Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

Originally posted by ANOK
First off why are you arguing for pancake collapse when NIST does not support pancake collapse?

Because that is what we call a strawman argument.

That is NOT what NIST said at all. They sated specifically that collapse INITIATION was not because of a PANCAKE COLLAPSE. HOWEVER, the REST of the collapse, PAST the initiation point, WAS in fact a pancake/progressive collapse.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
First off why are you arguing for pancake collapse when NIST does not support pancake collapse?

Because that is what we call a strawman argument.

That is NOT what NIST said at all. They sated specifically that collapse INITIATION was not because of a PANCAKE COLLAPSE. HOWEVER, the REST of the collapse, PAST the initiation point, WAS in fact a pancake/progressive collapse.

Does the NIST report actually say that or do they allow everyone to ASSUME that?

What did they STATE SPECIFICALLY about that?

And what happened to the core columns and beams in the core during all of this pancaking? Did the floor assemblies break off the core or did the core come down simultaneously?

But then we don't know the distribution of steel in the core. We don't even know the length of horizontal steel in the core at every level. I have NEVER seen a layout for the horizontal beams.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK
First off why are you arguing for pancake collapse when NIST does not support pancake collapse?

Because that is what we call a strawman argument.

That is NOT what NIST said at all. They sated specifically that collapse INITIATION was not because of a PANCAKE COLLAPSE. HOWEVER, the REST of the collapse, PAST the initiation point, WAS in fact a pancake/progressive collapse.

Does the NIST report actually say that or do they allow everyone to ASSUME that?

What did they STATE SPECIFICALLY about that?

And what happened to the core columns and beams in the core during all of this pancaking? Did the floor assemblies break off the core or did the core come down simultaneously?

But then we don't know the distribution of steel in the core. We don't even know the length of horizontal steel in the core at every level. I have NEVER seen a layout for the horizontal beams.

psik

NIST actually stated that it was not a pancake. The pancake theory came from FEMA months after the collapse(as well as another document in 2005) and was the first organization to give an opinion on the collapse. FEMA did not state what initiated the collapse. Let me post a link AND the information to make it easy to find.

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

As you can see, the NIST findings do not support a pancake theory, which was proposed by FEMA.
If you would like some information on the construction, please check this site and you will find what you want i believe. I have included a few quotes to show how much steel and what different types were used.

911research.wtc7.net...

Fifty-five thousand tons including all exterior steel (columns and spandrels) from the ninth floor to the top-Pacific Car & Foundry Co., Seattle, Wash., $21,790,000.
Erecting the entire 192,000 tons of structural steel in the twin towers and the center's subgrade area-Karl Koch Erecting Co., Bronx, N.Y., $20 million.
Floor system-Laclede Steel Co., St. Louis, Mo., floor space trusses and miscellaneous steel, $6,650,000; Granite City Steel Co., Granite City, Ill., steel deck and power and telephone ducts, $1,889,000; arid Karl Koch Erecting Co., assembly and delivery of the deck panels combining the two components, $2.5 million.
In addition, officials awarded a $210,000 - 250,000 contract to the Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pa., to fabricate and erect the towers' aluminum curtain walls. Alcoa will assign the work to Cupples Products Corp., St. Louis. The contract includes 43,600 windows with 620,000 sq ft of glass and vermiculite plaster fireproofing on the interior face.

The towers' exterior columns are spaced at 40 inches c-c. They are 14-inch square hollow box sections, linked by 54-inch deep spandrels, and forming giant Vierendeel trusses in each wall face.

To maintain uniform column and spandrel dimensions, structural engineers Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson, of Seattle, specified a variety of steel strengths and sections to resist varying stresses throughout the frame.

There will be 12 different steels, ranging from A36 with a 36,000-psi yield strength to heat-treated steel with a yield of 100,000 psi.

Pacific Car & Foundry will pre-fabricate the wall elements in 5,828 panels, generally 10 ft by 36 ft, with the heaviest panel weighing 22 tons. Because of the exterior's key structural role, fabrication will require closely controlled and involved welding procedures.

Clear span of the 33-inch deep floor trusses, to be fabricated of high-strength, low-alloy steels, will be as much as 60 ft from the exterior columns to the core columns. Two or more will be preassembled with steel deck and erected as a unit. Corrugated metal formwork at the top chord will permit pouring the floor slabs without additional formwork.


AND

Heavyweights. The two towers alone will weigh more than 1 million tons. Contributing to this weight will be more than 200,000 pieces of structural steel (some weighing up to 54 tons each), 208 high-speed elevators, 50,000 telephones, 7,000 plumbing fixtures and 40,000 doors.

But of all the components, none will be more conspicuous than the 43,600 aluminum curtain wall panels that cover the exterior structural steel and support more than 43,000 narrow, bronzed-glass windows.

