Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

The trouble with this is it is from the Randi forum which is hardly a source of good verification. Un-named sources spouting shit. Is there nothing more substantial from an academic source? Or more trustworthy than the Randi forum? Something that you can use to refute Tony's hypothesis?

Magda,

You are refusing to accept well reasoned arguments because they are not published? Or associated with an academic institution? This is little more than hiding behind an appeal to authority argument. LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS, not who makes them.

If you know the history of science, you know that the accepted truth was continually overturned by some outsider such as Galileo. And of course his ideas were rejected by the establishment at the time.

One problem with the "science" of the destruction of the WTC is that the burden of proof for something other than the collapse caused by mechanical damage on unfought fires is on those who claim it was not possible. As noted the event was very complex and spanned an period of time. It was not a singular event like a nuclear bomb explosion. It was a process which I have tried to explain. Yet it is impossible, because of the complexity and the lack of specific data to describe each contributing factor in any specificity. We get all sorts of models and isolated examples of processes.

ROOSD is was identified based on the mapping of the visual data and driven by the notion that any floor system when over stressed collapses. IT IS NOT A COLUMN CRUSHING. The concept HAS been presented in engineering journals but not with the acronym...because the twin tower DESIGN was very susceptible to this sort of failure of the floor plates once the threshold mass descended on them. Once started it would continue until there were no floors left and it had consequences for the columns. They succumbed to Euler buckling forces and toppled from "instability".

NIST seems to have gotten the explanation wrong but identified the basic contributing factors which eroded the strength and led to the collapse. The got the wrong straw which broke the camel's back (I think). Why? I don't know

The three towers were VERY unique structural systems

They had extensive fires which were not fought. FDNY WAS concerned that 7 would collapse and withdraw their people from the building and set up an evacuation zone around the building. You either believe this as genuine assessment or you jump into through the looking glass and believe that someone was going to set off a CD.

Heat DOES weaken steel. It doesn't have to melt it to make it fail in its structural roll. We don't know the precise information about the fires and heat. We know the fires and heat were not fought. We also know that steel is typically protected against fire with applied spray on protection. It is safe to assume that some amount of it was dislodged when the plane struck and caused havoc over several floors throwing all manner of materials all over the place. Protected steel might resist fire for 2 hrs (typically) Unprotected steel is another story.

There is little to no study that I am aware of about the performance of the framing connections. FEMA suspected that they may have failed BEFORE the steel and suggested in 2002 that NIST study the connections. NIST did not.

NIST's work leaves much to be desired. But to most the proximate causes of mechanical damage, un fought fires and unprotected steel could lead to frame failures and global collapse.

Explosions seem to be a gray area. There were electrical explosions in all the towers because they had massive oil cooled electrical equipment. 7WTC appears to have experience multiple transformer/electrical equipment explosions (twins did as well) which likely dislodged insulation and started extensive fires of stored fuel and building contents and materials. We simply don't know the extent of this cause but it cannot and should not be dismissed.

All bombs are explosions, but not all explosions are bombs.

This towers has many energized transformers... and 7 sat above one of the most massive power sub stations in NYC and had 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel on premises (thank to Guiliani).

Con Ed Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy - New York City - YouTube

Electricity has such amazing power - Compliation - YouTube

Transformer Explodes - YouTube

Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy, Cliffside Park NJ - YouTube

Transformer fire and explosion cause blue flames - YouTube

Hurricane Sandy: Transformer explodes in Westchester NY - YouTube


Could the official explanations be avoiding discussion of something else?

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]


Can we please keep the insults and ad homs out of this thread. Once they start, they are very rapidly adopted as the norm. One attack leads to a counter-attack and it's then a slippery slope from there on. No one wins, no one gains. Other members and visitors are turned off and any strength the argument has is diminished by such inflammatory remarks.

Whatever your private thoughts are about other members, keep them to yourself please.

It was quoted from someone else. I don't make such attacks usually. I do believe in civil discourse.

[Jim Hackett II]

Speechlessly amused.

[Magda Hassan]

The trouble with this is it is from the Randi forum which is hardly a source of good verification. Un-named sources spouting shit. Is there nothing more substantial from an academic source? Or more trustworthy than the Randi forum? Something that you can use to refute Tony's hypothesis?

Magda,

You are refusing to accept well reasoned arguments because they are not published? Or associated with an academic institution? This is little more than hiding behind an appeal to authority argument. LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENTS, not who makes them.

If you know the history of science, you know that the accepted truth was continually overturned by some outsider such as Galileo. And of course his ideas were rejected by the establishment at the time.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I just have a visceral reaction to the Randi name. Funny, you are the second person to refer me to Galileo today. The other person being Greg Burnham. Who I could swear was channeling the voice of Charles. But I may be wrong. Just funny to see you on the same side of something.

