The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

It would be interesting to hear how you would propose to correlate the size of the dust cloud with anything other than the many tons of drywall and concrete floors. Do you have some algorithim that relates the dust cloud size to demolition or somehow defines the size of the cloud based on the size of the building?
The exterior columns moved outward as the connections between them and the core were broken by collapsing floors. This geometry seems difficult for you to understand.
Building a model is pointless. A model is just that and no model will match the real building in every aspect. Because of this, it will only be another source of dispute betwen those that want an 'inside job' and those that see no evidence for such. Computer models of aircraft destroying the steel columns are challenged by those who are technically inept. Challenges by the technically challenged, so to speak.
You may be surprsed to discover that the burden of proof lies with those who challenge the gravitational collapse and claim demolition. Why doesn't someone in the ranks of the super keen demolition theorists take a break from the keyboard long enough to build such a model? So far you have the immensely entertaining Gage 'cardboard box' model as promoted by an architect who apparently has no concept of building construction. I await the Kester 'absolute-proof-of-demolition-smoking-gun-game-over-dude' model.


The issue is how these materials became dust and shattered fragments without the time that conservation of momentum and energy dictate would be needed for this process in a gravitational collapse. As we both know NIST avoided this question by limiting their calculations to the impacts and fires. There is no debate between the official story and people such as myself on this issue because the official story does not cover the disintegration. The disintegration of the buildings has been explained by numerous individuals but not by NIST.

I agree a model would be another source of dispute. However I feel the example of a model behaving in a similar way to the actual event would be an enormous addition to the armoury your camp. The dispute would be in your favour.

Again you mention 'wanting an inside job'. There is no evidence that those whose research has led them to this unpleasant conclusion set out wanting this conclusion, other that one or two easily dismissed individuals. This claim only brings attention to those whose desire for it not to be an inside job has clouded their perception. My own motive for learning more was simply a desire to learn more about the events of the day.

I haven't challenged any computer models other than by questioning the nature of the core walls. If I'm correct these models need to be changed.

The burden of proof lies with those who have proposed a theory. The theory that damage and fire caused a gravitational collapse could be illustrated with a successful demonstration of a model collapsing.

The majority of the physical evidence indicating extraordinary demolition is on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Alternatively one could say the majority of the physical evidence indicating gravitational collapse is on the Fresh Kills Landfill depending on one's opinion.

My question is were there or were there not reinforced concrete infill panels between the steel beams and columns of the core. The only evidence available to us now is the photographs and video as well as the shattered remains most of which are at Fresh Kills.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

The issue is how these materials became dust and shattered fragments without the time that conservation of momentum and energy dictate would be needed for this process in a gravitational collapse.

I agree a model would be another source of dispute. However I feel the example of a model behaving in a similar way to the actual event would be an enormous addition to the armoury your camp. The dispute would be in your favour.

Again you mention 'wanting an inside job'. There is no evidence that those whose research has led them to this unpleasant conclusion set out wanting this conclusion, other that one or two easily dismissed individuals. This claim only brings attention to those whose desire for it not to be an inside job has clouded their perception. My own motive for learning more was simply a desire to learn more about the events of the day.

I haven't challenged any computer models other than by questioning the nature of the core walls. If I'm correct these models need to be changed.

The burden of proof lies with those who have proposed a theory. The theory that damage and fire caused a gravitational collapse could be illustrated with a successful demonstration of a model collapsing.

The majority of the physical evidence indicating extraordinary demolition is on the Fresh Kills Landfill. Alternatively one could say the majority of the physical evidence indicating gravitational collapse is on the Fresh Kills Landfill depending on one's opinion.

My question is were there or were there not reinforced concrete infill panels between the steel beams and columns of the core. The only evidence available to us now is the photographs and video as well as the shattered remains most of which are at Fresh Kills.



How does 'the conservation of momentum and energy dictate' a time for a process to occur? What is the basis for this statement?

I don't have a 'camp.' The burden of proof lies with those who claim demolition when no evidence for demolition has been shown. Scale models of this process could be designed to show what was desired and would be useless.