AND for distribution, your question on vertical beams, this explains the how and why it was designed

Because of the great length of the columns, the difference in shortening of the exterior and interior columns under gravity loads could cause undesirable floor slopes. For example, a 1,400-ft-long column of A36 steel will shorten 8 inches under a design stress of 15,000 psi. The same column when made of heat-treated, low-alloy steel would shorten 24 inches under a design stress of 45,000 psi.

Assume that A36 steel is used for core columns and high-strength steel for wall columns and that these columns are not loaded until the entire structure is completed, a situation clearly not possible to achieve in practice. Assume further that each floor is constructed level. Then, after application of the load, at the top of the building the core columns will compress 8 inches and the wall columns 24 inches. Hence, the top floor will slope downward 16 inches.

But in practice, this extreme can't happen, because the loads go on the columns as the floors are completed. With each floor constructed level, there will be no differential shortening of columns and hence no floor slope at the top. The largest differential shortening will occur about 0.6 of the way up the building and be about 6 inches. Even this smaller floor slope, however, is objectionable.

To eliminate the undesirable floor warpage, WSHJ decided to design all the columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads. The excess capacity of the exterior columns, then, can be used to resist moments and shears due to hurricane winds.

Over about half the building, steels in the yield-point range from 42,000 to 65,000 psi will suffice for the wall columns. In the lower portion of the building, heat-treated, low-alloy steels will be needed. At the base, where large columns can be used, a lower-yield-point steel will again be satisfactory.

Please give it a read. thanks.,

Originally posted by FDNY343

Because that is what we call a strawman argument.

No it isn't.

That is NOT what NIST said at all. They sated specifically that collapse INITIATION was not because of a PANCAKE COLLAPSE. HOWEVER, the REST of the collapse, PAST the initiation point, WAS in fact a pancake/progressive collapse.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

Try to spin it anyway you want, it's in black and white from the NIST facts sheet.

They don't even mention the collapse after the initiation, so how can you claim they said anything?

They lied when they said conclusively that failure of bowed columns caused the collapse, where is the conclusive evidence?

Bazant tried to explain the collapses, but that explanation fails also because the evidence does not support pancake collapse. For a building to pancake all the mass is needed, when most of it is ejected outwards there is not enough mass to cause a pancake collapse. We know the majority of the mass was ejected because there is nothing left in the footprint.

This is what a pancake collapse looks like...



Floors intact pancaked in the footprint. The floors can not pancake themselves, and destroy each other at the same time, the laws of motion, that you keep ignoring, explains this clearly.

Sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to. Trusses would sag when hot because they have nowhere else to go. Steel expands when heated, that expansion has to go somewhere, if they had the energy to pull columns in then they would have pushed them out when they expanded. They couldn't do either, that is why they sagged down. No extra force was put on the columns they were attached to.

To go from truss failure to core column failure is a stretch beyond imagination. And then to go on and claim complete failure was then inevitable is stupid beyond sense.

You are creating a strawman with your pancake collapse nonsense that the laws of motion contradict.

Originally posted by esdad71

NIST actually stated that it was not a pancake. The pancake theory came from FEMA months after the collapse(as well as another document in 2005) and was the first organization to give an opinion on the collapse. FEMA did not state what initiated the collapse. Let me post a link AND the information to make it easy to find.

wtc.nist.gov...

I knew that and I have seen and read that page before.

The bottom line is that there is no official explanation for how the buildings could come down much less so fast. I say it is impossible without sources of energy and destruction beside plane impact and fire.

www.youtube.com...

Structures strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD for 30 years would have either ARRESTED THE DYNAMIC LOAD or made it fall down the side by offering too much resistance. Falling down the side is certainly what should have happened to the top of the south tower.

Please give it a read. thanks.,

I have seen it before. That does not tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level of the towers. The Official Story depends on the top of the north tower being able to come straight down and supposedly destroy everything beneath. Just doing a conservation of momentum analysis means needing to know the mass level by level.

Computing the energy required to collapse each level of the core means needing to know about the columns in the core at every level. The NIST should have been able to figure it out it wasn't possible in SIX MONTHS. I bet the energy required to collapse the core from 90 to 60 was greater then the kinetic energy of a 12 story fall of the top 20 stories.

psik

reply to post by conar


Alright, for about the millionth freakin time, that's the wrong simulation of the WTC 7 collapse. NIST did 2, count em, 2 simulations. One was with no damage to the building, and one was with the damage taken into consideration. When the damage was factored in, the damage to the corner and the south face damage caused the building to crumple near the base and go straight down rather than warping considerably.

