Kenetic Energy, Column Bowing and the "Progressive Collapses" of WTC 1 and 2

Originally posted by esdad71
Please show me similar structure of that size?

What does size have to do with anything, Esdad? If you think bigger = weaker then you're confused. Bigger = more redundant. Skyscrapers are not going to be built with the same safety factor as your house, for obvious reasons. Stricter codes apply to them.

There are thousands of large buildings around the world, but almost every single one was designed unlike this one. Most have much more concrete for rigidity and fireproofing? This is correct, right?

What makes you think steel is susceptible to fire? Look up the Cardington tests man. The notion that fire causes steel buildings to fall is a notion that has arisen only since 9/11, because those buildings were brought down and lied about. There are interviews with people that are EXPERTS on this subject, and they were completely BAFFLED by the fact that the towers came down. Do you understand that about 20 years of continuous research into fires in steel frames, where heat was cranked out in wattages that would be CRAZY to assume for the WTC, showed that fire is no danger to steel frames? Fireproofing was a safety precaution, just as massive over-engineering is a safety pre-caution.

It was not designed to loose columns and still stand.

I can debunk this utterly with one simple fact:

The planes severed columns.


And if you knew what a safety factor was, you would never, ever make such a dumb statement. The buildings barely winced when those planes came crashing in.

The buildings twisted in their own bases and shook for more than 2 minutes. So by your statement the impact did NOT effect the buildings?

I am not implying bigger is weaker, so please do not put words in my mouth. What would be more stable, a building built in the fashion of WTC 1 and 2, pr the one in the MAdrid fire. Solid concrete structure as opposed to the erector set of the WTC? Seems one built like the building in Madrid, how most buildings are designed. Is this not true?

Originally posted by esdad71
The buildings twisted in their own bases and shook for more than 2 minutes.

First of all, you're ignoring the fact that columns were severed and it stood. If what you were saying earlier is true, that they weren't built to have columns removed, then how do you account for that? Do you believe in magic? What am I missing?

And do you know what a safety factor is? Look it up.

Secondly, I didn't see them dancing around for two whole minutes, so unless the core alone was doing the dancing, you're either talking about insignificant vibrations, or else you bought someone's exaggerated BS hook line and sinker. And if you're going to tell me that reverberating is going to cause serious structural damage to a bolted and welded steel framed building then I don't know what else I could say to you, especially when a plane has just slammed into it and caused nothing to fail besides what it physically knocked out.

I am not implying bigger is weaker, so please do not put words in my mouth. What would be more stable, a building built in the fashion of WTC 1 and 2, pr the one in the MAdrid fire. Solid concrete structure as opposed to the erector set of the WTC?

Concrete has good compressive strength. That's about it man. Concrete has no tensile strength and is destroyed in fire because the water in it expands and cracks and breaks it. I don't know where you get the idea that concrete is fireproof, or is some miraculous super-substance in buildings.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by bsbray11]

esdad71

I feel your missing the spirit of the discussion.

bsbray11

Brings up a very interesting point:

Mass was constantly being thrown out of the collapse, as the structure became more and more massive all the way down. In other words, the mass coming down was decreasing, as the "solidness" of all the mass below was increasing.

Think about that for a moment. We are not talking about just the design of the bldg's, but also the physics in the collapse.

If you truly are considering this with a truthful heart and mind, which I think you are then truly consider or reconsider the position your taking. The Mass was descreasing against an existing Mass, or increasing Mass below.

There is no easy way around this, even if one were to subsribe to just a fire and damage collapse then there are sure oddities in the collapse that surely need explaining.

We have to answer things like, what cleared the mass below in order for the close to freefall speed to happen? Was it the driving force of what was above?

But, already look at the problem, the driving force was going *OUTWARD* more then *DOWNWARD* take a re-look at any of the video's and you will see this phenomena.

Even if do not want to believe in a conspiracy by Gov or the like, you still have to be open and honest enough to admit that the collapse has things happening that can't at this time be explained.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The velocity would still decrease even if this were true. But the impulse force, in reality, would have been decreasing in proportion to the normal force the whole way down.

Reason being?

Mass was constantly being thrown out of the collapse, as the structure became more and more massive all the way down. In other words, the mass coming down was decreasing, as the "solidness" of all the mass below was increasing.

I must not understand this right. You can not be saying the falling mass was decreasing on the way down.
As the top floors started to fall they gained enough energy to break the supports of the floor below. The breaking of the support does decelerate the mass some. This floor added to the mass of the falling mass giving it more energy and causing it to decelerate less and less with each floor.

It's called the law of conservation of momentum, be careful with it, it is what is called real science

Originally posted by numb99
I must not understand this right. You can not be saying the falling mass was decreasing on the way down.

I am.

If you don't believe me, prove me wrong by showing me the big stack of 110 floors at the base of either tower.

Why did each floor fall as fast as the last one? Where was teh slowdown, the resistance when each floor fell>

People inside the building didnt know what happened, those outside the immediate impact zone werent knocked to the floor. The towers handled the hits well

Originally posted by esdad71
Why is the explanation he gave not accurate. The WTC was a unique building and design. It was designed for wind sheer and commercial space, not for a large commercial jet to slam into it at 500mph.

