Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
It might be useful to establish who here believes the perimeters and one floor diaphragm could support the STATIC mass of 10-15 stories as rubble. A dumpster in the sky.

Even IF they couldn't, as I have explained, the falling floors would be 'disintegrated' along with the static floors. So the falling floors would all be 'disintegrated' before the static floors could all be 'disintegrated'.

Regardless of the strength of the connections, as the connections were the same for the falling floors and static floors. There is no reason only the static floors connections would fail leaving the falling floors connections undamaged.

The OS does not address equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws.

Originally posted by ANOK
mass was being lost

What? Surely I did not just read this. Now, I think we may be able to say that some people here are crazy. What happened to conservation of mass? Did you forget?! While some of the concrete and most of the sheet-rock will pulverize into the air, the rest of the building will not. It will remain solid, even if in smaller pieces, and maintain a weight on the floors below. To insinuate that a great deal of the mass was lost is just... I don't even have a word for it.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch


OK so what are you claiming then, because what you show contradicts the NIST report, and the OSers claims of pancake collapse?

Are you a 'truther', I thought you were an 'OSer', I apologize if I got you confused.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

I guess you seem to think I'm a rigid blockhead. I'm not. I know damn well the top experienced a faster rate of crush* than the bottom immediately after initiation.

* I also know that "crush" can be perceived as a loaded term. A more neutral term would be "disintegrate".

Use whatever term you're happy with, its just semantics. Deformation is a better term. I like crushed because it's more generic term that covers deformation and disintegration. It's not a deal breaker lol.

Cool. You'd be surprised at how many people do view it as a deal breaker. I use it in a generic sense, too, and it's only five letters to type.

So if the falling floors were being 'disintegrated', then how did they have the energy and mass to continue 'disintegrating' 95 more floors?

Again, disintegrated does not mean gone. The debris still has mass, momentum, kinetic energy. In order to arrest, the debris contained within the footprint and moving must be brought to rest. If a floor can bring it to rest, naturally it can support the static load. So the issue is dissipating the existing KE.

'Disintegration' means Ke was being lost, mass was being lost.

Let's look more closely. KE is lost through crushing. Where is it written that all of it must be lost in any arbitrary collision? Nowhere. It has so much KE at a given instant, and it loses an amount in fracturing, deformation, even inelastic collisions which leave the colliding bodies fully intact. But does it lose it all? And, if the impacted lower member fails, won't it drop and gain more? Yes, it will. The issue boils down to the rate of PE loss versus rate of KE dissipation to all factors.

The only way mass is lost is for it to get outside the footprint. And down the core, if you're only concerned with loading on the floor slabs.

Ke converting to heat, sound and deformation means the energy to continue 'crushing' more floors is reduce.

Yes.

Once that Ke is gone its gone, no more energy to keep 'disintegrating' more floors.

You presume that the only action occurring is decrementing the KE because of these dissipative factors. Unless the descending mass is stopped completely, it continues to lose elevation, therefore potential energy, and that goes directly to KE and must then subsequently be dissipated in order to arrest.

The only way to regain that Ke is another outside energy source feeding it, something that was not investigated for.

No. The energy source is gravitational PE. You can quibble about rates of energy change from one form to another, but you can't simply ignore PE. Allegedly, that's what's driving this. It is an enormous amount.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

OK so what are you claiming then, because what you show contradicts the NIST report, and the OSers claims of pancake collapse?

Are you a 'truther', I thought you were an 'OSer', I apologize if I got you confused.

Let me answer this first. Work is rearing its ugly head and fun time is over for me right now.

It's not an easy question to answer. Oh, it's easy to answer, just hard to explain. I'm agnostic on CD. I don't believe a clever CD can necessarily be distinguished on the basis of mechanics. A stupid CD, sure.

On the matter of the bigger picture of 9/11 being an inside job... it stinks. It stinks a lot. Personally, I know of no solid proof of anything. I know the 9/11 Commission Report reads like a bad TV treatment. Truly some shameful ****. NIST reports are very impressive bodies of work for the cash spent, but I've seen first hand a number of critical errors. Really big ones. I have no use for their physics simulations of WTC7.

