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

Heiwa has been saying that on JREF for who knows how long.

Here is a demonstration:

www.youtube.com...

The problem with using basic physics here is that the towers were not a couple of cardboard boxes, they were complex structures. You can't expect buildings that large to hold together when they begin to tip.

What happened to the WTC was basic Newtonian physics. The problem with comparing the physics of HUGE Massive objects like the WTC to small objects that can fit in your house is that the strength to weight ratio increases as objects of the same material get smaller. So making a model with mass to demonstrate the inertial effects of a collapse while making it weak enough to collapse at all but strong enough to support its own weight is a serious modeling problem. Originally I could not think of a way to do it.

The 33 washers weigh 3.5 pounds at 1.7 oz each so that provides the inertia. That structure must support more weight toward the bottom so the strength is designed to vary. The top 11 loops of paper are single loops. The next 17 are double loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops. I have tried using a paper punch to weaken the loops to make a finer gradient but no luck so far. Punching holes doesn't make a gradual decline but a sudden one.

Because all of the strength is in the paper and all of the weight is in the washers this model is still different from a real skyscraper where increasing strength means more steel which means more weight.

But in this model the upper falling block is crushable and therefore absorbs some of its own kinetic energy in the impact. The falling mass must overcome the inertia of the stationary washers to accelerate them downward and crush the supporting paper loops.

So this model is more like the real thing than anything else I have seen so far. Theoretically a computer model could be better but if a computer model collapsed completely I would be looking for the lie in the math or the code. There is no mathematics or code to be incorrect in my model. It is less than $30 and anyone that wants to take the time can duplicate it. The more people that do the better.

psik

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK
How many more times do I have to explain the problem of the symmetry of the collapses?

Once, with some engineering reports as backup would be great. All anyone's seen is your statements of personal incredulity as your backup. LMAO....

Laugh on mate...

I find it equally hilarious that you need engineering reports to understand basic physics.

Symmetry/Asymmetry in a system is one of the first things you learn in Engineering school. You cannot have symmetry from chaos. For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse.

Show me ANY building that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this phenomena. From my own research only 3 buildings have ever done this, can you guess which ones? Even buildings in the same complex that suffered far more damage (than WTC7) did not symmetrically globally collapse, only suffered partial collapse which is expected.

[edit on 4/22/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.

Is it too ridiculous to expect the NIST to tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers?

Is it too much too expect them to tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level?

So your position is BELIEVE WHATEVER AUTHORITY TELLS YOU even if they leave out simple and obvious information? Have you downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and tried to see if it made any sense? How much did the south tower deflect when the airliner impacted at 550 mph? How much does one complete floor assembly weigh? We are approaching NINE YEARS with this nonsense and simple data can't be found.

Why haven't the people who claim to know physics been demanding it? Do schools really just produce people that go along with whatever program because it is the only way anyone can put up with 16 years of that crap?

psik

Once, with some engineering reports as backup
would be great. All anyone's seen is your statements of personal incredulity as your backup. LMAO....

Laugh on mate...

I find it equally hilarious that you need engineering reports to understand basic physics.

That is the real problem with this issue.

The people that need AUTHORITY to tell them what to think versus the people that can think for themselves about a relatively simple problem.

But isn't it our educational system that produced all of these conformists? Isn't it the educational system that is supposed to teach Newtonian physics?

Are our engineering schools about to admit that they have made fools of themselves for the last EIGHT YEARS?

psik

Originally posted by ANOK

Laugh on mate...

I do. Every time that you respond with your arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

I find it equally hilarious that you need engineering reports to understand basic physics.

Says the guy that had to be schooled by another truther about how objects accelerating at less than freefall are indeed encountering resistance.

Symmetry/Asymmetry in a system is one of the first things you learn in Engineering school.

Then maybe you should go take a class.

You cannot have symmetry from chaos.

On the contrary. Chaos means zero directional input. Now, if it is steered one way or another, that indicates there may be artifical inputs.

For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously

Only if you're going to argue (from ignorance again) that the towers should have fallen monolithically. However, the educated amongst us realize that when the individual parts - such as columns, floor pans, etc - become dis-connected, that these pieces respond to their own particular set of inputs.

Which means that the pieces may indeed be falling assymetrically, but the sum of the whole seems to be symmetric.

otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse

There was resistance. You've been humiliated on this point already.

and would cause the building to either stop collapsing

Agreed, if there is enough resistance.

or fall to the path of least resistance

Or in the direction of the only available input - namely, gravity.