Anyway, I appreciate all the information that both you and Tony are posting. I am still quite agnostic on the collapse but I am finding it worthwhile personally.

911 not being my area so I often think of the minutiae of collapse/no collapse discourse along the lines of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I find it odd that there appears not to be (or people would be using it I assume?) a whole lot of research not of the NIST variety and not of the James Randi school of cult management and not of the open slather 911 forums. Just looking for independent university proffs without corporate/government ties but with an interest in what happened that day as it relates to their engineering/architectual/metalurgical/health and safety professional interests. Neither Tony nor yourself seem to be able to provide them.

This towers has many energized transformers... and 7 sat above one of the most massive power sub stations in NYC and had 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel on premises (thank to Guiliani).

Con Ed Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy - New York City - YouTube

Electricity has such amazing power - Compliation - YouTube

Transformer Explodes - YouTube

Transformer Explosion Hurricane Sandy, Cliffside Park NJ - YouTube

Transformer fire and explosion cause blue flames - YouTube

Hurricane Sandy: Transformer explodes in Westchester NY - YouTube


Could the official explanations be avoiding discussion of something else?

Another interesting area. Thanks for the links.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Magda,

Clearly there have been presentations - CDs DVDs, Youtubes and even acedemic style papers produced to present the 9/11 truth claim. I would assert that these are presentations undertaken to demonstrate or make the case for the author's preconceived belief about the subject. There are much fewer of such presentations on "other side" often referred to by the truth side as "debunkers". The term -debunker- is loaded and carried with it the presumption that the 9/11 truth presentations are factual and accurate and the response is an attempt to destroy false claims.

"A debunker is a person who attempts to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated or pretentious.[SUP][1][/SUP] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research."

I suppose the problem concerning conclusive technical presentations in academic journals is that some of the science is simply settled. In that sense there is no need to drill down into the levels of mechanics and physics because there is nothing new there, but it would be a very complex set of occurrences. Take a multi car accident. This is much simpler to analyze, but it's hardly necessary to look closely at all the material failures which make up the totality of the accident. There are all sorts of failures which might and probably were in play... such as slippery road conditions, old worn tires, worn brake components, loss of hydraulic fluid, weak mechanical connections and of course forces exceeding the specs of the material making up the cars in mechanical collisions.

It is settled engineering that a floor system which is designed to support a "service" load of 50 pounds per square foot will fail when it is subjected to a dynamic load exceeding 1,000 PSF. There is no need to do an academic study of this as it's been already done. All mechanical and chemical properties of building materials have been derived from empirical tests. In fact, during construction samples of the concrete are taken and tested and logged to make sure that the concrete has the required properties... and this includes how it is cured.

There is no need to produce academic papers about the mechanical destruction of a plane impacting a steel facade and frame moving at X mph. These interactions are trivial calculations. Of course to a naive person it makes no sense that weaker aluminum could destroy stronger steel. But this is simply ignorance incredulity. (calling Professor Fetzer)

There is no need to produce academic papers about the strength of steel when subjected to heat stress.

The problem with the WTC collapses is that analysis requires accurate and extensive data. In the case of the destruction of the WTC buildings we are very data starved. It's like doing an autopsy to determine the cause of death from some photos of a car crash. We know the victim died... but what was the precise cause of death? Loss of blood? severing of a vein or artery? We need to examine the victim and then it may be possible to determine the precise cause(s) and the sequence which led to the death.

Free fall or acceleration close to free fall does not equate to a CD. This is pure nonsense. Symmetry or seeming organization of the debris of a collapse does not equate to CD as much as it does to the distribution of mass of the structure. In fact most of the so called evidence claimed to support CD does not. Molten metal does not equate to CD if it was there.

The proponents of CD make a stellar fail because they can't produce a coherent explanation and mechanism for CD which accounts for ALL the observations. Just because we see unusual things does not equate to CD. The buildings collapsed... regardless of the cause and virtually all the artifacts (evidence in the debris) is related to the basic collapse of 1.5 million tones of materials from as high as 1/4 mile in as little as 15 seconds in 3 separate occurrences. The fact that there were 3 and consistency does not equate to CD.

NIST was supposed to explain how fire caused the collapse. They came up with what appears to me to be implausible explanations of how the heat acted and where it acted. The evidence for explosives was really not there. The explosions heard were attributed to electrical systems and other systems in the towers. Of course considering people understood the event to be a terrorist attack.. all explosion sounds were reported as sounding like bombs. Witness testimony is not reliable and this is a perfect example of why.

Most people are not interested in the technical details and NIST was able to skate by with their poor work (in my opinion) because they concluded it was heat weakened steel which initiated the collapses. They got the cause right but the locations seems to be wrong.

And hence no one seems to be interested in taking this on... in anything more than theoretical ways such as Tony and Bazant... both of whom are not modelling the actual event... because of their assumptions.

