WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

uh maybe the numerous explosions that were heard?

it isn't even close to being remote.
that fuel was running down the sides of the building and the elevator shafts.


and of course you know this because you were actually there counting the gallons, right?

the only problem is that the distribution wasn't uniform and you know it.


true, but the explosions could have caused other damage that led directly to the collapse.

The distribution of the fuel can be estimated. FEMA and NIST did this. Did you read the short article I linked to?

To attribute damaged columns lower in the towers, from fuel air explosions just after the aircraft hit, with having anything to do with the collapses 56 minutes and 102 minutes later is probably a real stretch. Did the same thing happen in both towers?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That is the trouble with a lot of this crap. They come up with some jargon for a simple idea that grade school kids deal with when they are playing with their toys. But suddenly people don't understand it because they don't know the jargon.

And then you run into pseudo-intellectual morons that don't want to explain the jargon but want to act like you are stupid because you don't know it. I didn't know what dead loads and live loads were when I started reading the NCSTAR1 report but that doesn't make them complicated concepts. But we are supposed to take that crap seriously when they leave out something a simple as the total quantity of concrete. If this shit wasn't so serious I could find the whole thing hysterically funny.

psik

Most people intuitively know that an impact generates a high force. What they may not understand are the mechanics involved and that is that it requires a deceleration greater than that of gravity and proportional loss of velocity. If there is no deceleration and loss of velocity there is no amplified force.

It isn't that these are complicated concepts, it is just that most people haven't had the need to fully understand them. I work in the Aerospace industry as a mechanical engineer doing structural design and have a need to understand dynamic loads.

We all can learn.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

got any links to neutral sources or not?

Your comments here are ninny like. There is nothing biased about how the factors of safety were determined in that article. Why don't you calculate what they are yourself then? All of the information needed to do it is publicly available.

It has been publicized that the perimeter columns had a factor of safety of 6.00 to 1 when considering gravity loads only. They were this high as the perimeter also needed to take high wind and seismic loads. They actually were ranged from 5.00 to 1 to 6.00 to 1 depending on the floor level.

 

[leopold]

Your comments here are ninny like. There is nothing biased about how the factors of safety were determined in that article.

because i want to know where you got your data from

Why don't you calculate what they are yourself then? All of the information needed to do it is publicly available.

then it shouldn't be too hard for you to tell me where the data came from.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

because i want to know where you got your data from

then it shouldn't be too hard for you to tell me where the data came from.

The sources for all of the data are referenced in the article it appears you still haven't looked at.

 

[leopold]

. . . it appears you still haven't looked at.

i'm not gonna generate traffic for your website.
post 'em here for all to see.

 

[psikeyhackr]

redundant BS

The shock wave is evident in this picture so why would it cease? just because it is obscured by dust?

Accelerating....meaning that it is gaining speed?.....till it reaches maximum speed of gravity acceleration, which means the shock wave would move further out in front of the event.

Accelerating at 75% of the rate of gravity, exactly, a continuos acceleration for the collapse, from event initiation to cessation, not a free fall, or a controlled demolition.

Some were it was posted that the whole Tower weight in a 100,000 tons,

The top third then would weigh in at 33,000 tons, moving at 7.5 meters per second, that is approximately 17 miles per hour, at 17 mph, a Train that weighs 33,000 tons in a full emergency stop brakes fully applied takes a mile to stop, so how would the top of a building at 75% acceleration of gravity be brought to a stop from resistance in 700 feet? less than a 1/4 mile.

OK, BR! I mentioned 400,000 tons in response to your whip cracking comment back on page 40. So how do you come up with 100,000 tons now? Are you paying attention or are you just talking for entertainment and don't give a damn about actually understanding and solving the problem?

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

OK, BR! I mentioned 400,000 tons in response to your whip cracking comment back on page 40. So how do you come up with 100,000 tons now? Are you paying attention or are you just talking for entertainment and don't give a damn about actually understanding and solving the problem?

psik

Thank you for confirming your number of 400,000 tons as the weight of the Building, that means a increase in the amount of weight in the top 1/3 of the building, increasing the mass and energy of the top 1/3 of the building in the fall.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Thank you for confirming your number of 400,000 tons as the weight of the Building, that means a increase in the amount of weight in the top 1/3 of the building, increasing the mass and energy of the top 1/3 of the building in the fall.