Just thought you should know that. I'm tired of seeing this mistake made repeatedly.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackrThat is BULLSH#!!!

Just because the mass increases does not mean the momentum or kinetic energy increase.

LOL!! Yes, actually it does.

If something is traveling at 1 kph, and it weighs 1 kg, it has a KE of .5 joules.

If something is traveling at 1 kph, and it weighs 2 kg, it has a KE of 1 joule.

www.csgnetwork.com...

Simple really.

In the context psikeyhackr was referring to, which was a traveling mass suddenly increasing in mass, the KE would remain unchanged. He was correct.

reply to post by Azp420


The kinetic energy (Ek) of a moving object will increase if it's mass (m) or velocity (v) increases.

The equation for calculating kinetic energy in Newtonian mechanics is shown below.

Ek = 1/2 m x v2

Where it can be seen that variations in mass have a much smaller effect on kinetic energy than variations in velocity.


Again, you guys have no concept of basic physics....

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Actually, the link I gave you provided the types of steel, the weight of the steel, the weight of office equipment, etc, and this is from when it was being built. It is from the contracts that were signed for the building of the WTC, Not someone trying to figure it out. You have all of the evidence you need to create what you need now from multiple sources.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Azp420

 

The kinetic energy (Ek) of a moving object will increase if it's mass (m) or velocity (v) increases.

The equation for calculating kinetic energy in Newtonian mechanics is shown below.

Ek = 1/2 m x v2

Where it can be seen that variations in mass have a much smaller effect on kinetic energy than variations in velocity.

Again, you guys have no concept of basic physics....

It is amazing how so many people can confuse mathematics with physics. And then they can switch modes and believe that mathematics is MORE IMPORTANT THAN PHYSICS. Sure your equation for kinetic energy is correct. But int the real world how can the mass of an object just INCREASE? Where does the mass come from? What is the velocity of the new mass when they merge. Reality functions in certain ways and is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics. Mathematics is in your head. You can do any stupid thing with it that you want. Reality will not care.

Now this subject in general is about the WTC towers and the top portion of WTC ! or 2 falling on the STATIONARY MASS below. So any increase in mass comes from merging a mass with some velocity with mass having ZERO VELOCITY. So at the very least the conservation of momentum comes into play and the increased mass is slowed down.

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3

Since the stationary mass has ZERO VELOCITY v2 = 0.

m1v1 = (m1 + m2) * v3

So the increase mass reduces the velocity in proportion to the change in mass.

But in this case there is also the energy loss due to crushing the supports that were holding the stationary mass. Consequently we have:

www.youtube.com...

Where is the model that has increasing mass of a self supporting structure accelerating all of the way to the bottom? So are these people with their grossly defective mathematical physics doing it deliberately to keep anyone that doesn't know better confused? Considering that 9/11 should involve so many engineering schools how the hell has it gone on for NINE YEARS? Some people must be lying and some people are remaining silent about it.

psik

First, there is no confusion with Mathematics and Physics, but I find it funny how you berate mathematics yet you then use it in your post. So, now you have thrown out the use of Mathematics in Physics, huh. The mass was slowed down but it did not stop it. This should not be difficult to grasp. You stated something that was incorrect so I posted an equation.

This video shows what you are asking.

www.youtube.com.../u/31/bMZ-nkYr46w

1. The WTC did not have inner or outer columns reinforced with concrete as just about every building has.This was a major factor.
2. It did not fall straight down. Both towers titled during the collapse. So the video you posted with the washer is not accurate on many accounts.
3. The top floors did not simply fall and match the area of the lower floors which would apply closer the 3rd law of motion but If the force provided by the upper floors started out small, built up to a maximum, and finally was reduced, then the push back by the other on the one would start out small, build to a maximum, and reduce. As it did, it increased in mass as it started to hit the lower floors and collect them eventually collapsing the building.


Also, I have watched the video that you posted. How does that show that the laws of physics were not applied on 9/11? The WTC was not built out of washers.

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, I have watched the video that you posted. How does that show that the laws of physics were not applied on 9/11? The WTC was not built out of washers.

Ryan Mackey explained modeling but he didn't actually build a model.

It was built out of material with MASS.

Didn't you use MASS in your kinetic energy equation?

My falling washers had to accelerate the stationary washers and the paper loops had to be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD. The physical principles are the same and obvious. Some people want to obfuscate the obvious and that is why this nonsense has dragged on for NINE YEARS.

The cell phone calls are irrelevant to the collapse. The broken top of the south tower tilted significantly. The mystery is why it did not fall down the side of the lower portion.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I commend you for your model, however, it does not fit. Now, if you were teaching a high/middle school class that would be an effective way to show your idea. However, the towers did not fall straight down like the pancake models insists.