But individual, non-connected pieces did just that, thus satisfying this expectation. Or are you advocating that 100% of the debris must fall off the side?

Show me ANY building that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this phenomena. From my own research only 3 buildings have ever done this

None of them collapsed symmetrically. This is a truther lie that is used by charlatans within the truth movement to bolster their statements, and believed by the gullible/uneducated.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Isn't it the educational system that is supposed to teach Newtonian physics?

Let's get your input on something.

ANOK has stated before - and I can get the quotes if necessary to prove this - that the fact that the collapse front progressed at less than freefall acceleration does NOT mean that it was encountering resistance.

To the contrary, he has stated that less than frefall acceleration means nothing, and that it had ZERO, NONE, NADA, resistance to the collapse front.

He was corrected by another truther on this issue, and after an appropriate time of avoiding posting here to bury his humiliation, he is back posting, but avoids that particular hilarity.

Now, since he's obviously so staggeringly incorrect, should ANYONE be listening to anything he says about physics?

Don't you agree that his knowledge is in question?

ANOK has stated before - and I can get the quotes if necessary to prove this - that the fact that the collapse front progressed at less than freefall acceleration does NOT mean that it was encountering resistance.

To the contrary, he has stated that less than frefall acceleration means nothing, and that it had ZERO, NONE, NADA, resistance to the collapse front.

Don't you agree that his knowledge is in question?

If a falling mass is moving at less than freefall acceleration then it must be encountering some resistance.

But Einstein made a mistake with the cosmological constant.

super.colorado.edu...

Does that mean we should ignore everything else he said?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Is it too much too expect them to tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level?

Eight years, the blueprints are online, if you can't come up with this yourself by now then telling you isn't going to mean anything.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I do. Every time that you respond with your arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

Nice!

Says the guy that had to be schooled by another truther about how objects accelerating at less than freefall are indeed encountering resistance.

Huh? When did this happen? And you're wrong, or they were wrong.
Again it's the symmetry of the collapses, not the speed, that shows there was no resistance, again you fail to understand basic physics. If the buildings had any resistance to the collapse they would have not been symmetrical or global. Do I have to explain why again?

Then maybe you should go take a class.

I have a 2 year degree in engineering fundamentals from City & Guilds of London, a 2 year certificate in mechanical drawing, I have many years of mechanical engineering experience including 6 years working on jet engines as a certified 'I' level mechanic. Now what schooling have you had?

On the contrary. Chaos means zero directional input. Now, if it is steered one way or another, that indicates there may be artifical inputs.

It was steered straight down through the path of most resistance. Chaos means a collapse that is not controlled, and once again how do you get a symmetrical collapse with no resistance from chaos? That only happens in 'controlled' demolitions. And once again I offer you the chance to prove me wrong, show me another building that contradicts what I'm saying.

Only if you're going to argue (from ignorance again) that the towers should have fallen monolithically. However, the educated amongst us realize that when the individual parts - such as columns, floor pans, etc - become dis-connected, that these pieces respond to their own particular set of inputs.

Will you quit calling me ignorant please, you are just making yourself look foolish.

I never said how it should have fell, because it shouldn't have fell in the first place, especially 'monolithically' [sic]. So smarty pants can you EXPLAIN how all those individual parts could become dis-connected [sic]. And what does 'respond to their own particular set of inputs' mean?

There was resistance. You've been humiliated on this point already.

You keep saying this but I have already proved there was no resistance.
If there was resistance the collapses would not have been symmetrical.

Unless you can show me that there can be symmetry through a complete collapse if there is resistance in the system then you have no argument.

Or in the direction of the only available input - namely, gravity.

Oh noes not the gravity argument. Now I'm going to call you ignorant, because really that is.

But individual, non-connected pieces did just that, thus satisfying this expectation. Or are you advocating that 100% of the debris must fall off the side?

There is no expectation as to how the resistance would have effected the collapse, only that it would and it didn't, obviously.

None of them collapsed symmetrically. This is a truther lie that is used by charlatans within the truth movement to bolster their statements, and believed by the gullible/uneducated.

No you are the one lying, or just talking from ignorance, because it's VERY obvious the collapses were symmetrical. Denying it does not make it go away. Again you can prove me wrong by showing me a picture of the non-symmetrical part of the collapses you seem to think exists.

To argue the collapses were not symmetrical really just proves you are not arguing from knowledge, but from the 'ignorance and incredulity' you accuse me of. You also prove to me you don't read what is being said without adding your own assumptions and bias about what the poster is thinking.