And the US government is a piece of ****, but I knew that before 9/11.

I'm more content to say I don't know what happened and probably never will.

CD is a sticky issue, though. It's the rallying point for skeptics of the official story because it promises a means to nail a verdict by way of physical laws as opposed to hearsay, incomplete information and subjective coloring. Unfortunately, after several years of study, I found the trail for that, which led down the rabbit hole, terminates in ambiguity.

You should judge me by what I say, not what side I may be on. Most of my discussion buddies on the topic are truthers because they're motivated to study the subject even if for different reasons. There are only a handful of OSers who have that much interest, notable amongst them Greening and Benson. I've worked with them informally in the past.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
mass was being lost

What? Surely I did not just read this. Now, I think we may be able to say that some people here are crazy. What happened to conservation of mass? Did you forget?! While some of the concrete and most of the sheet-rock will pulverize into the air, the rest of the building will not. It will remain solid, even if in smaller pieces, and maintain a weight on the floors below. To insinuate that a great deal of the mass was lost is just... I don't even have a word for it.

Oh not this again and again and again. This has been explained to you many many times.

Conservation of mass? Stop, I don't buy into your crap that all the mass stayed in the footprint until the end, when it all magically spread itself in a 360d arc around the towers.

Conversation of mass states that mass cannot be created nor destroyed, it doesn't mean it can't be 'disintegrated' and moved somewhere else lol.

We KNOW the majority of the mass was not in the footprints post collapse. Where are the steel floor pans? It is a ridiculous claim you have to stick to in order to argue against the facts of what we observe during, and post collapse.

I will add that, amongst my truther buddies (who frankly are amongst the sharpest knives in the worldwide drawer), smart money is on initiation for CD. I know they'd like to see people stop spinning their wheels on Bazant.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
It might be useful to establish who here believes the perimeters and one floor diaphragm could support the STATIC mass of 10-15 stories as rubble. A dumpster in the sky.

Even IF they couldn't, as I have explained, the falling floors would be 'disintegrated' along with the static floors. So the falling floors would all be 'disintegrated' before the static floors could all be 'disintegrated'.

Regardless of the strength of the connections, as the connections were the same for the falling floors and static floors. There is no reason only the static floors connections would fail leaving the falling floors connections undamaged.

I agree. I just think debris can do some pretty amazing things, if only erosively.

The OS does not address equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws.

It does, believe it or not. I can certainly understand how you could get that impression, it's like squeezing blood out of a turnip to find. I did some blood-squeezing myself on the issue of action-reaction. I can save you the trouble of reading the thread. I should have payed attention more closely the first (and 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) time I read Bazant. It's there, though far from satisfactory.

Once you understand that Bazant did not overlook Newton's third, but then also what conditions have to apply such that you have an effective rigid top, you can't say he overlooked it but you can damn straight see why it crushed up instead of being rigid.

I definitely have to go now. Later.

Originally posted by ANOK
Conservation of mass? Stop, I don't buy into your crap that all the mass stayed in the footprint until the end, when it all magically spread itself in a 360d arc around the towers.

There weren't core columns in the debris spread around the tower. It was all wall panels and some truss parts that didn't get taken off. I'm not saying that everything stayed inside, but enough did to keep it collapsing. You're acting like 90% of the material ejected before it could act on the floors below. What could you possibly be imagining?

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Originally Posted by ANOK

15 falling floors would be gone long before they could cause the 95 floors to collapse.

By "gone" do you mean disappeared? Vanished? If not, the debris still has the same mass as the intact structure from which it came, and if it's moving, it has momentum. Granted, the peak impulse from an intact body in collision is higher than the same body impacting as fragments. but the overall momentum change to bring the fragments to rest is exactly the same as the intact body and the static load it imposes also the same.

I've have been waiting for about three months now for ANOK to back up his claims that the mass somehow magically disappeared. I've asked over and over and over for him to show me one picture of the floor trusses, concrete slabs and/or the steel decks being ejected outside the footprint through the exterior columns, or attached to columns, or whatever. Still havent seen a damn thing. So don't hold your breath for him to back anything of that up.