How will concrete in the core walls change anything? You would like concrete in the core walls, for which there is no evidence, to hide explosives, for which there is no evidence. Why can't you hide explosives somewhere else?

Evidence in the landfill will stay there unless there is a reason to dig it up. The statement of an unknown professor is not reason to do anything. If Lloyds wants to avoid paying out the damages, they will pay for the excavation should concrete have anything to do with the claim. Why should anyone else bother?
Note that buried pieces is not the only source of evidence. We have the evidence of those that dug through the drywall and the evidence of the construction details. If the building loads did not include concrete panels and it cost more money to add concrete panels, who would put them in? It would be more difficult to put something in that was not part of the plans without a change order. There is no evidence of such an order.

Before you worry about such panels, you should consider how they would accomodate your theory. If you want to spend the rest of your life whining about how the landfill should be excavated, go ahead. It may be more productive to claim explosive drywall panels and skip the concrete fantasy. Then all you have to do is figure out how they were initiated and timed.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

How does 'the conservation of momentum and energy dictate' a time for a process to occur? What is the basis for this statement?

I don't have a 'camp.' The burden of proof lies with those who claim demolition when no evidence for demolition has been shown. Scale models of this process could be designed to show what was desired and would be useless.

How will concrete in the core walls change anything? You would like concrete in the core walls, for which there is no evidence, to hide explosives, for which there is no evidence. Why can't you hide explosives somewhere else?

Evidence in the landfill will stay there unless there is a reason to dig it up. The statement of an unknown professor is not reason to do anything. If Lloyds wants to avoid paying out the damages, they will pay for the excavation should concrete have anything to do with the claim. Why should anyone else bother?
Note that buried pieces is not the only source of evidence. We have the evidence of those that dug through the drywall and the evidence of the construction details. If the building loads did not include concrete panels and it cost more money to add concrete panels, who would put them in? It would be more difficult to put something in that was not part of the plans without a change order. There is no evidence of such an order.


The energy employed in breaking up the building materials is no longer available for rapid downward travel. If two bricks are dropped from a cliff and one hits a ledge and shatters on the way down they do not hit the ground at the same time. The energy employed in shattering the brick causes a slowing of its downward progress. The unimpeded brick does not lose this energy therefore travels downwards faster.

Congratulations on not having a camp. The world needs freethinkers. A scale model built by debunkers would not be designed to debunk their own theory. A model of roughly accurate construction that behaved in a broadly similar way to the observed destruction of the buildings would be a powerful image.

If the core was comprised of steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels rather than the drywall and steel that is more usually claimed the computer models illustrating the aircraft impacts are grossly inaccurate.

The military ramifications of 9/11 will ensure that the evidence on the landfill is examined. You mention those who dug through the drywall again. Who? Not the people who escaped from elevators obviously, we know glass fibre reinforced drywall lined the elevator shafts. And not the escapees who tried and failed to break through a core wall to circumnavigate a jammed or locked door. They found concrete behind the drywall. I haven't found accounts of people breaking through drywall in the core other than these exceptions.

Some researchers spend much of their time on and give great credence to paperwork. I can't say the presence or absence of paperwork such as a change order would be very useful in my research. An exception would be if it gave a clue as to where to look for more certain evidence. Anyone can write any words they want or draw any diagram. Physical evidence in very large quantities and photographic and video evidence from multiple sources give far more certainty.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
The energy employed in breaking up the building materials is no longer available for rapid downward travel. If two bricks are dropped from a cliff and one hits a ledge and shatters on the way down they do not hit the ground at the same time. The energy employed in shattering the brick causes a slowing of its downward progress. The unimpeded brick does not lose this energy therefore travels downwards faster.

If the core was comprised of steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels rather than the drywall and steel that is more usually claimed the computer models illustrating the aircraft impacts are grossly inaccurate.