I've given you two chances to prove yourself, and me wrong, good luck!

[edit on 4/23/2010 by ANOK]

Awesome response folks. Please remember to Flag and Star. It draws attention to the thread. I want people to read your replies and thoughts.

I am learning a ton of stuff and being educated at the same time. Yes, two different things at once.

This is why I love ATS.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
ANOK has stated before - and I can get the quotes if necessary to prove this - that the fact that the collapse front progressed at less than freefall acceleration does NOT mean that it was encountering resistance.

To the contrary, he has stated that less than frefall acceleration means nothing, and that it had ZERO, NONE, NADA, resistance to the collapse front.

He was corrected by another truther on this issue, and after an appropriate time of avoiding posting here to bury his humiliation, he is back posting, but avoids that particular hilarity.

Sorry but you are wrong! I never said 'the fact that the collapse front progressed at less than freefall acceleration does NOT mean that it was encountering resistance'.

I was never corrected by anyone. If I missed a post to me it doesn't mean I ignored it because I couldn't answer it. I probably ignored it because it was stupid I don't know. But guess what mate, BRING IT ON!

Please show me the quote that you took out of context to come to that conclusion. I'll address any point you have as I have done so far. If I'm wrong according to this other mystery poster then why have I just schooled you again? Why didn't this posters amazing debunking of my claims help you here?

The problem is you are all taking 'free-fall' too literally. Yes less than free-fall means there was at least air resistance. But when it comes to a building collapse the resistance should be MASSIVE, so a few seconds less than free-fall speed does not equate to resistance in the system that should have been there. The symmetry shows that there was no resistance from the buildings structure, as that resistance cannot be symmetrical unless controlled. Any slowing was not from building resistance but the timing of the 'explosives'. You are arguing from a very pedestrian definition of the term 'resistance' and not putting it in context to a building collapse.

Again the discussion is directed away from the point to argue the use of a basic term. So now hopefully you understand my use of the term 'resistance' you will re-think what I have said?

[edit on 4/23/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Is it too much too expect them to tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level?

Eight years, the blueprints are online, if you can't come up with this yourself by now then telling you isn't going to mean anything.

Dude, you can claim something is there all you want. The contracts say the steel for the exterior wall panels from the 9th floor to the top weighed 27,500 tons on each building. But there were 5,800 of these panels. We only know that the heaviest was 22 tons. We do not know how many different weights there were or where the transitions occurred up the building.

What was that $22,000,000 of taxpayer money given to the NIST for?

We don't have data on the beams connecting the core columns either.

But we are supposed to believe the top 12% of the north tower could fall and crush everything below and accelerate at an average of more than 0.5 G to come down in less than 18 seconds but you say it's OK for the government to leave out simple information. Oh sure, anybody that is not as gullible as you has a problem.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up and there are lots of skyscrapers around the world. So it shouldn't be that complicated or difficult. But it is like a guild secret. I haven't found the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level for any skyscraper.

Since gravity works the same way everywhere I would suspect the variations among different buildings are not that great. But I also think that top down collapse is IMPOSSIBLE in any skyscraper that has proven it can stand more than 5 years.

Do you think people with masters degrees in physics know how to read blueprints that complicated. I didn't know what a dead load was when I started searching the NCSTAR1 report. But I found that $22,000,000 report neve specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers. But it specifies the total for the steel in THREE PLACES. Now what is the reason for that inconsistency?

Since skyscrapers must withstand the wind and sway due to the impact the distribution of mass must be studied. The NIST report says that models of the towers were wind tunnel tested from 16 different directions before construction was even begun. The distributions of steel and concrete had to be approximately determined before the blueprints were ever drawn. So why don't we have it now?

Try finding the weight of one of those floor assemblies that they have been arging about pancaking or not pancaking.

psik

[edit on 23-4-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by ANOK
But when it comes to a building collapse the resistance should be MASSIVE, so a few seconds less than free-fall speed does not equate to resistance in the system that should have been there.

This is where you're going off the rails.

Your whole argument boils down to this:

It fell too fast.

Now, show us all the engineering paper that backs this statement.

You ain't got one.....

Your whole symmetry argument is hilarious though, so keep on repeating it, cuz as I noted above, I laugh every time I read it.....

Originally posted by ANOK

Says the guy that had to be schooled by another truther about how objects accelerating at less than freefall are indeed encountering resistance.

And you're wrong, or they were wrong.

Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs ANOK.

