING THE NIST REPORT. That's all I have to say to your "theory".

That's equivalent to "it can be shown" or "obvious to those skilled in the art". Unfortunately, this time it's not obvious to anyone truly "skilled in the art".

Sorry, but this doesn't include you.

omg...OW! OUCH! STOP! IT HURTS! OW! I'm telling! OW! Mercy! Mercy! OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Here Ned - here's your First Reader. Don't come back until you understand "Run Dick Run"...then we'll talk again.


[edit on 9-22-2009 by Valhall]

reply to post by weedwhacker


hey, thanks for pulling out some real physics.

awesome.

9.22 seconds is the actual freefall time of something dropped from the roof to the ground.
this brings up the more complicated question of "why does the seismic signature measure 8 seconds for one tower, and 10 for the other, and, more importantly, why is the VELOCITY fairly constant during the collapses?"
because, you see, for the velocity to be constant, you have to have two "sliding scale" factors in perfect opposing symmetry with one another, ie. resistance of undamaged (pyramid style strength) building vs descending, (chaotic avalanche style) accumulating mass.
the chances of these two opposing forces remaining at a 1:1 ratio throughout the collapse are astronomically infinitesimal. the chances of this down vs. up force ratio being constant in BOTH collapses is let's just say "IMPOSSIBLE".
the collapse(s) has been fairly accurately measured at about 2/3s the acceleration due to gravity. that's still VERY rapid.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
and, more importantly, why is the VELOCITY fairly constant during the collapses?"
because, you see, for the velocity to be constant, you have to have two "sliding scale" factors in perfect opposing symmetry with one another

That's always stuck out in my mind too as being an extremely uncanny coincidence.

If you watch the sequence at certain parts, you see that the "floors" are just puffing dust out of the perimeter columns in linear increments and symmetrically across at least an entire face of the given building, when even NIST says such symmetrical failures wouldn't make a lot of sense in their FAQs. And it goes on down in a very linear progression until it's obscured by the dust cloud. And as you know well yourself, it started at the same linear rate it kept for as long as we could see it.

reply to post by john124


Sorry pal. No credibility whatever is on your side. NIST had to recant too many deliberate distortions for you to still be hanging on to the incredible fairytale they've woven.

You cannot tell a computer model that Steel Structures cannot wick away heat throughout it's frame in fire. Thats what they do, naturally. Skyscrapers by nature are giant heat sinks. Grow Up.

More important is this smoking gun: NANOTHERMITE.

It was a CIA/MOSSAD operation. Period.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
reply to post by john124

 

Sorry pal. No credibility whatever is on your side. NIST had to recant too many deliberate distortions for you to still be hanging on to the incredible fairytale they've woven.

You cannot tell a computer model that Steel Structures cannot wick away heat throughout it's frame in fire. Thats what they do, naturally. Skyscrapers by nature are giant heat sinks. Grow Up.

More important is this smoking gun: NANOTHERMITE.

It was a CIA/MOSSAD operation. Period.

Period, huh? You've stated this as fact on two separate threads, so I feel I've got every right to ask you - you the one acting as the current blathering expert on the latest rendition of the so called "pulled it out of our arse truth movement"...does "nano" make the word "thermite" more legitimate? Or does it make it more "exotic"? I really didn't think you could get more exotic than the whole "hologram plane" theory, or "atomixing the building" or maybe "micronukes" or whatever the fark that was, but maybe some one in a back room decided this prefix would just stymie everyone and went with it.

Just wondering why this latest round needed to go with nanotechnology now.

[edit on 9-23-2009 by Valhall]

Reply to mcguyvermanolo

Seriously, to those of us sitting out here not really trying to instantly reject anything, the past 8 years of the burgeoning and constantly evolving truth movement has left some of us wondering if you guys have semi-annual locker room meetings where your coach (whoever the hell it is that keeps you all incited on these ridiculous ideas) gives pep talks like it's half time.

Coach: Okay guys - they're hitting us hard on the micronuke granulated building theory and we just found out all of John Lear's marbles are kept in a hermatically sealed mason jar in his root cellar so we're going to have to drop the hologram planes and change our play book.

We've decided we need to stick "nano" on everything - especially "thermite" and get back out there. It'll trip 'em up for at least a year!

Remember - "nano FTW!!!"

All the rest of you sheep: *wide-eyed* A-ROAR-HAR!!!! Nano!!!!! *back slap* *back slap* Where's the kool-aid???

[edit on 9-23-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by billybob

i could agree with some of what you said except for the part about the majority of people believing the official line. any poll i've ever seen showed the opposite. i think you just pulled that "fact" out of you "hat" based on not just polls, but my real life discussions with people. i don't think i know anyone anymore who believes the official lie.

