It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 22
12
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Valhall

There is no "fulcrum" on a beam in bending. I wish you would stop using it.

Then you need to explain just why YOU said that the towers could be compared to a beam, and said that the west wall was the fulcrum.

The west side of the building is being pulled due to the listing top - that results in a tensile force - i.e. a tensile stress which will decrease the compressive stress of the load due to bearing.

No. It is not being pulled sideways, or up by some mysterious force. It is being pulled DOWN by gravity. This is where you're going off the rails.

IN OTHER WORDS, if it weren't for the west wall (actually the west half) of the building, the top would go on over.

No. Momentum wasn't in the 9 o'clock direction. It was in the 6:30 direction. You're ignoring the effects of gravity again. AND ignoring that the 7 degree list, which would result in 24' of compression on the east wall, would result in 12' of compression in the middle of the core columns. In order for this to happen, the core columns MUST have been disconnected.

That's about as elementary a way I can put it to get you to understand what's going on when the top is listing over. The west half of the building is resisting the list.

No. Nothing resisted the list, the entire building resisted gravity forces.

So please drop the word "fulcrum" because it makes no sense really.

You used it to describe the west wall.

EDIT: In a attempt to try to figure out what you mean by fulcrum, I am assuming you mean the fixed point along the plane of tilt. That would be the west wall. How do we know it is? Because the west wall is intact (i.e. it is not ripped open from the tilt).

No. We know it is the fixed point cuz it can be seen to be correct. Your statement about tearing ignores gravity, and the increased load that the west wall will see when all the other columns are seen to buckle.

If the west wall failed in tension during the list, then we would say it was a fixed point more central to the building and that would change the number of floors in compression on the east wall. For instance, if the fixed point was occurring about the centroid of the tilt plane it would half the floors compressed on the east wall - i.e. 1 floor compressed on the east wall, 1 floor gaped on the west wall...But this is not the case.)

Agree.

Hence, the fixed point on the plane of tilt is the west wall. Which NECESSARILY puts a tensile force acting on that wall...else the gaping tensile tear that did not happen.

I can agree to a change of terms from "fulcrum" to "the fixed point."

However, it still doesn't do anything to strengthen your case/thoughts on the matter. The west wall will not be in tension, nor will it experience lesser loads. Ever....

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, you still aren't getting it.

Are you saying that the building/columns got progressively less loaded as it fell? Y/N please, for brevity.

You added two 1-dimensional numbers. Buildings are 3-dimensional,or at least a series of 2-dimensional cross sections in a series of calculations. Where is that in your model?

Ok then, since you can't follow along on your own, I'll spell it out for you, using the series of 2 dimensional models.

If we say that the floors will break when 50k tons hit it while in motion, and each floor weighs 10k tons, then it will break when 5 floors in motion hit it.

Now we'll use YOUR figure of 80% lost from each floor, for each floor that it falls. So it loses 8k tons and gains 10k tons for a net gain of 2k tons.

Now we have 52 tons hitting the next floor, and it has a net gain of 2k tons again.

The next floor has 54ktons hitting it..... and so on. Do I need to do this 86 times for you to understand?

[quoteAnd along those lines, once again..

Where do you consider acceleration/velocity?

Where do you consider momentum?

If the floor connections are the same - excluding the tech floors - The additional weight should accelerate the collapse front. Momentum will increase either with weight, or with collapse speed. What else do you not understand? i will explain my position.

Are acceleration and velocity relevant to the collapses or not, Jerry?

Of course they are. More weight and/or speed will result in more accel, which will result in a higher velocity. I haven't seen an analysis though of the velocity of the collapse before though. All the specualtion about how it "looks like a symmetrical speed" is just specualtion. If you've seen that analysis, please provide it.

That's an assumption you make, that has not been proven.

It would be insane to suggest otherwise.

It ignores the entire core structure and the exterior columns just to try to get ANYTHING to propagate downwards.

Then explain in detail how a vertically aligned column would catch any debris, without relying on the floors to do it. And how the floor's strength and connections wouldn't come into play. Cuz I don't see it.

Without just shearing the connections first.

Exactly

Again, an assumption.

Nope, reality.

That is nowhere indicated in your "model."

I assumed that you would understand that when I refer to floors breaking, that it would include connection breakage. You didn't. Now you do.

Then you would be mistaken yet again. There was reinforcement on the mechanical floors for one thing;

I've mentioned this before. I felt it unnecessary to include it again. For brevity.

as far as the rest, the structural documentation is still out of public hands so you are just guessing based on nothing.