Your repeating this is just...... so very illustrative of why the TM never goes anywhere.

It fell too fast.

Now, show us all the engineering paper that backs this statement.

Provide us with a link to the engineering paper that tells us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on each level.

Frank Greening has a 32 page paper where he supposedly calculated the Potential Energy of the building.

www.911myths.com...

But Frank has a little problem on page 3 where he divides the TOTAL MASS of the building by 110. That means he is assuming the same mass on every level. Skyscrapers must be bottom heavy.

On top of that he should have divided by 116 because there were 6 basement levels. Don't you think the foundation of a skyscraper is going to have more steel and concrete than the top 6 levels? Do you need a PhD in physics and a masters in structural engineering to figure that out?

That is the absurd thing about this business. Experts are hiding so much information and yet pretending that distribution of mass is unimportant in such a trivial problem. And then most people believe crap that ridiculous.

Airliner with 34 tons of jet fuel weighing less than 200 tons TOTALLY DESTROYS skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than 2 hours.

By the way, the skyscraper deflected less than 16 inches when the plane impacted at 550 mph. You don't hear that often very often. That was a truly feeble building.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It fell too fast.

Now, show us all the engineering paper that backs this statement.

Provide us with a link to the engineering paper......

So you can't help your brutha out?

Too bad, he needs some....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Provide us with a link to the engineering paper......

So you can't help your brutha out?

Too bad, he needs some....

ROFLMAO

Leaving out part of a quote to change the meaning is really hilarious when people can just look up a little to see the original statement.

Why can't you provide a link to some engineering report of this supposed gravitational collapse that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?

psik

[edit on 24-4-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Why can't you provide a link to some engineering report of this supposed gravitational collapse that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?

It was explained to you already at JREF that the estimates by Greening are close enough, and exactly why giving a more exact figure doesn't alter the results significantly.

You have no cogent rebuttal to this. You cannot explain why a more precise figure is needed. My prediction is that you will continue to spam the nearly same post over and over about the amount of weight per floor that got you banned for spammong at JREF.

Don't worry, you;ve found a home here. You won't get banned for asking the same stupid question over and over again.

Meanwhile..... ANOK has made a roundabout claim that the towers fell too fast. He claims that the symmetry is evidence of explosives.

But he can't come up with a paper that states what the collapse times should have been.

Therefore, his claim is based on nothing.

Ergo, his claim is based in ignorance.....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But he can't come up with a paper that states what the collapse times should have been.

Therefore, his claim is based on nothing.

Ergo, his claim is based in ignorance.....

Once again you make untrue claims about me, what is wrong with you?

I have NO idea what the collapse times should have been, AND NEITHER DO YOU. Why do you need a paper to understand basic physics?

My claim is based on known physics, unless you learn yourself to understand basic physics then you will never understand what I'm saying.

All you have is Greening, who the hell is he? Why did NIST not include his amazing paper in their report? You might fall for his so called 'paper', because you like to appeal to authority but it proves nothing because, just like NIST, it starts with an assumption that can't be proved and if it didn't happen make the whole hypothesis mute...

We consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building, followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance h f = one floor height = 3.7 meters.

How could anyone know that happened? Without that 'failure of crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building' the rest of the paper is BS.

We will use this law for the non-elastic collision where the colliding masses essentially merge into a single mass that continues to descend. For the simplest case of one floor collapsing onto an identical floor,

Why don't you ask Greening about the top of WTC2 and how the top went from angular momentum, and falling into the path of least resistance, into falling straight down through the path most resistance?

And please show us all where this merged single block fell and crushed the rest of the structure? It is quit obvious the top was turning to dust before it even had a chance to crush anything?

Watch this very closely and note how the top acts...



And again here a video showing the same thing...

www.youtube.com...

Your whole hypothesis hangs on unprovable assumptions that don't add up when you really look at the visual evidence. If you can't see the obvious I'm done discussing this with you....

It was explained to you already at JREF that the estimates by Greening are close enough, and exactly why giving a more exact figure doesn't alter the results significantly.

Really? Close enough to what? Do you have a precedence to support the claims being 'close enough'. I'll take a bet you don't even understand those figures...

[edit on 4/24/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

I have NO idea what the collapse times should have been

Thx for making my point for me, yet again.



You have jusy proven for all to see that when you claim that the resistance should have been "massive" abd should have fallen slower, that you are in fact making a statement from ignorance.

Sorry for the typos, but I'm laughing so hard at the hilarity of atruther pooing all over himself that my eyes are watering up...