The only way for the building to travel downward is to destroy the building and its contents. The building fell at less than freefall speed so energy must have been expended destroying the contents. If the shear strength of the core was mainly in the steel, how grossly inaccurate do you estimate the computer models illustrating the aircraft impacts are?
Do your calculations again and rethink your conclusions.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
The issue is how these materials became dust and shattered fragments without the time that conservation of momentum and energy dictate would be needed for this process in a gravitational collapse.


The law of conservation of momentum is still there when explosives are used. Even with explosives, free fall is not possible, as there would still be inertia, even when all structural resistance is removed.

"The buildings could not have fallen that fast because of the resistance". These kind of baseless assertions are often made by thuthers. Show the physics behind this claim. Show your estimates of the resistance, and show what the collapse time would have been based on that. I have never seen a truther do that in a way that made sense and was not completely wrong.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Kester
The issue is how these materials became dust and shattered fragments without the time that conservation of momentum and energy dictate would be needed for this process in a gravitational collapse.


The law of conservation of momentum is still there when explosives are used. Even with explosives, free fall is not possible, as there would still be inertia, even when all structural resistance is removed.

"The buildings could not have fallen that fast because of the resistance". These kind of baseless assertions are often made by thuthers. Show the physics behind this claim. Show your estimates of the resistance, and show what the collapse time would have been based on that. I have never seen a truther do that in a way that made sense and was not completely wrong.


The only serious calculation I've seen that gave an estimated time for the buildings to become what they became as a result of gravitational collapse gave the time as between one and two hundred years.

One to two hundred years for the buildings to grind themselves to dust if it was possible.

Thank you for your input.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
.....energy must have been expended destroying the contents.


On this we are agreed.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


I personally also consider the work by Bazant as "serious calculations". But by all means, share the calculations you talk about.

In any case, if that is the only calculation you know of, how do you know that the collapse time was too short for a gravitational collapse?
edit on 4-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Kester
 


I personally also consider the work by Bazant as "serious calculations". But by all means, share the calculations you talk about.

In any case, if that is the only calculation you know of, how do you know that the collapse time was too short for a gravitational collapse?
edit on 4-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


I can't find any reference to Zdeněk Bažant at a .gov address. Could it be that he is not part of the official investigation? Free speech is an essential part of a free society. The opinions of private individuals can be spread through the internet, such as our own words. Professional Journals always carry a disclaimer to the effect that "The words and pictures contained herein are just words and pictures. Don't blame us if this information turns out to be wrong". A world authority quoted in a leading professional journal is just the editors choice, not the word of God.

I'm particularly interested in the official, as in government funded, version of events. Does the physical, photographic and video evidence confirm the official story? That's the big question.

NIST avoided the subject that Zdeněk Bažant and many others have studied. I cannot think of anyone higher qualified than Zdeněk Bažant to oversee the construction of a scale model that would undoubtedly behave in the same way as the actual towers when subjected to the appropriate treatment. Imagine the hordes of youtube truthers sitting with their mouths open watching a scale version of the WTC Disaster.

To estimate the time a gravitational collapse would take to reduce the buildings to the condition recorded in the physical, photographic and video evidence it is necessary to know the nature of the building components and the nature of the remains. This thread argues that the nature of the building components is not fully understood. The debris on the Fresh Kills Landfill is an important portion of the remains. The building remains that are not available for study, having been melted down or drifted away on the wind for example, can only be examined through photographs and video.

When what the buildings were and what they became is known beyond reasonable doubt it is possible to calculate the energy that was required to carry out the destructive process. It has been suggested by others that Zdeněk Bažant was a little hasty in making his calculations and did not spend sufficient time studying the nature of the building remains. Do you have any opinion on this? Did Zdeněk Bažant have sufficient understanding of the nature of the building remains? He is clearly a capable man who must be admired for facing the difficult task of analysing the destructive process, a task shirked by NIST.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 

Bazant is a Professor at Northwestern U and not a Federal employee, hence he does not have a .gov address.

www.iti.northwestern.edu...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


Bazant showed that the collapse time is possible to my satisfaction. I know his model has limitations, but it is not necessary to know the exact behavior of all structural components in order to make a meaningful conclusion. I don't require any additional, more accurate model, to be convinced its possible. I do, however, require a model that is at least as accurate as Bazants model to start doubting those conclusions.

