What did & did not Cause Collapse of WTC-Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Before I begin I want to say that I have stayed out of the 911 debates. But, I saw this today and thought it was worth reading. I am looking forward to the ones in the know to tell us what they think of this paper which was this Discussion Paper:

through a final check and is now scheduled for publication in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Bazant theory can evidently not be verified in a laboratory or in reality for any structure of any size. Actually the whole theory is complete fantasy: Upper, structural part C would either bounce or get locally damaged (partly or completely) when contacting and putting pressure on structural top part A after a gravity drop and would then get stuck up on top of parts A. No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/850040548487.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9283d1ece91f.jpg[/atsimg]
Source: heiwaco.tripod.com...

Now, as I said, I am a NOVICE in this area. But, after reading the paper-which I won't spoil for you, I thought they make serveral key point/issues and/or findings.
So, be gentle and let me know what is BS and what isn't-please.

reply to post by anon72

No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

I'm not sure that is exactly true.

Great read!~ Very interesting... as are the WTC2 and WTC7 reports he did!~ Thanks for posting!~

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by anon72

 

No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

I'm not sure that is exactly true.

It ISN'T true. Between the gaping holes left in the building, the reports that the impacting wreckage destroyed the central stairwells, the obvious fires, and the eyewitness reports by NYPD helicopter pilots stating the columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse, it is irrefutable that the plane collisions and the resulting fires did a great amount of damage to the structural integrity of the towers. If this area was damaged enough so that it would no longer be able to support the upper structure, it would collapse.

There is no principle of physics stating that a beam that can olny hold ten tons can magically hold fifty tons simply becuase it's in the middle of the building.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

If what you say is correct, why isn't the report/paper easily discredited instead of being published in an engineering magazine?

See, this is why I have stayed out of this fight.... just so confusing and I just can't comprehend our gov't have anything to do with any of the attack.

Anyway, thank you for input on the matter.

reply to post by anon72


the same government that conducted the tuskeege experiment, fed children like my son (autistic) radioactive oatmeal, had the navy release a chemical over san francisco in the 60's (forget which one), lied about the effects of radiation to its people during all the test shots in the 50's and 60's (the book the day we bombed utah), etc... yes, governments often do evil things to its people.

and don't forget about pnac. on the net as well. project for a new american century. this think tank had for its members, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, for example. a goal of theirs was to establish a footprint in the middle east by gaining control of iraq's oil fields. for them to do this, they had to get the population behind them. to do this, they said they needed another pearl harbor style attack. what an amazing coincidence! what happened a few short months in to the new administration? hmmm.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by anon72

 

No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

I'm not sure that is exactly true.

You're right, it isn't.

Originally posted by anon72

If what you say is correct, why isn't the report/paper easily discredited instead of being published in an engineering magazine?

FYI-

This isn't a technical paper at all. No peer review before publishing, etc. It is ismply a letter to the editor type submission.

Bazant will be rebutting Bjorkman's nonsense I believe.

A little background on Bjorkman:

Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.
However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

sites.google.com...

Mod Note - Please review Tag For Quoting External Sources


[Mod Edit - add external quote tags]



[edit on 25/4/2010 by Sauron]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Between the gaping holes left in the building

You mean the hole on the impact side that only damaged a part of one side of the towers, while the rest of that side and 3 other sides were all intact?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the reports that the impacting wreckage destroyed the central stairwells

What's that got to do with anything? The cores were relatively minutely damaged. NIST even says so on this point. NIST calculates that there was only 14%-15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure intact. Looking at the design of the core, you can see the open spaces between the columns where engines, landing gear and other plane parts could easily go between columns and breach the stairwell walls causing walls to collapse and debris to pile up in the stairwells blocking them.

Damaged and/or blocked stairwells is not indicative of any damage to the cores of either building.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
it is irrefutable that the plane collisions and the resulting fires did a great amount of damage to the structural integrity of the towers

Only irrefutable to those that don't understand physics, how the towers were constructed, or what parts of a plane could damage the core columns. And fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If this area was damaged enough so that it would no longer be able to support the upper structure, it would collapse.

Sorry, but 14%-15% of the structure being damaged from the impacts is not enough to cause collapse. And fire has never caused a steel-structured highrise to collapse, so your points are all moot.

Originally posted by anon72
See, this is why I have stayed out of this fight.... just so confusing and I just can't comprehend our gov't have anything to do with any of the attack.

Why can't you comprehend it?

The military industrial complex concocted the Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war in Vietnam. I don't have to tell you how many lives were lost because of that fabrication, on both sides.

The military industrial complex concocted "Operation Northwoods" that would simulate terrorist attacks in the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad, blow up a jetliner allegedly carrying college students, falsify evidence and create mock funerals, all to be blamed on Cuba to gain sympathy from the world to go to war with Cuba. Although it was never carried out, just writing up the plan is illegal.

