It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've already debunked your utter junk science so I will not waste my time copy-pasting everything I just laid out.
You've missed a bunch of questions and you seem to think that if you damage some concrete, it vanishes from reality, so I wouldn't go crowing about your victory just yet.
However your lies about there not being 1300 certified engineers need to be addressed.
Have you actually read the page you're linking to? Just because someone else lies doesn't mean you have to repeat the lie. There are 1300 signatories including architects, psychologists, biology students. How many Mechanical, Civil, or Structural engineers are there? Not 1300 for damn sure.
Originally posted by exponent
Did you read the page? Architects are not engineers
Originally posted by dereks
The top did not pancake the lower floors.
The top did not pancake the lower floors.
Except those pictures show it doing just that, you just posted proof of it pancaking the lower floors!
Ok so we have momentum transfer (accelerating the various objects which are minimally destroyed), concrete crushing (mostly identical floor by floor with some minor differences) and yielding of steel structural elements (increasing strength as the building collapses)
The question is, does the energy addition through gravity come to more than was taken in crushing, damaging and accelerating? The answer is yes, by a significant margin.
For every floor destroyed, a certain amount of energy is removed, then, the debris accelerates through 12 feet under gravity. This adds more energy than was taken away, that's what Bazant et al have repeatedly proven.
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Originally posted by oniongrass
Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by mnemeth1
I like to stick with the basics. The biggest problem with your theory is that thousands of people saw two jet airliners fly into the building. It was captured by every imaginable camera angle. Here's a wager. Let's say you build a one-hundred story tall house. There's a wall around it, so nobody has access to it. No chance of anyone planting explosives in it. A 757 slams into the 75th floor. Trust me, you would try to get out. And also trust me, that it would collapse. ...
Why would that building collapse after waiting for quite a while? I don't get it. I want to stick with basics too and understand this.
Massive fires, which weakened (NOT melted) the steel supports to the extent that they could not hold the weight above them. Then, the force of the floors collapsing caused it to pancake all the way down.
The towers were designed with support in the outer walls, which would both aid an internal collapse and keep the structure relatively vertical as it collapsed.
If it had been destroyed intentionally, you wouldn't have reports like this:
As the fires continued to burn, occupants trapped in the upper floors of the South Tower provided information about conditions via 9-1-1. At 9:37 a.m., an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed. The aviation unit also relayed information about deteriorating conditions of the buildings to police commanders, who issued orders for its personnel to evacuate the towers. At 9:52 a.m., the New York City Police Department (NYPD) aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there". With the warnings, the NYPD issued orders for its personnel to evacuate. During the emergency response, there was minimal communication between the NYPD and the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), and overwhelmed 9-1-1 dispatchers did not pass along information to FDNY commanders on-scene. At 9:59 a.m., the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.
After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:27 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.
The North Tower was hit first, but the South Tower was the first to collapse because the structural integrity was compromised on a much lower level - between the 77th and 85th floors, while the North Tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. Thus, more weight to bear on the compromised supports, which were then weakened further by fires, etc.
In addition to the weakened steel (again, no one says "melted" except the 'Truthers' - complete strawman argument), the fires caused the floors to sag, which pulled in the perimeter columns and made them much less able to support the weight above.
While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.
Like vertical dominoes.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The top section of the petition is all certified architects and engineers, which total up to 1300
Originally posted by Devino
I have read all of your replies in this thread and I have a few questions regarding some of them, I hope you can help me to understand your points better
What we see in the collapse videos is nothing close to "minimal destruction". What we see is in fact a complete destruction, or rather a pulverization, of all of the concrete which, I would think, constitutes for a significant portion of the accelerating mass. We also see the complete destruction of the steel and an ejection of much of this mass (both steel and concrete) outward away from the floors below which is again a significant portion of the accelerating mass.
This appears as though you are claiming that Force (due to gravity) is grater than mass times acceleration. The addition of energy through gravity is equal to (not greater than) the kinetic energy that creates the destruction and acceleration of the mass.
As can be seen in many videos much of this debris is ejected horizontally away from the floors below. Furthermore much more of this debris is well above the supposed point of impact. You don't consider this as evidence that contradicts the pancaking collapse theory? I think we can at least conclude that a large portion of momentum is lost in this scattering of debris.
Originally posted by patriots4truth
I find out that Bazant/Greening got their paper published without proper peer review and favorable bias from the publisher
Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't have anything to do with my ego.