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor so 29 stories were above the impact point. Since the building was 110 stories tall that is

26% not 33%

So if you are going to act like accurate information is important please do so with some degree of consistency.

The buildings designers knew what the distribution of weight had to be so they put enough steel in to support it and of course that steel had to have mass therefore the conservation of momentum had to be a factor in any supposed collapse.

Now unless you can explain what is wrong with this:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

your emphasizing how much weight was coming down just shows you don't understand enough to evaluate the relevant factors involved.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

So how do floor joists and their connectors, designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin manage to hold back the inertia of 19 floors in motion?

 

[psikeyhackr]

So how do floor joists and their connectors, designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin manage to hold back the inertia of 19 floors in motion?

I keep having to point out the difference between FLOORS and LEVELS. The connectors for the joists involve the floor slabs. You are talking about the old pancaking business which the NIST now says did not happen.

The floor slabs in that top 19 level portion were still attached to the core. So the core in that top portion came down on top of the core in the lower portion. Explain what happened when the cores collided.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

Apparently you haven't seen the video of the collapse. It is clear that the core remains standing for a few seconds after the collapse begins...i'd post an image..but im posting from my mobile.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor so 19 stories were above the impact point. Since the building was 110 stories tall that is

26% not 33%

So if you are going to act like accurate information is important please do so with some degree of consistency.

The buildings designers knew what the distribution of weight had to be so they put enough steel in to support it and of course that steel had to have mass therefore the conservation of momentum had to be a factor in any supposed collapse.

Now unless you can explain what is wrong with this:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

your emphasizing how much weight was coming down just shows you don't understand enough to evaluate the relevant factors involved.

psik

Your ingnoring weight/mass in motion show you know even less.

Now unless you can explain what is wrong with this:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

No matter what brought the towers down the conservation of momentum cannot have been violated. This is the equation for an inelastic collision in which two masses stick together. If the second mass is stationary then v2 is zero.

The two mass's were not sticking together, and they were not inelastic, they were collapsing into one another, and shredding themselves all along the way, inelastic my ass, the only reason building that tall can be built with out spontaneous collapse is the fact that they are elastic, they have to move to wind load pressure, so they don't break off at some point, or reach harmonic structural frequency from wind gusts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw&feature=related

Newtons Laws cannot be violated, a mass in motion tends to stay in motion, and the mass in motion grew with every collapsed floor on the way down, and no single floor which is designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin can manage hold back the inertia load of 19 floors in motion.

That is what is wrong with richarddawkins, only one floor at a time is in communication with the event front, and the shock wave is communicated past the single floor at the event front.

There was nothing in the world, except the hand of God, that would have stopped those 19 floors in motion.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Apparently you haven't seen the video of the collapse. It is clear that the core remains standing for a few seconds after the collapse begins...i'd post an image..but im posting from my mobile.

The cores all of the way up to the 81st floor on the south tower and the 94th floor on the north tower? YEAH RIGHT!

Tell the dumb debating bullshit to somebody else.

And then what was left looked like it turned into dust in midair. Yeah I watched the videos. There are a lot of strange things that need explaining about them and airliners and fire don't come anywhere near covering them. So I'll just point out the peculiar things that normal physics can't even explain. I'll leave the Twilight Zone stuff to Judy Wood.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Newtons Laws cannot be violated, a mass in motion tends to stay in motion, and the mass in motion grew with every collapsed floor on the way down, and no single floor which is designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin can manage hold back the inertia load of 19 floors in motion.