No. I am going off the statements from NIST, and from the "leaked" blueprints hosted by the various websites available for you to look at also. It is the TM that is basing its beliefs on nothing. Like "we don't know what kind of explosives the military has, etc.

Column strengths had nothing to do with why Bazant couldn't include 50% mass shedding.

No. He used 50% mass shedding.

It increased the total amount of time it took to collapse to something unreasonable when he accounted for all the mass being shed.

It increased the time so that it didn't match the seismic record.

Please enlighten me. I only saw 1 reason, and that was because his model didn't work anymore if he used real numbers.

50% is a real number.

He explained it in his paper, which you aparently never read.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Then you need to explain just why YOU said that the towers could be compared to a beam, and said that the west wall was the fulcrum.

No. It is not being pulled sideways, or up by some mysterious force. It is being pulled DOWN by gravity. This is where you're going off the rails.

No. Momentum wasn't in the 9 o'clock direction. It was in the 6:30 direction. You're ignoring the effects of gravity again. AND ignoring that the 7 degree list, which would result in 24' of compression on the east wall, would result in 12' of compression in the middle of the core columns. In order for this to happen, the core columns MUST have been disconnected.

No. Nothing resisted the list, the entire building resisted gravity forces.

You used it to describe the west wall.

No. We know it is the fixed point cuz it can be seen to be correct. Your statement about tearing ignores gravity, and the increased load that the west wall will see when all the other columns are seen to buckle.

Agree.

I can agree to a change of terms from "fulcrum" to "the fixed point."

However, it still doesn't do anything to strengthen your case/thoughts on the matter. The west wall will not be in tension, nor will it experience lesser loads. Ever....

Joey - You have been wrong for so long and to such a great degree in this thread, and have spent so many pages flashing your stupidity, that you no longer warrant line-by-line responses from anybody - and damned sure not from me.

I'm simply going to respond to every bit of the worthless, brainless drivel above with...

YOU HAVEN'T GOT A FRIGGIN' CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU EMPLOYE DEVIOUS, INTENTIONALLY TROLLING, DIVERSIVE AND OBFUSCATING TACTICS TO TRY TO WAVE PEOPLE OFF SEEING YOUR IGNORANCE.

It doesn't work.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM

I've agreed to a couple of your points.

I've agreed tobsbray's point about the building/columns being unloaded as the building fell.

That's not trolling. It's coming to an agreement on a few points and disagreeing about others.

That's what this board is for. Discussing disagreements.

If anything, someone calling someone else as a troll who is willing to answer questions that you pose, and then ignore their answers, stating that you are an authority, and also saying the case is closed about issues like temp induced creep.... sounds like projection of your own failings onto someone else.

We disagree. I'm fine with that. There's no need to be an ass.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
Joey - You have been wrong for so long and to such a great degree in this thread, and have spent so many pages flashing your stupidity, that you no longer warrant line-by-line responses from anybody - and damned sure not from me.

I'm simply going to respond to every bit of the worthless, brainless drivel above with...

YOU HAVEN'T GOT A FRIGGIN' CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

Call it a cop-out but I'm just going to have to agree with what Val is saying.

After all, everyone is free to read all posts between Jerry and myself up until this point for themselves.

Where do you consider acceleration/velocity?

Where do you consider momentum?

If the floor connections are the same - excluding the tech floors - The additional weight should accelerate the collapse front. Momentum will increase either with weight, or with collapse speed. What else do you not understand? i will explain my position.

The question you haven't asked is, what else do YOU not understand?

Re-do your model using REAL NUMBERS for acceleration/momentum/velocity/etc. instead of just adding made-up numbers and running your mouth and get back to me. Until then, I have officially lost interest in arguing about your addition skills. I have more than a sneaking feeling you don't even know what a vector is, or a free-body diagram, which would readily explain the ignorance behind much of the last few posts and why you continue to fail to see the obvious and extreme limitations of your own math.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Call it a cop-out but I'm just going to have to agree with what Val is saying.

After all, everyone is free to read all posts between Jerry and myself up until this point for themselves.

I will not be speaking to "Joey-Balonie" anymore directly.

But what he did with me was to use a word in an infantile manner (i.e. "fulcrum" as if we were talking about a playground teeter-totter). When I attempted to understand what he meant and assist in correcting his kindergarten view of physics and dynamics, he then turned around and used my attempt to understand the ramblings of a buffoon with half a brain against me as if **I** was the one that was using fulcrum in some intelligent argument. He's a troll, and best I can tell, a high school drop out. All I can do is go off his behavior - but that's about what I get from it.