Now, take your test and move the top washers to the side a few mm, then release them and let them hit. Do they stop falling? No, because of gravitational pull. PArt of the 'mass' that is falling does not hit the structure to stop it and it continues to gain momentum as it falls. They also fall away from each other like the upper part of both towers.

reply to post by esdad71


Notice I mentioned context and talked about a traveling mass suddenly increasing in mass (obviously we are referring to the top section impacting lower floors and collecting mass).

For it to collect this extra mass velocity must decrease, conserving momentum. Psikeyhackr went into a bit more detail as to how to calculate it.

Please don't try to school me on momentum, on just the last page I pointed out the flaws you made with regards to conservation of momentum. It seems you still don't get it.

KE will also be conserved due to this decrease in velocity and increase in mass.

Again, you guys have no concept of basic physics....

Engineer here baby, perhaps it is you that is wrong?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It is amazing how so many people can confuse mathematics with physics.

Yeap, just because someone can google an equation, doesn't mean they know how to apply it.

reply to post by esdad71

1. The WTC did not have inner or outer columns reinforced with concrete as just about every building has.This was a major factor.

This was not a major factor. Steel columns are not reinforced with concrete. Concrete columns are reinforced with steel. Stronger materials reinforce weaker materials, not the other way around. I don't know where you got "just about every building" from.

2. It did not fall straight down. Both towers titled during the collapse. So the video you posted with the washer is not accurate on many accounts.

The majority of the collapses seemed pretty straight down to me. Only when it looked like one of the top sections was about to lean over and fall off on its own (before mysteriously balancing itself out) was there major tilt.

3. The top floors did not simply fall and match the area of the lower floors which would apply closer the 3rd law of motion but If the force provided by the upper floors started out small, built up to a maximum, and finally was reduced, then the push back by the other on the one would start out small, build to a maximum, and reduce.

Not sure what that reference to the third law of motion is but all traveling objects must adhere to it, not just closely but completely.

I think what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that lean caused the contact area to be small therefore the force is larger. If that is so, then the word you are looking for is pressure, not force. The force would remain the same no matter how big or small the area it was applied to.

Here comes a fact. During the period you are referring to, the average force applied by the top section to the lower section was lower than the average force the top section applied to the lower section when the top section was stationary (before collapse).

reply to post by esdad71

However, the towers did not fall straight down like the pancake models insists.

Care to go into detail about the mode of collapse you believe to be the case? Or are your beliefs based on faith alone?

Now, take your test and move the top washers to the side a few mm, then release them and let them hit. Do they stop falling? No, because of gravitational pull. PArt of the 'mass' that is falling does not hit the structure to stop it and it continues to gain momentum as it falls. They also fall away from each other like the upper part of both towers.

This would have no effect. The force applied to each level would still be the same.

reply to post by Azp420


Well, even if each floor decreases the velocity of the impacting portion, each collapsed floor would allow a space for generation of the same energy that allowed the first floor destruction, except that since it was only slowed down, not stopped, it has more energy than normal, wouldn't it? It seems to me that especially the added weight from mass would allow for a quicker failure of support from the successively lower floors.

reply to post by Varemia


Yes, as I stated previously, the increase in KE comes from accelerations between floors, not from additions of mass at impacts. Keep in mind however, that it was not a pancake collapse, therefore KE had to be converted between floors into the energy required to fail the columns. This makes the fact I dropped in my previous post even more of a bombshell.

except that since it was only slowed down, not stopped, it has more energy than normal, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by more energy than normal?

reply to post by Azp420


More energy than if it had just released potential energy while at rest. I understand that it wasn't a pancake collapse, and actually really difficult to envision due to the obvious incongruity of the collapse from the videos. You can see some parts appear to be collapsing faster than others, and it was definitely collapsing on the interior before the exterior ejected.

reply to post by Varemia


If it gained more kinetic energy than the gravitational potential energy it had while at rest that is indicative of another source to supply that extra energy, (eg explosives).

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by Varemia

 

If it gained more kinetic energy than the gravitational potential energy it had while at rest that is indicative of another source to supply that extra energy, (eg explosives).

I don't see what you mean. I was just explaining how because it was already in motion with generated momentum that it would have the extra energy. Explosives don't supply extra energy. They pre-weaken supports, which was not necessary for this collapse.

reply to post by Varemia

I was just explaining how because it was already in motion with generated momentum that it would have the extra energy.

Extra energy than what? I don't mean to be rude but perhaps you should learn about conservation of energy principles to have this conversation.

Explosives don't supply extra energy. They pre-weaken supports, which was not necessary for this collapse.

If explosives supply the energy to pre-weaken supports (weakening and destroying supports requires energy) then that is energy which would otherwise come out of the available KE.