...
What falsehoods are these again? Stop making cheap shots. I have been refuting your posts constantly, post after post, even pointing out your emotional outbursts for what they are, and this is one of those.
How's that recreation of the "drywall melted the steel" experiment going? All I see is a lot of time and energy spent bickering online with me. Pot, kettle.
So if the photos were taken during the day you think it would show the WTC fires were worse?
The simplistic analysis is yours. It goes like this: 'There was steel in the building and it all collapsed! The whole building didn't fall down because it was made out of concrete!'
You ignore the fact that no, not all the steel did collapse, the steel in question had MUCH SMALLER CROSS-SECTIONS and thus wasn't comparable to the WTC steel in the first place, you totally ignore the severity of the fires which is also incomparable, the time of burn, which is ALSO incomparable, and then you don't bother giving any more reason for why it didn't totally collapsed except that it was made out of concrete. And then you say I'm the one offering the simplistic analysis when you ignore all of this? You are embarrassing yourself.
If you faced the facts you might actually be able to realize that you still have no evidence that the WTC Towers collapsed from fires and planes alone in the first place, and in the second place that you are ignoring 90% of the relevant information in these comparisons. You keep downplaying the severity of the fires. You keep ignoring the differences in the steel. You are either in denial or intentionally being intellectually dishonest about these things. And again, pointing at that the Windsor Tower's core was made of reinforced concrete is totally irrelevant because the WTC Towers' cores weren't their weakness either. And their perimeter columns were much, much larger than the Windsor Towers. We can keep going over this until it sinks into your brain matter. I guess that's what it will take. I'm not going to drop this information just because you keep ignoring it. I'm going to keep bringing it up precisely because of that, until you acknowledge it.
The top of the Windsor Tower was fully engulfed and burned for a full 24 hours.
...
Pick any WTC fire pic you want. Do you honestly think it is equivalent to what you are looking at above? If so, like I said, you are only demonstrating your incompetence at comparing these types of things in the first place. They are obviously not equal in severity, and the difference IS extreme when you factor in the amount of time and the number of floors fully engulfed.
"somewhat important," oh yeah, okay, right. I'll let the images speak for themselves. You have 4 or 5 times the amount of steel in the perimeter columns AT LEAST at the WTC towers to heat, with less fire, over less time. Yeah, that's "somewhat important." Put yourself in my shoes. Your arguments are RIDICULOUS.
You still have no proof of what the WTC failure mechanism was. You keep falling back on nonsense that was never proven in the first place. Do you think this is a religious debate?
Like the fact that the Windsor Tower wasn't demolished? There's one factor that allowed it to continue standing.
Let me guess who gets to determine that. You?
You think the Windsor Tower fire is not an extreme difference than the WTC fires? Being fully engulfed on those floors and burning for 12 times as long? What is an extreme difference if not that?
Yeah, I guess they should have built the WTC Towers out of wood. That's where they went wrong. You got me. What was I thinking?
No, the problem is that they never tested their hypothesis, for the point of testing their hypothesis. They would have to have set up exactly what they did to calibrate their computer simulations. Why didn't they do it again to reproduce their hypothesis physically? Because they're too genius for that? Is that how your kind of "science" works? Let me guess, "yes." Sorry. Science is not based on condescension. You still have to show your work, even NIST.
Is that what I said? Is that what was necessary to calibrate their computer simulations?
Why do you think it's impossible for a single truss to be isolated and reproduce the pulling on the perimeter column? Would you like to explain the technical "reasoning" behind that one for me?
When I referred to 'minimal destruction', I was referring to the momentum transfer involved in accelerating stationary mass, rather than kinetic energy loss in fracturing/buckling elements.
Of course then there's also subsequent ejections which may remove more of a previous impacted floor, but as I'm sure you'll agree, analysis of this is extremely difficult and hard to do empirically.
This analysis has been carried out, it's typically called the 'mass shedding fraction' and in Bazant's papers values of 0.2-0.5 give good agreement with visual data (collapse rate etc).
The first part is incorrect, F=ma, there's no real way to question it.
The second part is also a little inaccurate. The addition of energy through gravity is purely dictated by mass * gravity * height lost. It is the breaking of the floors that allows this energy to be released, but it does not 'create' it in any sense.