[edit on 9-26-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:42 PM

THIS should be the main focus of the whole 911 physics argument at this point.
i find this even more compelling than the NIST admitted freefall of wtc7.

because, the violent explusions from the right side of the building actually race down the side so fast, they outpace the debris which has been falling through air for some thirty or forty stories. (it's right at the end of the video, so you have to watch carefully)

that, as i said before, is actual proof of demolition, and not the overused "proof of this or that" that we see so frequently on ATS.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have more than a sneaking feeling you don't even know what a vector is, or a free-body diagram,

No I understand it all.

But you've demonstrated the trait of not engaging in any reasonable discussion. Something I should have realized early on in our discussions.

You are a one way street. We had a misunderstanding about we were both saying, and so when I cleared it up and agreed with your point, there is no discussion from you about understanding what I'm saying. Instead, you go OT and start bringing up other topics that aren't related. I think you're too scared to have a real give and take discussion. There will be only take from you, and no give. Sorry, but that's most definitely not any search for any truth. It's a head-stuck-in-the-stand belief that you are correct in every issue you choose to talk about.

The arrogance displayed from a college kid that prolly still lives off his mommy's tit is astounding. Hopefully one day you'll realize that the whole time you've spent as a TM believer was a waste, and remember those words.

I'm done with you, troll.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM

You're not really an engineer, are you?

After all, those that need to proclaim themselves to be an authority usually aren't.

What makes a person an authority is when others that have demonstrated their authority/knowledge on the subject at hand agrees. Somehow, after reading some of your old posts, where you use, as one poster proclaimed it, a mickey mouse source for your engineering criteria like engineers toolbox.com, when Griff agreed that you should be using from ASCE's online sources.... well, that tells me all I need to know about your "authority".

You have none, but your arrogance and ego enables you to make the outrageous statement that the NIST engineers, etc should be put on trial, and summarily sentenced to prison. But I guess that's the world that you've constructed for yourself. You are an "authority" and you have summarily decided that they are guilty of lying in the NIST report. And the silence from those with demonstrated knowledge, like the members of CTBUH doesn't mean a thing to you, does it?

No need to answer, for I won't see it. I already know what your attitude is. I'm done with your lunacy also. Have a nice life in la-la-land.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

No, I don't still live "under mommy's teat" or however you put it, but I bet YOU do. Did you ever even GO to college?

If you know what a free-body diagram is, put up or shut up. Redo your model in the form of a free-body, which means at least a 2D representation that will automatically have to take into account acceleration/velocity/momentum and all the rest. If you can't then you're just proving what we all already know, that you're worthless and don't have a clue what you're talking about. You should go to JREF Joey. That's where they laugh at people without having to prove anything. You got it mixed up with ATS somehow.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

You're not really an engineer, are you?

I don't know what makes you think you would know, considering all the terms you've already mangled and shown yourself not to understand.

But yes, Val is someone who actually does understand the reality that lies behind the big words and numbers. Being an engineering major myself I recognize it in how carefully she words certain things, that she knows what she is talking about and is being careful to try to avoid mis-interpretation, but obviously you can't expect as much from someone such as yourself who doesn't understand half of any of this anyway.

Out of the three of us, one is an engineer (Val), one is an electronics engineering student (myself), and the third (you) is..... what again exactly? What credibility are you offering to us again? You're angry and you almost graduated high school? I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you're going to personally attack us like that. We both have you beat. Not just to call names; you honestly DON'T know what you're talking about.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM

Hi Val,
There is no real point in totally ignoring someone even if they are insulting to what you are saying. I've had the same thing type of lingo said to me by the same entity in reference to WT7, and also misquoted by same entity in the same thread to make a point, or rather a non-point,(did not understand what I was saying, so it was gibberish.. entity's word)?!
The reason I say that the entity should not be totally ignored, is because he actually says, (in part to a reply to you I think it was)and which is the whole nub of this thread in my thinking, and that is as the building fell it did "get lighter" the videos show very clearly that material of all sorts,(dust, solids) is being propelled away from the central mass which once was a building and in the case of WTC2 there is hardly nothing left of the portion above the collapse before it reaches the ground. It's a bit like taking a slice off cracker barrel cheese, there will still be plenty left plus the bit you've just sliced.What happened to the stronger central core columns collapse is hard to explain at all, in the case of the north tower at least there are photos of the central core still standing up to a number of storys, and as there are outer columns still standing lower down.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by smurfy]

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:38 PM

Yes, amazing how that works, eh?

Once I understood what bstroll was saying, I agreed with it. That's honest.

So where is the discussion from it about my points? No where to be found. Instead, it starts demanding all manner of calculations which would be a useless exercise to it, since it will then proclaim that any calculations are moot since there real structural docs aren't available.