Anyway, I see my question went unanswered. My question is mainly on what exactly you base the assertion that the collapse time is not possible in a gravity driven collapse. So on which model, or on which calculations do you base that?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Anyway, I see my question went unanswered. My question is mainly on what exactly you base the assertion that the collapse time is not possible in a gravity driven collapse. So on which model, or on which calculations do you base that?


Bazants 'calculations' fail because he doesn't account for the lack of mass in the footprints. His hypothesis requires most of the mass to still be in the footprints. He doesn't account for the tilting tops. He doesn't address the fact that the antenna fell first indicating the core failed before the trusses and floors did. He doesn't account for the fact that sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on columns as NIST claimed.

Calculations are not physics btw, they are not required to know that Ke would be lost to resistance/friction, deformation, sound, heat, and thus the collapse wave would have slowed down unless an outside energy was acting on it, other than gravity. Gravity does not have the energy to overcome the resistance of the structure otherwise it would never have stood in the first place.

Those points need to be address before you go claiming that Bazants paper is anything but garbage designed to fool to the foolish. His paper has been refuted twice by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Bazant claims the top stayed in one piece destroying the bottom, then destroys itself. But we know the top was destroying itself before the bottom even started collapsing.






"the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history" Anders Bjorkman M.Sc.


heiwaco.tripod.com...

heiwaco.tripod.com...

Put your money where you mouth is 'mr electrical engineer'. It's hilarious what people will believe.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I read the first paragraph in one of your links, and it already became clear to me that Björkman is delusional. He thinks that the available videos and photos of the collapses are faked.

Do you agree that the videos and photos are faked Anok? If not, why do you agree with any other assertion he makes?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Bazants 'calculations' fail because he doesn't account for the lack of mass in the footprints. His hypothesis requires most of the mass to still be in the footprints.


The inability to grasp this point can only indicate either extreme ignorance, not having even looked at the photographic and video evidence, or a severe level of denial. We can all see the debris mushrooming out yet so many people add up the weight of that debris and imagine it to be bearing down on the remaining structure.

We all know it was an explosive disintegration because that's what we saw. The ignorant views can be discounted. Those who are benefiting in some way from dishonest argument can be dismissed. That leaves us with those who are so shocked by the truth they choose to deceive themselves. Presumably the whole of their lives are filled with similar denial.

My view is the 9/11 issue has given the human race an opportunity to open their eyes. People can't be forced to take an opportunity, it has to be their choice.

These debunkers really are pretty hopeless. I guess that's because they've got nothing to work with.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Kester
 

Bazant is a Professor at Northwestern U and not a Federal employee, hence he does not have a .gov address.

www.iti.northwestern.edu...


Thank you for that information. My interest is in the official explanation and how it relates to the evidence.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


I have asked truthers before, but none can answer. Since you seem to be so certain of your case, you must have an answer (or your faith is just very strong).

Please make an estimate of how much of the debris was ejected. Which parts were ejected (perimeter columns, floors, core, office contents), and how much was left inside the core for crushing. Explain the mechanism by which all this debris ejected.

My explanation: The perimeter columns fell over. Some of the office contents ejects. Most of the stuff that ejected was dust from concrete and drywall. Most of the floors (concrete, trusses and office contents) and all of the core remained inside the perimeter of the footprint, as there is no mechanism that would make them go outside it. The laws of physics were not broken, and explosives can't do it without showing enormous shock waves and loud bangs.

Good luck. Time to show you big talk is faith based or evidence based.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Kester
 


I have asked truthers before, but none can answer. Since you seem to be so certain of your case, you must have an answer (or your faith is just very strong).

Please make an estimate of how much of the debris was ejected. Which parts were ejected (perimeter columns, floors, core, office contents), and how much was left inside the core for crushing. Explain the mechanism by which all this debris ejected.