What you are looking at could be the result of incendiaries or some other failure mechanism or just about anything. The PROOF that this is showing NIST's hypothesized failure mechanism, is non-existent. They never showed that their failure mechanism was possible in the first place. They just said it was and that it caused what happened. You would have to be dense to think looking at the building is proof of the NIST report when NIST never showed you what their mechanism would actually look like in the first place
This is ignored because there is absolutely no evidence that this garbage ever happened to begin with. When you prove it, it will be considered. Until then, if you want to back a theory that has never been conclusively proven, you might as well side with demolition theory because it has more corroboration going for it than NIST's superficial assertions of a visual-match, like I said, despite their ever showing you what their mechanism would look like in the first place.
Originally posted by Devino
OK, I believe I understand your point here as this is pretty clear but there is quite a lot of ambiguity pertaining to what this mass is doing at the point of collapse/energy transference.
Here I agree with you but I also don't think we can dismiss this loss of kinetic energy that is being ejected and then use it in a collapse/energy transference scenario.
...
It is obvious that there is a considerable amount of kinetic energy lost here in the ejection of material that is therefore unable to do work in a collapse propagation of the floors below.
There might also be a lot of kinetic energy lost in the transference of momentum during the destruction of the undamaged floors below.
The problem here is this momentum transference is pure speculation at this point. If there is a transference of energy in this manner wouldn't we see a noticeable deceleration? Keep in mind the first statement in this paragraph.
Sorry I am not familiar with this lingo, as it were. By 0.2-0.5 does this mean 20%-50%?
What is incorrect, my statement or my observation to your claim?
Gravity is the only force accelerating the mass here that I can think of. It is supposedly the transfer of kinetic energy, or momentum, that is creating the destruction of and subsequently accelerating of this mass, is it not? I don't mean energy is created, I mean destruction is created by said energy.
My question is in your statement that more energy is present in the falling mass from gravity than is used in "crushing, damaging and accelerating" of said mass.
I would like to point out that this transference of energy that is said to be causing this destruction, acceleration and collapse of the undamaged floors is, at this point, pure speculation. I believe it is still yet to be proven that this is what's taking place. Here we could just as easily speculate that all of this is being caused by the addition of energy by way of explosives.
Originally posted by GenRadek
*Whhoooooshh!!!!!*
Thats is the sound of what I typed to you flying waaaayyy over your head right now.
In your entire response, i fail to see one mention about the ever so important light steel trusses that made up the floors of the WTC.
Oh really? Pray tell, what magical incendiaries you are dreaming of to create this affect other than the fires themselves?
However, this is not to be applied in a general sense between two complex bodies, it applies purely to the molecules the substance is made from. An easy way to show how this is wrong is to assume for a second the forces balance as Chandler says. In that case we know that net force would be 0, and as mass is positive, the only other variable is acceleration, which must be 0 in this case.
This is the original video I had seen and contains the most egregious mistake that people appear to be repeating. At about 1:30 into the video Chandler claims two things.
1. The force applied by the upper block, and the force applied by the lower block are identical.
...
The forces between the various impacting parts certainly can be stated to be equal, but a force represents only a potential to do work,
It is not true however, in fact it is perfectly possible for the acceleration to increase during the period of collapse. If the mass is high enough and the energy expended in breaking objects low enough then the following will happen.
If the mass is high enough and the energy expended in breaking objects low enough then the following will happen. As each floor is impacted, some energy will be consumed and removed from the upper block's kinetic energy, however, the resultant mass which has been added will then be accelerated under gravity before it impacts the next floor. If the mass gain is great enough to offset the energy loss, then the rate of acceleration will increase as the building collapses.
Chandler addresses none of this, and his presentation of the physics involved is far too simplistic and involves too short a measurement period to make predictions about the whole collapse.
This is true, and vector addition can be used to determine the tension forces on the strings, but you would find that the closer they are to vertical and the more equal the tension, the faster the failure would occur. In WTC7, all columns were vertical and so this analogy doesn't really hold up that far, although we do see the effects in that the penthouse collapses prior to the outer walls.
If it was legitimately weakened to the point where it was providing the same resistance to collapse as a structure made of marshmallows then what was it waiting for?
There's always going to be a point that weight overcomes carrying capacity, it took only a few seconds once the east penthouse collapsed into the building for the global collapse to begin, and it does quickly progress. I'm not understanding the criticism here.
The part that he forgets to mention is that shortly after the 'free fall portion' has completed, the building impacts and still accelerates for a few sample periods.