It is playing the typical troofer game of "gotcha" and trolling. It is a waste of my time to reply to it again. Good thing it is now invisible to me....

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So where is the discussion from it about my points? No where to be found. Instead, it starts demanding all manner of calculations which would be a useless exercise to it

You are the only one to claim the acceleration and velocity of the collapse are "useless."

You can't just make up some numbers and ignore all the others that it implies.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:45 PM

the core is left standing momentarily in both collapses. it is harder to see in one than the other.
and, then, there is the other question.
how was that remaining 60 storeys of core able to fall vertically after it survived the collapse of the rest of the tower on top and around it?

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by smurfy

Hi Val,
It's a bit like taking a slice off cracker barrel cheese, there will still be plenty left.What happened to the stronger central core columns collapse is hard to explain at all, in the case of the north tower at least there are photos of the central core still standing up to a number of storys, and as there are outer columns still standing lower down.

Yes, the central cores have been an issue with me for some time. I've yet to find some one who can help me work through what they did.

Concerning the destruction of floors as the collapse occured (both upward and downward) and the effect that would have on the falling upper section...

Has anyone looked into the energy dissipation required to destroy two floors at a time? The reason I ask this is that there has been a good deal of discussion here about the apparent "constant velocity" of the collapse. Has anyone ran numbers to see if the energy dissipation to destroy two impacting floors would work out close to the kinetic energy increase as the DIMINISHING top falls. So the change in kinetic energy equation through-out the collapse would look something like:

KE=1/2mv^2
d(KE)/dt = (d(KE)/dm)*(dm/dt)+(d(KE)/dv)*(dv/dt)
d(KE)/dt = (1/2)v^2*(dm/dt)+(mv)*(dv/dt)

where m=mass of top section at a given time, and v=velocity of top section at a given time.

Now, if (dv/dt)=0 (i.e. we assume the "apparent" constant velocity is true), then we are to solve for:

d(KE)/dt=(1/2)v^2*(dm/dt)

We should be able to fairly approximate (dm/dt) based on timing of collapse (i.e. of floors collapsing) and some estimate of mass/floor, and, using the "constant v" people think they see, establish a d(KE)/dt.

Working in this manner we can get a change in Kinetic Energy over time that we can then analyze to see if 1. there is in fact sufficient kinetic energy on the falling top portion to achieve the destruction of two floors, and 2. whether the overall assumption that the velocity is remaining relatively constant is valid...or just a trick of the eye.

EDIT: Another way would be to simply go with (dv/dt)=acceleration due to gravity and see what the equation produces using that over, say, a 10 floor fall period.

[edit on 9-26-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 08:55 PM

Hi BB,
I agree, and that's exactly what i'm getting at. It does appear to me that there was some destructive force in play other than the damage done by the aeroplanes and around the same level or higher up. Say for instance there were none of the usual explosives used, what are the alternatives? special Thermite, ULF waves, Laser a combination of things like the aformentioned. On the other hand, if normal explosives were used the likely place would be the core columns in the same area, the trusses.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:22 PM
I know this has been discussed and debated on several threads in the past, but was it ever concluded what was an acceptable average mass value for each floor?

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:33 PM

(as if the silence didn't speak for itself)

I don't think so...

In fact, I don't think it was ever agreed upon how much the towers even weighed... Contradictory figures from different sources at different points in time.

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:19 PM

There are pics of the Towers being built i'll have a look again for them. The core columns were supposed to be smaller higher up..at what height I don't know. There is also the debate about core columns the being encased in concrete or not, if they weren't, it makes the idea of jet fuel blasting out and causing the damage at the ground lobby level alone not so realistic.

Edit to add, in fact a fire chief said at the time that the express elevators, (North and South) doors were intact. The damaged doors belonged to a "local" elevator, which would seem to rule out the "jet fuel blast" anyway.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by smurfy]

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by smurfy

There are pics of the Towers being built i'll have a look again for them. The core columns were supposed to be smaller higher up..at what height I don't know. There is also the debate about core columns the being encased in concrete or not, if they weren't, it makes the idea of jet fuel blasting out and causing the damage at the ground lobby level alone not so realistic.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by smurfy]

The transition from box column to wide-flanged I-beam was done at varying floors for the various columns (i.e. you wouldn't want to abruptly switch over all on one floor because you would cause a discontinuity and a stress riser at that location). You can view the transition floors in Figure 2-12 of NIST 1-1 (page 89 of this pdf wtc.nist.gov...). The core columns were not encased in concrete, but wrapped (inside and outside) with 2" gypsum board.

top topics

12