[Jeffrey Orling]

People are quick to call someone a liar. This assumes that the person who made the utterance or wrote a statement knew that it was factually untrue. People make such statements all the time believing them to be true without intent to deceive.

The cases of people referring to Tony as a liar I presume is based on the notion that Tony's has been made aware of the technical reasons why something he said or wrote is untrue. For those who make such a claim there is no wiggle room and Tony is believed to be perfectly capable of understanding his error and his persistence in repeating said claim can only be attributed to his inability to admit a mistake and or his willful attempt to maintain a fiction. I think this sort of charge applies to Tony because he claims to be technically on top of his game, unlike some others who post on internet forums and who simply copy, paste, and repeat and cheer from the sidelines so to speak. While what the supporters believe and do may be incorrect their error in thinking is somewhat understandable... they are not engineers, physicists and so forth and the positions they espouse are simply repeating what people who they believe are experts have said or written based on rigorous science and rational critical thinking.

Magda is asking for some academics who persumably have no skin the game to study and report on the matter. This is certainly a fine idea. But because of the charged politics it's hard to find anyone who hasn't taken a position either broadly supporting the official account or broadly opposing it. It's rather hard to produce blind studies of the WTC events.

And of course the level of discourse is pretty low and flooded with all manner of insults and ad hom arguments such as calling someone who does not support a belief an agent who is trying to destroy the movement of those who are striving for the truth.

I don't find the level of discourse at Randi something to hold up as an example for anyone. I will say there are at least a few people who post there who do have a fair amount of technical standing in a sea of others who don't. I do find the 911freeforms to be relatively free of non technically driven agendas. It's not a political site such as DP... and so it doesn't appeal to and is not read by member of DP. But if it's technical understanding of the little evidence that does exists, 911FF is the place to go to further understanding. And if one does spend time reading through the posts one can see that the level of understanding as evolved over time as the analysis and tools for analysis have improved.

You can only "debate" so much when you neither have all the facts nor can agree on the ones that are accessible.

[Jeffrey Orling]

This seems to be the problem in understanding 9/11. Everyone embraces the ideas that when you connect the "dots" the picture emerges explaining what appear to be disparate and separate bits of information. This is often how crimes and mysteries are solved.... piecing together evidence... connecting the evidence "dots".

The zodiac is an example of a nonsense connecting the dots exercise... The stars which make up Orion have hardly anything to do with each other. When viewed from almost any other location in the universe the pattern which we see as Orion would not resemble Orion at all. So there is no Orion... it is a collection of dots (stars) we connect because we choose to see Orion (from our location on earth in our local galaxy), the hunter in Greek MYTHOLOGY. Note the word MYTH in mythology.

There are many puzzles to be solved when we look at the events of 9/11. There are political forces and there were the physical technical events which know no politics. Observers clearly seem to be selecting the bits they choose as significant and then draw connections between them. Some will call this process cherry picking. It's no different than what the early Greeks did when they looked to the stars which they clearly did not understand as we do today. They were ignorant about astronomy and so they came up with astrology, a seemingly coherent system made out of whole cloth. But it was convincing to the naive/ignorant people of the time. The underlying concept of astrology is so absurd it's amazing that anyone would pay heed to it today now that we have more understanding of the universe we inhabit. How do heavenly bodies influence personality and character based on the moment one pops out the birth canal and the geographic location on earth? Certainly it's not measurable or connected to personality development.

In the case of 9/11 there are so many dots to choose from and there are lots which are missing or not obvious for any number of reasons. The missing ones we would call missing data and evidence. And when it's not there, we try to explain why we don't have those data.

One common aspect of criminal behavior... is the criminal's need to get away with their crime. So the clever criminal will attempt to both leave little incriminating evidence, or leave decoys and fake evidence or evidence which points to someone else and definitely away from them. Accidents or physical events don't engage in such schemes.

Many who look at 9/11 as a crime expect that the conspirators were up to this sort of deception. They project that the entire event was part of the crime "scheme" all planned and carried out in minute detail and some assert the plans go back for decades. They will then connect some dots in support of this notion and call it a false flag. They see all the signs of this sort of deception. Why? Just like the Greeks who wanted to see their gods in the heavens (where else would gods hang out but in a place called "the heavens")... those who believe 9/11 was an inside job... a criminal conspiracy... look for the signs OF THAT criminal conspiracy.... You hear things such as... their failure to do a proper fire investigation or look for explosives... or they removed all the incriminating evidence from the steel frame and so on.

Everyone is trying to figure out which dots to connect and which are significant and which are not. Was the steel actually whisked away to destroy evidence? Or was it removed for some other purpose such as recovery of victims... and sold for scrap? What should they have done with 300,000 tons of bent and mangled steel designed for those structures? How much of it should have been saved to study? How important was the recovery of remains as opposed to preserving a "crime scene'?