It is because the internal frame has already failed that the acceleration is so great, the building at that point was being held up by the minimal strength of the external walls and what structural elements did not fail due to the east penthouse collapse.
If this is the case, why did the east penthouse collapse 6 seconds before the start of the global collapse, and why do microphones that clearly pick up the collapse, not pick up any explosive sounds?
This kinetic energy is not 'lost'. If we are talking about purely the acceleration of the various components of a floor after the floor has been destroyed, this floor (minus the mass shed) becomes part of the upper block, the 'piledriver'. Therefore the kinetic energy imparted is still available to do work as the next floor down is impacted.
The problem is with this sort of speculation, that it is not limited to explosives.
For the explosive argument, these calculations would still have to be done, but the differing results that would (presumably) be gathered must then be analysed to determine the mechanism of explosive demolition. It would require more work and be more complex.
Because of this, Occam's Razor applies, until any new evidence is brought to light which cannot be explained by the theory we are discussing.
- -Eyewitnesses claiming to have heard explosions before collapses of all three towers.
- -Recordings of these claimed explosive sounds before collapse of all three towers including actual commentary from some of the eyewitnesses.
- -Eyewitnesses claiming to have seen molten steel from at least one tower before and after collapse.
- -Video confirmation of molten steel from at least one tower before and after collapse.
- -Eyewitnesses claiming to have heard explosions during collapse of all three towers.
- -Video confirmation of explosive sounds during collapse of at least two towers.
- -Video confirmation of explosive squibs seen in all three tower collapses.
...
From this perspective I see what appears to be a lot of evidence in favor of explosives used in the collapse of all three WTC towers and I haven't even mentioned the physical evidence.
Was there thermite residue found in the dust from these towers?
How about the pulverization of just about everything that was once inside those towers; concrete, steel, sheet rock, people, computers, etc...
Or the cut beams and steel slag found in the debris?
How about the melted and even evaporated steel found in the debris?
Was there thermite residue found on some of these steel beams as well?
Google Video Link |
Wait a minute, fires melt steel now?
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Originally posted by Azp420
If a net force F is applied through the center of mass of a body such as the top section of a twin tower the resultant acceleration will equal F divided by its mass. F=ma does apply. If the net force acting on the top section is zero, acceleration will also be zero, this was the exact situation before the top section had started to fall, what is the problem with it?
The downwards force of the top section crushing the lower section is equal and opposite to the upwards force of the lower section resisting collapse. This is not a mistake, its a necessary physical law. Force is related to work by force times distance equals work.
Due to the hugely safe way in which structures are designed it would be (imo) extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a properly designed structure which has such high mass and such low strength, that it could accelerate through itself at ~2/3rds free fall, or nearly any acceleration for a sustained period of time.
I agree with this statement. If what you had just described was true for the towers, it would be safe to expect to see the rate of acceleration slowly build and increase as the building collapses. Instead we saw an almost instant onset of ~2/3rds free fall acceleration and no further build up of acceleration as mass increased.
The reason it is over a short period is because in that video he is investigating what happens to acceleration as the initiation section is crushed and undamaged structure starts being impacted. One would expect to see some sort of difference, as there was obviously a huge difference in the structural resistance of the heavily damaged initiation section and the undamaged lower structure.
Making them close to vertical on top of each other just makes them the equivalent of a single member. To compare the analogy to WTC7 I would arrange the strings vertically spaced apart with a rigid board supporting the mass, like this:
|_|_|_|_|_|
The strings are then cut one by one, in order, starting at one side, until progressive failure ensues (the tension equivalent of the WTC7 compressive failure):
__|_|_|_|
The left hand side should start to fall ahead of the right hand side.
What I meant was this. For the structure to free fall through about 8 stories requires about 8 stories worth of equivalent non-existent structure. If a horizontal progressive collapse started at one side of the structure, creating 8 stories worth of non-existent equivalent structure in that zone, and progressed across to the other side of the structure, why (or how could) everything wait until horizontal progression had effected every last part of the structure before failing. In other words, why didn't the first 8 stories worth of non-existent equivalent structure "zone" fail when horizontal progression was only say, half way across the structure. If this happened we would have seen (looking at the exterior structure) one side begin to collapse ahead of the other side of the structure, like in the analogy above.
It accelerates for about one level, at 25% of the original acceleration.
I would expect to see some sort of change in acceleration in the towers as the top section impacts undamaged lower section, as there must be some difference between the heavily damaged initiation zone and undamaged structure, in terms of ability to resist collapse.