The military industrial complex concocted 9/11 to gain sympathy from the world to go to war in the name of "terror" and to further the agenda outlined in the "Project for a New American Century".

The military industrial complex concocted "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq to go to war in Iraq to further continue the agenda.

A little research into our history will show that our military industrial complex had a hand in many things.

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
You're right, it isn't.

Um, you didn't bother to watch the video all the way through, did you? A good portion of the structure below is still standing:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/968de98542ae.jpg[/atsimg]


That's the same portion that the upper portion was allegedly supposed to have crushed down. Oh, and this wasn't a steel structure either. So, not even comparable.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

What's that got to do with anything? The cores were relatively minutely damaged. NIST even says so on this point. NIST calculates that there was only 14%-15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure intact.

Minutely damaged? What a crock.

So tell us, what has Gage's group estimated the resultant load redistribution that resulted from the impacts? What is their estimated changes to strain % on the columns?

What? They haven't produced a single technical paper yet, in 4 years?

Guess they're spending all your money on travel expenses. But I'm sure that any day now, they'll get something constructive done.

Someday.

Someday.

Someday.

Someday.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Minutely damaged? What a crock.

Really? What's your source? Mine is NIST. And I don't even agree with their claims about how many core columns were damaged, but I'm still using them as a source.

The only parts of those jetliners that could damage the core columns were the engines and landing gear. That's not very many parts that can damage very many core columns.

Remember, NIST calculates that only 14%-15% of the structure in either tower was damaged. And most of that is the outer columns. That leaves very few core columns damaged. But NIST does estimate how many core columns are damaged in each tower.

I'll await your source that overrules NIST.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Knowing what parts of a jetliner can damage the core columns has nothing to do with dishonesty. It has to do with education, research, physics, logic.

Quoting NIST's own numbers has nothing to do with dishonesty, although NIST has a consistent history of that.

The only dishonest thing here is you made the claim that it was a "crock" that the cores were only minimally damaged and when asked for a source, you dodged.

Please provide a source or concede. Thanks.



[Mod Edit - removed auctioned quote]






[edit on 25/4/2010 by Sauron]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Please provide a source or concede. Thanks.

Please provide a technical paper that proves your point - that severing some columns will result in minute damage to the core's capacity.

So far, all I've seen is your own personal statement.

I have the NIST report to prove MY point that the severed columns severely altered the load paths, and stress and strain factors on the remaining columns.

Provide it, or concede your point.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Just as I thought. You don't have a source. It is only a "crock" to you in your opinion.

Needless to say, I asked you for a source first. You not only will not provide one, you tried to flip the conversation so that you wouldn't have to.

It's obvious you can't be taken seriously in a debate and that you'd rather play games. My entertaining you will cease at this point.






[edit on 15-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Just as I thought. You don't have a source. It is only a "crock" to you in your opinion.

My source is NIST. Perhaps you were unclear.

The report describes the changes in the building after impact. Only a dishonest person would characterize that as "minute".

But of course, you are free to provide any technical paper that dares to characterize the changes in the building as minute to back your claim. Without that, your "minute" claim deserves to be aptly described as vegetation that has been recycled through a male bovine....

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I'm going to make this real simple for you:

33 outer columns were damaged from the impacts. You can count the columns yourself in any image or video that shows the holes. That's 33 out of 236 outer columns which comes out to 14%. That leaves 86% of the outer columns intact and undamaged.

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged. That's 6-8 out of 47. We'll go with 7 since it's in the middle. 7 out of 47 comes out to 15% of the core columns were damaged leaving 85% of the core columns intact and undamaged.

Putting those two percentages together, you get 14.5% of the structure in each tower was damaged leaving 85.5% of the structure undamaged. That is minimal damage.

NIST's calculations on load distribution are just that: calculations and theories. You're taking their word at face-value without any fact-checking. You're using blind faith to take their word on their calculations.

Sorry, but I don't believe in blind faith.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

NIST estimates that 6-8 core columns were damaged.

Nope. Reread it.

NIST's calculations on load distribution are just that: calculations

Yep. And you have none that support your claim that the damage was "minute".

All you're doing here is an argument from incredulity. No backup AT ALL. Sure, you can disagree with the NIST report all you want. At least I have that to point to for evidence, theories, hypothesis, calculations, references to engineering standards, etc, that demolish your claim.

So far, you've provided ZERO. Only truthers will give your own personal incredulity any weight. If that's who you're trying to impress, rather than someone with the ability to convince the rational public at large that something is wrong with the NIST report, then you're welcome to continue chasing your tail there, sporto....