Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
You think publishing makes something correct? You don't think peer review can make mistakes? You don't think that science and engineering is constantly being revised and what is accepted one day is rejected the next? TSz has set up a few made up out of whole cloth assumptions and then does some calcs. But if the assumptions are wrong it's hardly representative of the real world.. very much like Bazant's published papers whic were theoretical limiting cases... not intended to represent any real world case. Strawman.. knock them down by calling them real world explanations. They weren't and it proves nothing.
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
For a reality check see what a gravity driven demolition should look like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
It decelerates. The North Tower does not.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
All motion begins with acceleration.
Motion of collapse front of WTC reach a constant velocity and did not continue to accelerate.
The examples given are completely different structural systems.
Apples and oranges.
Smoke and Mirrors.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:All motion begins with acceleration.
Motion of collapse front of WTC reach a constant velocity and did not continue to accelerate.
The examples given are completely different structural systems.
Apples and oranges.
Smoke and Mirrors.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.
The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
What do you think happened with WTC 7? Do you think it also reached a constant velocity and did not continue to accelerate?
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
This works for me. It's a powerful argument.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Tony
I find your 608 statement compelling:
Your theory cannot produce a symmetric free fall of the entire building for eight stories, so it is nonsense and you shouldn't even be saying it.
People should use their common sense and ask themselves if a truss failing due to fire here and then one due to overload over there and another one would produce a symmetric free fall like that observed with WTC 7. In case everyone doesn't understand
symmetric means all at the same time
free fall acceleration is the full rate of gravity which is only possible with no resistance. This occurred for eight stories or just over 100 feet at the beginning of the collapse.
The symmetric free fall was due to eight stories of the core being removed simultaneously via controlled demolition.
It seems to complement what I found:
Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the ground as a result of fires as FEMA speculated in 2002 the significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still well after 6.5 years from the event trying to come up with a plausible report, "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". This can be seen as either suspicious or absurd, and I don't think building disasters are investigated absurdly.
The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95 seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building, therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However, destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]
The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover, achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.
Hot debris. According to NASA's thermal imaging, the surface temperature of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius five days after the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few degrees' increase in temperature.
Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the temperature required by vaporization.
Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous architects, engineers and other demolition professionals see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the official account.
[URL="http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/"]http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
[/URL]
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:All motion begins with acceleration.
Motion of collapse front of WTC reach a constant velocity and did not continue to accelerate.
The examples given are completely different structural systems.
Apples and oranges.
Smoke and Mirrors.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.
The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
What do you think happened with WTC 7? Do you think it also reached a constant velocity and did not continue to accelerate?
No the north tower did not continue to accelerate. The collapse from the strike zone down was INSIDE the facade (ROOSD) and it reached and was clocked at a terminal. If you can show otherwise... please do. You DO see a fallen panel way below the collapse front which was dropping close to free fall.. so the collapse clearly was not at that speed or rate of acceleration and so there WAS resistance... the floors which had to be shattered by the collapse in rubble flow.
The verinage example is not analogous to the twin tower collapse.
I think what happened to 7WTC was there was a failure of the load transfer structures which were on floors 5-7 and spanned over parts of the sub station. There was a 5 story tall open lobby on the south with no interior columns. The load transfer failure rapidly propagated westward... the column line 79,80 and 81 dropped 8 floors to the ground pulling everything above with them including the east penthouse .. followed by the west penthouse. The transfer structure collapses pulled in the braced frames on the east and west at the perimeter... the north perimeter was supported at the ends of the cantilever girders with no columns below flr 8 with the facade hung from for cantilevers... and when these failures were "done" the curtain wall and perimeter column has not support and plunged 8 floors with the some attached floors pulling in the column line north of the west end of transfer truss 1 causing a vertical kink in the entire north facade... clearly indicated that there was nothing behind it (no floors). The curtain wall accelerated close to... but not evenly at free fall for 104 feet or so... the distance from the ground to the top of floor 7/ bottom of floor 8 structure where the load transfer structures ended (topped out). After the 104 foot decent the curtain wall slowed as it was being crushed in contact with the ground.
Total collapse time from the earliest building movements through the east and west penthouse collapse and the curtain wall collapse was close in the range of 14 seconds or more.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
David Guyatt Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
This works for me. It's a powerful argument.
The WTC towers were not a stronger structures... what collapsed over 10 - 14 seconds was the FLOORS which were likely weaker than a typical office floor system. No columns were crushed and they could have been twice as strong with the same floors and the collapse time would have been the same... it was a runaway floor collapse and had nothing to do with the columns.
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
This works for me. It's a powerful argument.
The WTC towers were not a stronger structures... what collapsed over 10 - 14 seconds was the FLOORS which were likely weaker than a typical office floor system. No columns were crushed and they could have been twice as strong with the same floors and the collapse time would have been the same... it was a runaway floor collapse and had nothing to do with the columns.
The towers were probably twice as strong as the Balzac-Vitry building. I am sure you can't back up what you are saying about the relative strength of those buildings.
You seem to forget that you need to get through a set of columns before floors can be collapsing on floors. You keep putting the cart before the horse and forgetting it can't go anywhere on its own. Of course, I have seen you try to get around that by insisting a 207 foot square 73 million lb. 12 story section of building just shifts sideways somehow so that the columns miss each other. In reality once loosened the upper 12 story section would fall in place as there is no lateral load to shift it.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You seem to forget that you need to get through a set of columns before floors can be collapsing on floors. You keep putting the cart before the horse and forgetting it can't go anywhere on its own. Of course, I have seen you try to get around that by insisting a 207 foot square 73 million lb. 12 story section of building just shifts sideways somehow so that the columns miss each other. In reality once loosened the upper 12 story section would fall in place as there is no lateral load to shift it.
The asymmetrical nature of the destruction led to asymmetrical support of the upper floors and this induced rotation when the capacity of the columns dropped below the imposed loads which caused a rotation... and this was all it took for the remaining connected column ends to rotate and break free. Same think happened in 2WTC, but the mechanical damage was ever more off center and the rotation greater. The columns ends where the connections were had no lateral restraint and were simply more like alignment splices at 4' above the floor line were the bracing and lateral restraint was.
Your understanding of how the damage at the core manifest is incorrect... but it enables you to construct your irrational belief that explosives or placed devices account for the rotation or the lateral movement. And just how would they have accomplished that?
|