Originally posted by ANOK


'Disintegration' means Ke was being lost, mass was being lost. Ke converting to heat, sound and deformation means the energy to continue 'crushing' more floors is reduce. Once that Ke is gone its gone, no more energy to keep 'disintegrating' more floors. The only way to regain that Ke is another outside energy source feeding it, something that was not investigated for.

Hi ANOK! You know, its been three long months, and I am still patiently waiting for you to back up your nonsense, I mean, claims, that the mass disappeared or was ejected. I am waiting for pictures, video, etc, take during the collapse or afterwards that shows the floors ejected, trusses ejected, concrete slabs ejected, or steel decking ejected. Any time now ANOK. You cannot run from this forever, as anyone that has been following along in these threads for the past three months has seen, that you cannot answer a simple question. Also just a friendly reminder: PERSONAL INCREDULITY does not equal a rebuttal or an answer to my request. I want tangible evidence I can see, not crap made up in your mind.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Funny psik you always claim you can't get/find any info yet when pushed you seem to be able to find it.
Did the concrete in the core area fall or did it magically float during the collapse can you provide a link to the 150lb cft figure out of interest. I have only seen 115 for the floors anything heavier was for the service floors or foundations so maybe your figs are wrong?

This is from Gregory Urich:

Floor slabs outside of the core were constructed primarily of light concrete. The mass of light concrete can be calculated using the floor area outside of the core (approx. 28,225 sq ft), the floor thickness (4 in. 8), and the density of light concrete (109.3 lb/ft3).

28,255 sq ft/floor x 0.33 ft x 109.3 lb/ft3 x 110 floors x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 56,600 short tons

Floor slabs inside the core were constructed primarily of normal concrete. The mass of normal concrete used in these floors can be calculated using the floor area (11,745 sq ft), the floor thickness (5 in. 8), and the density of normal concrete (150 lb/ft3).

11,745 sq ft/floor x 0.4167 ft x 150 lb/ft3 x 110 floors x 1 ton/2000 lbs = 29,400 short tons

www.docstoc.com...

Those two weights of concrete are also discussed in the NCSTAR1 report. The word concrete appears more than 3,000 times. I have searched it quite often.

psik

Originally posted by Varemia

There weren't core columns in the debris spread around the tower. It was all wall panels and some truss parts that didn't get taken off. I'm not saying that everything stayed inside, but enough did to keep it collapsing. You're acting like 90% of the material ejected before it could act on the floors below. What could you possibly be imagining?

Well to make a minor correction, there were "some" core columns outside the actual "footprint" of the WTC Towers. But this is a result of the columns themselves actually tipping over like tall trees and falling over. That is why there are some pictures of the core columns laid out "outside the 'footprint''.



Also you can see here how the core columns tilt over and out during the collapse right when the "spire" was formed.



They are those long thin structures falling over like trees after the main collapse. They fall out of the dust clouds in the video.

Just covering all bases!

reply to post by GenRadek


Thanks. I understood that, but by the time I thought to add the detail, I had already posted some time ago. Sometimes it's difficult to articulate my thoughts in a way that communicates what is going on in my head.

But, I mean, anyone can watch the videos and see that there is destruction passing through the building before any "ejections" happen, and the "ejections" look like it is being pushed away by debris, or simply falling away. ANOK really has to employ an ignorance of more than one manner of physics and observation in order to maintain his conclusion that breaking up a floor will cause the material to become so small that it will vaporize into the air, only pretending to create a debris pile that fills up the entire basement of the towers, and across the entire WTC complex area.

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

I agree. I just think debris can do some pretty amazing things, if only erosively.

But if Ke is lost in order to turn concrete and their steel pans into debris, and break all the connections, then you are losing the force required to continue the collapse to completion.

It does, believe it or not. I can certainly understand how you could get that impression, it's like squeezing blood out of a turnip to find. I did some blood-squeezing myself on the issue of action-reaction. I can save you the trouble of reading the thread. I should have payed attention more closely the first (and 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) time I read Bazant. It's there, though far from satisfactory.