My explanation: The perimeter columns fell over. Some of the office contents ejects. Most of the stuff that ejected was dust from concrete and drywall. Most of the floors (concrete, trusses and office contents) and all of the core remained inside the perimeter of the footprint, as there is no mechanism that would make them go outside it. The laws of physics were not broken, and explosives can't do it without showing enormous shock waves and loud bangs.

Good luck. Time to show you big talk is faith based or evidence based.


The perimeter columns fell over. Thick white powder streamed off the inside faces of the columns as they fell. Dust was ejected. Analysis showed the dust to be a mixture of the building contents and components. The proportions of the different materials in the dust varied widely in samples taken just a few yards apart.

The FEMA assessment team didn't get the access they needed. The steel was allegedly mostly recycled. On seeing the site a bomb disposal technician with over 20 years experience said "Well where's all the steel? I've worked on loads of car bombs and things like that and there's always a lot of wreckage, where's all the steel?" There's no mechanism that would make it go up in a puff of smoke, you must be right, it just fell down.

Detonating a series of charges as in a conventional demolition results in a series of loud bangs, possibly with visible shock waves linked to each bang. A smaller quantity of explosives inside building materials will have the same effect as a larger, louder and more obvious quantity outside. Detonating many smaller charges inside building materials in quick succession results in a roar or rumble.

You've asked me to estimate how much of what was ejected how. I can only answer with an estimate that I'm confident in.

Most of the trust in politics, the mainstream media, military command, intelligence agencies and the justice system was ejected through the mechanism of their own ineptitude. That is my estimate.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
...Most of the floors (concrete, trusses and office contents) and all of the core remained inside the perimeter of the footprint, as there is no mechanism that would make them go outside it.


Nonsense, have you ever dropped a plate on the ground, what happens to the pieces, do they stay in a pile where it was dropped?

But you misunderstand as usual, when we say mass should still be in the footprints we don't mean rubble, we mean whole floors, slabs of concrete, steel floor pans. There was no mechanism to cause the collapses to be complete, according to the OS. In fact we all know the OS didn't explain the collapses at all. The collapse should not have happened in the first place, let alone continue until it could collapse no more. Anyone with any experience in mechanics knows a sagging anything, from being heated up, can not put a pulling force on what it's connected to. And no, catenary action does not explain it. If the steel can not maintain its own shape due to malleability, it can not put any force on what it's attached to. The steel sags due to expansion, as has been explained to you many time by me and Bsbray, remember? Having said that though, it's highly doubtful they would have sagged in the first place.

Did you know that the tops of the trusses were connected to the steel pans the concrete sat in? How did the trusses sag when they were attached to the steel pans? What happened to the steel pans? There were also transverse trusses connected at right angles to the main trusses. How does a truss failure lead to complete failure of the whole floor so fast that it drops at such speed and force to overcome another floors of the same structure and strength?



The proof is in the post collapse pics, please show pics of all this debris still in the footprints. No excuses, just evidence for your claims, mr electrical engineer.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Anyone with any experience in mechanics knows a sagging anything, from being heated up, can not put a pulling force on what it's connected to. And no, catenary action does not explain it. If the steel can not maintain its own shape due to malleability, it can not put any force on what it's attached to. The steel sags due to expansion, as has been explained to you many time by me and Bsbray, remember? Having said that though, it's highly doubtful they would have sagged in the first place.

Did you know that the tops of the trusses were connected to the steel pans the concrete sat in? How did the trusses sag when they were attached to the steel pans? What happened to the steel pans? There were also transverse trusses connected at right angles to the main trusses. How does a truss failure lead to complete failure of the whole floor so fast that it drops at such speed and force to overcome another floors of the same structure and strength?


Consider that the trusses were attached to the outside columns and core. These trusses were in tension and held up the floors. They were dependent on a rigid core and outer wall. The pulling on the outer columns was where the columns were cut by the aircraft. The softening of the trusses caused the floor to sag, pulling in on the columns. The columns sheared by the aircraft were no longer spanning floors and there was nothing to prevent them from being pulled inward.
edit on 1/5/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


So you don't have anything to back up what you said, and your believe is faith based. A bit odd you call others ignorant and in denial, while you yourself don't have a clue.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join