How much of the building did the outer structure still have to support? From what I gather, it sounds like vast majority of the inner building has already collapsed, resulting in a birdcage-like outer structure (which would obviously be unable to free fall through itself).
It's been proven that NIST edited the audio and video of a lot of footage. I've seen a raw video which had the explosive sounds.
While I was looking at the Chandler videos I noticed these little gems:
Pretty definitive proof of a cutter charge in the corner column. How does a puff of air do that?
This projectile changing direction in mid-air is interesting. I can't think of any non-sinister explanation to this.
Originally posted by Devino
Yes, this is a mistake on my part. I don't mean lost as in missing but used up in the transference of momentum and unable to be considered in the continued collapse/destruction sequence at the same rate of acceleration.
I think this is important because I see that this kinetic energy, as well as that of the ejected mass, appears to be used to explain the rate of collapse, or destruction of the lower floors, steel columns, etc..., and the rate of acceleration at the same time.
I agree with this statement yet I don't want to get too carried away with wild speculation. We know that these buildings came down and we agree that there is a lot of ambiguity that pertain to what the upper mass is doing during the collapse. I feel that it is more than fair at this point to entertain other reasonable explanations for collapse propagation.
This is a reasonable point yet the problem is that it can also be used as a catch 22 situation. There is a lot of evidence that seems to show proof of explosives that has been presented over the years yet can it be explained with the official theory? Some might say that it is the nature of a purely gravitational collapse yet others might say that it looks rather like the signs of explosives having been used.
From this perspective I see what appears to be a lot of evidence in favor of explosives used in the collapse of all three WTC towers and I haven't even mentioned the physical evidence.
The problem is that from my perspective, Chandler is using newton's third law to argue that the force applied by the lower section is suspiciously low. He's not taking into account the fact that the collisions and newton's third law apply to the actual contacting parts,
Due to the hugely safe way in which structures are designed it would be (imo) extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a properly designed structure which has such high mass and such low strength, that it could accelerate through itself at ~2/3rds free fall, or nearly any acceleration for a sustained period of time.
The WTC towers were designed to be as light as possible, they were the tallest buildings in the world for a period.
The sample rate isn't long enough to say whether the acceleration increased really, nor is the measurement mechanism that accurate. It's not easy to make predictions about later in the collapse that can be tested, because it is true that the top block is quickly obscured by dust.
There's a couple of problems with this. The first is that 'non-existent structure' is not accurate. The acceleration reported is a best fit line through some quite noisy data, that's based on a low accuracy source. We know that even in controlled demolitions (as Chandler demonstrated) the acceleration is not equal to g, and we know that there's no mechanism to actually remove all of the mass from 8 stories.
The reason that the collapse initiation was so quick once the penthouses had begun collapsing is that the self weight overcomes the carrying capacity of the exterior structure.
You will remember that there is a 'kink' in the exterior wall, so this surely satisfies what you would be looking to see, one section of the building failing ever so slightly quicker than the rest?
It would seem that using his own logic then that is proof that the section it was impacting was being demolished and the upper block was not demolishing it.
It is only when the upper block impacts more intact floors that you see the deceleration.
We know some of the internal framing did survive, but not a gigantic amount, bear in mind that the upper section of the internal frame is still connected to the exterior, and is what is forcing its failure.
You have? Link please?
I don't see anything particularly strange here? Two huge sections of building are impacting each other, and some debris and air is expelled as a result of this. I must say I don't have audio at the moment so if he's making some brilliant point I am missing it.
Didn't see this either, but it's hard to check without audio. Still I can think of an explanation, one piece of debris breaking into two.
I hope I haven't missed anything, but I only just woke up so don't hate me if I did!
I don't know of any analysis that re-adds the energy used up damage.
I don't mind entertaining other theories, but as you noted below we need to actually get some evidence to support them.
many of these 'signs of explosive' are things as innocuous as air being ejected from a floor being crushed
the 'molten steel' which was likely other elements,
These sorts of things are explainable by both theories, but require no new information or explanation to be explained by 'damage and fire theory'.
This is simply speculation unless we can prove that "squibs" are formed from non-explosive building demolitions. I have yet to see a video comparison of squibs being made by both types of building collapse. We know that other controlled demolitions using explosives have these squibs that are caused by these explosives. This particular sign, or marker, is evidence of an explosive demolition, is it not?