But that's my point - not "believing the official lie" can easily translate to "not believing that the government has given us the whole picture". This is something even I would concur with, yet I find the Truth Movement's conclusions to be almost without exception illogical, incomplete and often absurd to the point of humour.

Yet there are any number of mundane reasons why the government and its subsidiaries might not want or be able to divulge "the whole picture".

-- key personnel failed to take warnings seriously. They underestimated the likelihood of an attack. Perhaps even ignored evidence because they didn't consider it a priority. They're left looking pretty stupid now.

-- The counterintelligence system was in a parlous state - divided, blinkered, competing jealously between agencies, essentially locked in a cold war mindset. They don't want their utter incompetence to come out

-- they f=cked up on the day. People made idiotic decisions and they want to protect themselves

-- the events of 9/11 are unique and unprecedented. To expect an immediate complete and flawless scientific explanation of the various building collapses and plane impacts is naive

The government misleads people every day to put themselves in a better light or try to make their errors appear minimal. I'm certain they do this with 9/11 and you might reasonably say that I "don't buy the official lie". But that's completely different to thinking that the buildings were detonated, that no plane hit the Pentagon etc.

As an aside, this points to an important flaw in the way that 9/11 "Truth" conducts itself. By setting up an Official Story it allows itself the luxury of chipping away at what it perceives as a monolitic core. Flaws can be held up as conspiracies, inconsistencies trumpeted as purposeful deceit. Imagine if the Truth Movement was charged with supplying a single consistent story. It would be total mayhem!

And since you accuse me of pulling my earlier assertions out of my arse - which is pretty much true - I decided to look some stuff up.

From summer 2008, Program on International Policy Attitudes.

-- In all western European nations polled a solid majority answered "Al Qaeda" to the question "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?"

-- In France, an early hotbed of 9/11 "Truth", only 8% answered "The US government". In the UK it was 5%

-- Even in Middle Eastern territories Al Qaeda always beat the US govt. In Palestine, where one might expect respondents to be most hostile to the US and Israel, only 19% claimed that the Jewish State was behind the attacks, compared to 42% responding "Al Qaeda".

-- In subsaharan Africa the answer "Al Qaeda" polled in the 70s.

-- Significant numbers of people answered that they didn't know. But that isn't the same as thinking that the US government were behind it, which is a central tenet of the Truth Movement.

Even Zogby polls sponsored by 9/11 Truth found only minorities (admittedly large ones) believing that individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around Sept 11 2001, and that they consciously failed to act". But then that's hardly an endorsement of the main claims in the Movement.

the other part i can't agree with is that people who are after the truth do it for any other reason than the search for truth, and more importantly justice

You must have come down in the last shower if you think that everybody's motives are that pure.

Sorry, lost your last bit of text, but I agree with it

reply to post by Valhall

Ha Ha now explain where the nano thermate that WAS FOUND came from,all ground perfectly and mixed in just the right proportions like that?

Originally posted by trueforger
reply to post by Valhall

 

Ha Ha now explain where the nano thermate that WAS FOUND came from,all ground perfectly and mixed in just the right proportions like that?

You're talking to me like you think I believe there was some found.

reply to post by Ignorance Denied


for the OP: Congrats, point proven in the first & second reply. Congrats.

It's interesting how most of these 'wingnuts' as you put it will so willingly take info from even the most shaky of sources as long as it supports their delusion and opinion, but anything else. oh there's always some reason why its false.

Originally posted by Valhall
We've decided we need to stick "nano" on everything - especially "thermite" and get back out there. It'll trip 'em up for at least a year!

It didn't trip me up for more than a few days after I first started seeing it.

ammtiac.alionscience.com...





The extremely small particle size is also what allowed sulfur to penetrate the grain boundaries of the steel and significantly reduce its melting point, allowing it to be more quickly melted by the eutectic, as described in appendix C of FEMA's report: wtc.nist.gov...


So there actually is some technical basis behind why this would provide a more energetic and effective reaction than conventional (coarse-grained) thermite, which it would and does. It has a number of properties that can be played with, since the particle size also influences the rate of the reaction, adding other elements causes certain effects, etc. The specific make-up of the mixture that melted through steel is given in the appendix above.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
oh there's always some reason why its false.

Actually there's only one reason: there is absolutely no evidence backing the computer models you are basing your opinion on, or the parameters they have to use to achieve results. Even NIST tells you this. But don't worry about it. Not everyone has the patience to actually read what they are talking about.

reply to post by bsbray11

Originally posted by billybob
and, more importantly, why is the VELOCITY fairly constant during the collapses?"
because, you see, for the velocity to be constant, you have to have two "sliding scale" factors in perfect opposing symmetry with one another



That's always stuck out in my mind too as being an extremely uncanny coincidence.

????????