No it doesn't Bazant is not the OS. The NIST report is the governments official version of events and the NIST rejected pancake collapse hypothesis. In fact they didn't explain the collapses at all, they presented an hypothesis for collapse initiation.

Once you understand that Bazant did not overlook Newton's third, but then also what conditions have to apply such that you have an effective rigid top, you can't say he overlooked it but you can damn straight see why it crushed up instead of being rigid.

I'm not sure you can claim he did, according to his report the top floors stayed in one piece, crushed, 'disintegrated', all the lower floors and then crushed itself. That is hilarious. Equal opposite reaction is what would keep the top floors from staying in one piece, it simply would not happen the way Bazant claims. His hypothesis also requires the majority of the mass to have stayed in the footprints, which is also nonsense.

So how could the top block of floors stay in one piece while crushing other floors? Both impacting floors would have been damaged, the connections would have failed on both floors. You can see in the graphic you claim to have made that the top floors start crushing before the bottom floors.

Originally posted by Varemia
ANOK really has to employ an ignorance of more than one manner of physics and observation in order to maintain his conclusion that breaking up a floor will cause the material to become so small that it will vaporize into the air, only pretending to create a debris pile that fills up the entire basement of the towers, and across the entire WTC complex area.

I can see again here you are not understanding what I am saying.

No one said the debris vaporized in the air.

I find it hard to understand how, or why, you think the debris would stay in the footprints, and then suddenly not be in the footprints post collapse.

And again you fail to realise that it really is not a deal breaker, because the collapse should never have initiated in the first place. If it did then the floors would still not completely collapse because, as has been explained over and over again, Ke was lost to deformation, heat, sound etc. and mass was being lost as debris was obvioulsy not staying within the footprints. You have no proof it did and physics tells us it wouldn't. Drop a plate on the floor, or on another stack of plates, and see where the debris goes. There is nothing to keep the debris from moving horizontally due to the impacts of floors. You are just clinging to this nonsense because without it the OS falls apart.

Originally posted by ANOK
But if Ke is lost in order to turn concrete and their steel pans into debris, and break all the connections, then you are losing the force required to continue the collapse to completion.

Why? Once again, when stripped to its essence, you are still arguing that crushing must necessarily dissipate all the accumulated kinetic energy. You have not shown anything of the sort, and it's not true. It could, in some contexts, but you assume it true for any and all contexts and that's false. It all depends on the system under study. If you could come up with a compelling argument (yes, using physics, math and engineering mechanics - the language of the problem domain) that the towers corresponded to your claim, that would be one thing. It would be disputable, but it might be correct.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. There is no principle of the universe which demands that all KE be dissipated in crushing, in fact there's a considerable body of work in statistical physics which dictates otherwise.

No it doesn't Bazant is not the OS.

OK, I didn't know you didn't consider Bazant OS. Usually, he's lumped in with NIST. Of course, Bazant's work is cited by the NIST, and is the reason (excuse) they used to stop their work at initiation. Bazant is always the one people mention when talking about alleged violations of Newton's 3rd and conservation of momentum. There's an awful lot of fuss always going on about Bazant, but I guess we can scratch that in our discussion here.

OK, Bazant is not OS. So, here's the rub: NIST didn't cover any of the issues you just mentioned, because they never dealt with collapse progression. So which OS source are you objecting to?

----

PS I guess only newbies have a character limit in this forum. I've seen tomes - ****ing books - posted here, and I'm limited to 5000 characters. That's BS, equating membership longevity with quality.

Originally posted by ANOK
The NIST report is the governments official version of events and the NIST rejected pancake collapse hypothesis. In fact they didn't explain the collapses at all, they presented an hypothesis for collapse initiation.