Your fairy tale physics is nonsense. A stationary mass has a motion of ZERO therefore it tends to stay that way just like you said. So when a moving mass hits a stationary mass of significant quantity both will be affected. You are making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Your fairy tale physics is nonsense. A stationary mass has a motion of ZERO therefore it tends to stay that way just like you said. So when a moving mass hits a stationary mass of significant quantity both will be affected. You are making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

psik

And your ignoring Newton's Law, and Gravity, and making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

The falling tower sections were not stationary were they? reference the collapse video:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365696/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1, the North Tower was hit between the 93 and 99 floor:

At 8:46 a.m., hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the northern facade of the World Trade Center's North Tower, impacting at roughly 440 miles per hour (710 km/h) between the 93rd and 99th floors.

That is 17 floors of mass and energy in motion as the collapse initiates.

United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower's southern facade between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour (870 km/h)

That is 33 floors in motion as the collapse initates.

The collapsing floors collapsed around the core, and once in motion, Newtons Law second law is in effect.

Fires
The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[16] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[17][18] The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.[19]

In the North Tower, jet fuel ran down at least two elevator shafts to the basement, and two or more elevators plummeted to the lower levels. Fire continued to burn in the shafts, which may have helped weaken the core.

16.^ Field, Andy (2004). "A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse". Fire/Rescue News. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

17.^ Gross, John L., Therese P. McAllister (2004). "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers" (pdf). Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster NIST NCSTAR 1-6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

18.^ a b Wilkinson, Tim (2006). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

19.^ National Construction Safety Team (September 2005). "Executive Summary" (PDF). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Your fairy tale physics is nonsense. A stationary mass has a motion of ZERO therefore it tends to stay that way just like you said. So when a moving mass hits a stationary mass of significant quantity both will be affected. You are making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

psik

Sir..I believe you are the one believing in fairy tale physics...I couldn't find it in the mountain of posts...but you once posted a formula for kinetic energy where you subtracted velocities directly. I am by NO means a physics expert, but I do know enough to know you are wrong.

Maybe I'll ask someone from the physics forum to answer this.

 

[MacGyver1968]

And your ignoring Newton's Law, and Gravity, and making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

The falling tower sections were not stationary were they? reference the collapse video:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365696/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1, the North Tower was hit between the 93 and 99 floor:



That is 17 floors of mass and energy in motion as the collapse initiates.




That is 33 floors in motion as the collapse initates.

The collapsing floors collapsed around the core, and once in motion, Newtons Law second law is in effect.

Fires
The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[16] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[17][18] The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.[19]

In the North Tower, jet fuel ran down at least two elevator shafts to the basement, and two or more elevators plummeted to the lower levels. Fire continued to burn in the shafts, which may have helped weaken the core.

16.^ Field, Andy (2004). "A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse". Fire/Rescue News. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

17.^ Gross, John L., Therese P. McAllister (2004). "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers" (pdf). Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster NIST NCSTAR 1-6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

18.^ a b Wilkinson, Tim (2006). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

19.^ National Construction Safety Team (September 2005). "Executive Summary" (PDF). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf.

Holy crap, Buff...did you turn into Tiassa while I wasn't watching...look at all those references. just kidding bro.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Apparently you haven't seen the video of the collapse. It is clear that the core remains standing for a few seconds after the collapse begins...i'd post an image..but im posting from my mobile.

Only the interior core columns remain standing from about the 60th floor down. What happened to the much stronger outer core columns all the way down?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your ingnoring weight/mass in motion show you know even less.



The two mass's were not sticking together, and they were not inelastic, they were collapsing into one another, and shredding themselves all along the way, inelastic my ass, the only reason building that tall can be built with out spontaneous collapse is the fact that they are elastic, they have to move to wind load pressure, so they don't break off at some point, or reach harmonic structural frequency from wind gusts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw&feature=related

Newtons Laws cannot be violated, a mass in motion tends to stay in motion, and the mass in motion grew with every collapsed floor on the way down, and no single floor which is designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin can manage hold back the inertia load of 19 floors in motion.

That is what is wrong with richarddawkins, only one floor at a time is in communication with the event front, and the shock wave is communicated past the single floor at the event front.

There was nothing in the world, except the hand of God, that would have stopped those 19 floors in motion.

Why isn't there a loss of velocity during any of the alleged impacts? You keep avoiding this question.