"coincidence"???? We are talking about the acceleraton, due to gravity, on Earth. IT IS NOT a 'coincidence'.

Where does this concept of "sliding scale" come from???!!~!!??? What planet?????


My gawd....this isn't rocket science! It's gravity.

AND force. Mass. The effects of the force and mass DESTROYING what is below it...it's also called 'potential energy'. THAT is a term used, in physics, to describe the latent energy that a certain mass holds, when it is prone to 'falling' due to the Earth's gravitational field.

I anna, this is elementary grade school stuff!!!!

(perhaps some forget that far back....)
_____________________________________________________________
I have no idea why the "anna" showed up! I meant to type, there...'dunno'.
AS IN, "don't know".......



[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
????????

"coincidence"???? We are talking about the acceleraton, due to gravity, on Earth. IT IS NOT a 'coincidence'.

You should have just left it at "??????????"

There is more than 1 force at work here. Well first maybe I should ask, how rusty is your basic physics? Ie mechanics? That they would both balance each other (ie gravity and the "resistance", both forces) to produce a linear rate of progression (which is what we were talking about, the apparent lack of acceleration) is a mathematical/physical "coincidence" that is extremely uncanny. Acceleration is a change in velocity over time. Billybob and I were talking about the apparent lack of it when the floors were puffing out in rows in regular intervals and without the need to accelerate to the rate at which they maintained. Billybob even posted a thread on this probably over a year ago. Not only are you behind the times, you still do not understand what we are talking about.

reply to post by bsbray11

...the apparent lack of acceleration...

Ahhh....ermmmm....THAT is the point!!

IT was a progressive collapse. Once initiated (due to structural weakening) it was inevitable, because of the MASS involved, and the unrelenting force of gravity.

There was no need for any interior "explosives". Gravity did it.

It is strange that people don't understand simple concepts. Structure was damaged.

LOTS of weight above (gravity).

Area damaged, now weakened. Hmmmmm.....lot of weight above, weak below....gee! GRAVITY!!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


You still have absolutely no conception of what I am talking about. I am confused at why you are apparently so distraught over something you haven't even properly understood yet.

Did the towers accelerate at the rate of gravity or not? Let's start with that simple question first.

reply to post by bsbray11


OK....I think I see the misunderstanding.

"acceleration" due to gravity assumes no other force to impose on that acceleration.

Friction.

Friction is normally attributed to the effect of air, in the way of falling masses.

IN THE CASE of a building falling (collapsing) the "friction" is the delay caused by the mass BELOW being destroyed, as the mass ABOVE falls on it.

Large, dense masses (I.E., concrete and steel) are not affected by the air as much as, say...a feather....when falling. (A feather, or a sheet of paper, presents a large surface RELATIVE to its motion on descent....but, without the inherent mass behind it, the effects of moving through a fluid -- 'air' -- results in the slower motion).

Speaking of fluids...air is a fluid. But, as 'fluids' go, it's certainly a lot less dense than water, yes???

People seem to comprehend that stuff falling in WATER will show certain behavior....but they (because they live in air) don't realize that air also has an effect.

THIS IS WHY there are the "puffs" seen, as the buildings collapse. They are NOT "squibs"....it is just air. Being forced out, from collapsing above.

i don't know when this paper came out, but it is a very detailed collapse analysis which concludes that it' a demo.

refutation of bazant/zhou's oversimplified anaylsis

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bsbray11

 

OK....I think I see the misunderstanding.

"acceleration" due to gravity assumes no other force to impose on that acceleration.

Friction.

Friction is normally attributed to the effect of air, in the way of falling masses.

IN THE CASE of a building falling (collapsing) the "friction" is the delay caused by the mass BELOW being destroyed, as the mass ABOVE falls on it.

Large, dense masses (I.E., concrete and steel) are not affected by the air as much as, say...a feather....when falling. (A feather, or a sheet of paper, presents a large surface RELATIVE to its motion on descent....but, without the inherent mass behind it, the effects of moving through a fluid -- 'air' -- results in the slower motion).

Speaking of fluids...air is a fluid. But, as 'fluids' go, it's certainly a lot less dense than water, yes???

People seem to comprehend that stuff falling in WATER will show certain behavior....but they (because they live in air) don't realize that air also has an effect.

THIS IS WHY there are the "puffs" seen, as the buildings collapse. They are NOT "squibs"....it is just air. Being forced out, from collapsing above.

Surely you can't just ride over the point of the resisance given by the intact portions of the building below the impact point. I don't accept that the core columns, floors, and external facade were so damaged b what occured above that they offered zero resistance to the falling mass of the upper floors.

Incedently, if you watch the videos of the collapses a great deal of the mass of the upper floors is shed outwards from the initial moment of the collapse. This leaves even less mass to destroy the lower sections. There should have been at least some decelleration, surely?