I'll not defend NIST. This is another example of their sloppiness, and it puts me in the position of interpreting their words as if to say "here's what they really meant" and something tells me you've heard this more than once. They rejected the pancake theory of initiation because they needed the floor connections to be strong to pull in the perimeters to account for observed inward bowing. That's a subject in itself, and hardly a small one. I'll just say that I view their premise as highly suspect and quite possibly wrong. That's just my opinion, but I think I'm right about interpreting what they meant which is that pancaking was not the cause of initiation, but they aren't ruling it out for progression.

But who gives a **** what they say? Watch any number of videos and see with your own eyes: in both towers, the leading collapse fronts are in the interior. It doesn't matter if those expulsions are the direct or indirect result of explosive charges or slow-acting incendiaries or space beams - the leading wave of destruction is interior. It need not be pancaking in the sense of the entire floor span at each level going down simultaneously; indeed we see that cannot be the case since the expulsions are spatially localized. It could be regional pancaking but far more likely just a debris stream punching through.

It's not like it's either/or. Yes, I agree NIST and others have presented (at best) a tale of unsatisfactory contradictions and a few mistakes, but stop and think. Even if they're incompetent morons and are totally wrong, does that necessarily mean the collapse was assisted? If you believe they're actively covering something up, that's another matter.

I'm not sure you can claim he did, according to his report the top floors stayed in one piece, crushed, 'disintegrated', all the lower floors and then crushed itself. That is hilarious.

Yes, it is hilarious and it's full of ****. This is the line where I stop defending Bazant. He made his bed and I'm not going to lay in it. He blurred the distinction in his own mind between what he himself called a highly simplified, idealized 1D model for a boundary case, and started talking like it was a descriptive narrative for the actual collapses.

Totally whacked.

And he claimed his analysis disproved intentional demolition, which is absurd. His papers merely show that assistance was not required, not that it was necessarily absent.

Equal opposite reaction is what would keep the top floors from staying in one piece, it simply would not happen the way Bazant claims.

Correct. I was just saying above, he found the VERY narrow parametric window within his unrealistic 1D world where the upper section would only crush-up 1% of one story height before exclusive crush down would ensue. The mechanics are correct and self-consistent in that context and do not violate Newton's laws or conservation of momentum; the problem is the model is simply not applicable as a description of the collapse, not even close.

His hypothesis also requires the majority of the mass to have stayed in the footprints, which is also nonsense.

Not really. I've run the same numbers in a variety of ways and you can toss a lot of mass over the side and progressive collapse is still indicated. In the interior, where the floor assembly construction is nearly uniform all the way down, there's no need to accrue mass at all after a certain point, which means everything the debris stream just clobbered COULD disappear instead of adding its mass to the stream, and the collapse would still proceed. It's not as fast, for sure, but it isn't necessary to retain all the mass or even most of it.

So how could the top block of floors stay in one piece while crushing other floors?

They don't.

Both impacting floors would have been damaged, the connections would have failed on both floors. You can see in the graphic you claim to have made that the top floors start crushing before the bottom floors.

Yes, I've already agreed with bidirectional crushing, no point in beating that dead horse. What do you think this means, the collapse must necessarily arrest? What physical law dictates that?

As far as whether I made the graphics I posted, I just linked to a forum where I have over 4000 posts under the name OneWhiteEye. If you doubt I made those simple trivial little nothings, you can always verify their provenance if you can find them amongst the other far more involved works.*

I was the first person to obtain and put into public domain sub-pixel measurements of the displacement of WTC1's upper section in descent. In the Sauret video, I achieved a mimimum resolution of 10cm. That video was taken from about 1500m away; good thing Sauret was a film maker, he had a nice camera. Others (two, to be precise) have come along after and taken more and better measurements. However, they both used SynthEyes, a high-end commercial tracker. I wrote my own code. And I can still acquire a few targets with my methods which SynthEyes can't.

All this to say is, unless you've spent literally thousands of hours studying videos, I doubt there's much you could tell me about the gross exterior features of the collapses that I don't already know. You can try, though.


* Edit: you can start here

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
And he claimed his analysis disproved intentional demolition, which is absurd. His papers merely show that assistance was not required, not that it was necessarily absent.

He did? Where did he claim that exactly? It indeed sounds a bit of a silly claim. It is a classic logical fallacy.