Houston.. we have a dot connecting problem. Choose your dots and it frames your beliefs. Or what also seems to be present is... Look for the dots which support your beliefs. There are so many dots there, so many missing, so many confusing that dot collectors can building any narraritive they want. And they do... and the narratives will make perfect sense because once the dots are connected... there is a logical consistency to them. How could anyone deny it?

When you realize how lost the explanation has become in connecting the dots exercises, you realize that it's all hardly different from the Greeks who needed to see their gods in the sky. They saw what they wanted to see... what confirmed their world view however good or bad it was.

Step right up and connect the dots...

[David Guyatt]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling]


Can we please keep the insults and ad homs out of this thread. Once they start, they are very rapidly adopted as the norm. One attack leads to a counter-attack and it's then a slippery slope from there on. No one wins, no one gains. Other members and visitors are turned off and any strength the argument has is diminished by such inflammatory remarks.

Whatever your private thoughts are about other members, keep them to yourself please.

It was quoted from someone else. I don't make such attacks usually. I do believe in civil discourse.

I'm glad Jeffrey. Thank you. Civil discourse is the only meaningful way to proceed for forums like ours.


Flaming attacks advances the arguments backwards. ::

[Tony Szamboti]

Just looking for independent university proffs without corporate/government ties but with an interest in what happened that day as it relates to their engineering/architectual/metalurgical/health and safety professional interests. Neither Tony nor yourself seem to be able to provide them.

Magda, I would hope you realize that the paper this thread is about was written by myself, a PhD mechanical engineer and author on the subject of shock and impact dynamics with extensive experience in the area of concern http://allweatherwood.ca/dbimages/Formul...-text-book, and a University Professor.

There is a website now concerning 911 and academia where you will find peer reviewed papers by retired technical subject Professors Robert Korol, Terry Morone, Steven Jones and others here http://911inacademia.com/ and at the Journal of 911 Studies here http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[Tony Szamboti]

People are quick to call someone a liar. This assumes that the person who made the utterance or wrote a statement knew that it was factually untrue. People make such statements all the time believing them to be true without intent to deceive.

The cases of people referring to Tony as a liar I presume is based on the notion that Tony's has been made aware of the technical reasons why something he said or wrote is untrue. For those who make such a claim there is no wiggle room and Tony is believed to be perfectly capable of understanding his error and his persistence in repeating said claim can only be attributed to his inability to admit a mistake and or his willful attempt to maintain a fiction. I think this sort of charge applies to Tony because he claims to be technically on top of his game, unlike some others who post on internet forums and who simply copy, paste, and repeat and cheer from the sidelines so to speak. While what the supporters believe and do may be incorrect their error in thinking is somewhat understandable... they are not engineers, physicists and so forth and the positions they espouse are simply repeating what people who they believe are experts have said or written based on rigorous science and rational critical thinking.

Magda is asking for some academics who persumably have no skin the game to study and report on the matter. This is certainly a fine idea. But because of the charged politics it's hard to find anyone who hasn't taken a position either broadly supporting the official account or broadly opposing it. It's rather hard to produce blind studies of the WTC events.

And of course the level of discourse is pretty low and flooded with all manner of insults and ad hom arguments such as calling someone who does not support a belief an agent who is trying to destroy the movement of those who are striving for the truth.

I don't find the level of discourse at Randi something to hold up as an example for anyone. I will say there are at least a few people who post there who do have a fair amount of technical standing in a sea of others who don't. I do find the 911freeforms to be relatively free of non technically driven agendas. It's not a political site such as DP... and so it doesn't appeal to and is not read by member of DP. But if it's technical understanding of the little evidence that does exists, 911FF is the place to go to further understanding. And if one does spend time reading through the posts one can see that the level of understanding as evolved over time as the analysis and tools for analysis have improved.

You can only "debate" so much when you neither have all the facts nor can agree on the ones that are accessible.

Oops, time for another reality check here. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The North Tower never decelerates and a natural collapse would have to. This is something Jeffrey seems to get tongue tied explaining.

He also forgets to tell you that his ROOSD (Runaway Outer Office Space Destruction or more commonly known as pancaking) requires a significant number of floors to be broken loose, so there needs to be column destruction during the first several stories of the collapse before ROOSD can even start.

By saying ROOSD explains everything Jeffrey is trying to tell you that a horse isn't required to pull the cart and that it magically moves on its own.

P.S. the only individuals who have ever called me a liar were anonymous individuals with wacky ideas and postulations on the JREF Forum. It is a disgrace that you would even say that here. Neither you or anyone on the JREF Forum has ever shown me to be in error, you only try to say you have. So it is also disgraceful for you to talk as though you and these anonymous individuals have. Your discourse here reminds me of that of a teenager telling fibs about things he has done to impress people.