Acutally it was designed to withstand not one but several plane impacts. After a plane crashed into the empire state building they were designed to withstand such collisions.

imho , i think all this "" required by a specific law of physics ""
is thrown out with the dish water when a building is hit by a jet traveling
at close to 600mph . that's not really a scenario all those brillant men in
suits could apply these laws to . or did i somehow miss those tests when they were done ?
all the book reading and applied math done on paper really isn't worth a
whole lot when an event the size of 911 happens . it's all just guess work
that most people take at face value and believe it to be so untill it really happens and all the guess work is taken away .
the buildings were made to withstand a plane crashing into them , but a much smaller plane and at much lower speed and a ton less fuel .
and then you have to take into account at what floors did the crash happen
and the weight that would have to be supported above and below the impact site . and if you just watch all the video from all the different vantage points , you can clearly see that BOTH towers gave way at
the point of impact .
but thats just m2c .

[edit on 6-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

as a note of interest, leslie robertson himself said(after the event) that it would make little difference whether it was steel or concrete used in the building (core, if i remember correctly) because both are compromised by extreme heat.

as far as the rest of these LAME OCT arguments go, the towers resisted the impact. all the official bodies said so; NIST, FEMA, etc. they OBVIOUSLY withstood the impact, AND supported the added 120 tons of airplane on A FEW FLOORS!(minus whatever tonnage passed right through the building).

so, if a few floors can support an extra 120 tons of extra weight with 15% of vertical supports removed, that's some PROVEN SERIOUS FRICKIN' REDUNDANCY!

the most intense fires were immediately after impact, because that's when there was jet fuel everywhere. this fire is guesstimated by NIST to have burned off within MINUTES, and then turned into a 'normal office fire'.

of course, this only WEAKENED and COMPROMISED the floors of impact, and the floors above that.

tell me. if you burn a basket until it glows, and then drop it down on a non-burning, brand new basket, which is TWICE AS STRONG(the strength of the towers was pyramidal),WHAT BREAKS? the burning ember basket, or the bigger, heavier, untouched by fire basket?

if you guessed the burning one, WELCOME TO NIST! please collect your million dollars(20 million over 200 scientists).

Stack ten 1 inch by 8 inch by 18 inch pine boards on top of each other, support both ends with cinder blocks, then try breaking all six boards with a "Karate" chop. Ain't happenin'.

Now, take the same stack of boards and separate each board from the one above it with, say, nickels. Now try to break them with a Karate chop.

Karate "Masters" have been using Kinetic energy in this manner for a long time.

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
Stack ten 1 inch by 8 inch by 18 inch pine boards on top of each other, support both ends with cinder blocks, then try breaking all six boards with a "Karate" chop. Ain't happenin'.

Now, take the same stack of boards and separate each board from the one above it with, say, nickels. Now try to break them with a Karate chop.

Did I miss out in the design of the buildings where the core and perimeter columns had "spaces" between them to allow his very inapplicable situation to occur?

Also, who laid down the "boom hand karate chop" on these buildings? Was ti THE FOOT OF GOD?

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by esdad71
Why is the explanation he gave not accurate. The WTC was a unique building and design. It was designed for wind sheer and commercial space, not for a large commercial jet to slam into it at 500mph.

Acutally it was designed to withstand not one but several plane impacts. After a plane crashed into the empire state building they were designed to withstand such collisions.

This is not true. Very not true, and I would even expect Slaps to back me up on this.

Bray, the impact actually shifted the towers in it foundation. That is one hell of an impact. Support columns are severed which causes weakness but I agree that this would not cause global collapse but it initiated it. Instead of an over designed structure, you now have a damaged structure. Suddenly all of those floors are rebistirbuting the load. We are still OK. However, as the fires weaken the floors (multiple) the load cannot be held.

Now, what happens at this point, because I think we can all agree that up to this point this is the chain of events, right?

Originally posted by esdad71
This is not true. Very not true, and I would even expect Slaps to back me up on this.

Sorry dad... no, I cannot. I believe this man's assessment at least casts doubt... Odd, he died in the attacks. He made this statement PRIOR to 9/11:

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

NOW... will you PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC... we are NOT talking about FIRE WEAKENING STEEL. THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD FOR THAT.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

Demartini was a great man, but that is an opinion. It was "designed" to withstand the impact of a single airliner. We want to deal with fact and not opinion here, right?

Now, are we in agreeance with the chain of events that I listed? I am trying to have a conversation as requested.

Originally posted by esdad71
Demartini was a great man, but that is an opinion. It was "designed" to withstand the impact of a single airliner. We want to deal with fact and not opinion here, right?

Now, are we in agreeance with the chain of events that I listed? I am trying to have a conversation as requested.

since he studied the buildings EXTENSIVELY his opinion carries some weight with me.

Now, your "sequence of events" is OFF TOPIC and I will ignore it. Take your "weakened steel" to another thread. In my FIRST POST I "concede" an entire floor failed for the sake of argument so your point is MOOT and derailing the thread.

Will you PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC... we are NOT talking about FIRE WEAKENING STEEL. THERE IS ANOTHER THREAD FOR THAT.

I asked about KE and deformation/bowing...

and to get to that, I want to make sure we agree on the events leading up to your application of KE. Laying a foundation for trying to figure our why this occured. I am trying to make a case that could probably help your thoery. When investigating a crime, a cop does not look at one piece of evidence and make a judgement. He looks at all the steps that led to the crime. A scientist does the same thing.

So, the floors give way and... give me some numbers.

Originally posted by esdad71
Please show me similar structure of that size? There are thousands of large buildings around the world, but almost every single one was designed unlike this one. Most have much more concrete for rigidity and fireproofing? This is correct, right?

You are right Esdad that the building on the whole was unique. But, the parts that make up the building are still designed the same as other parts in other buildings. That's all I ment when I said they weren't that unique when you think about the design of the individual pieces.

It was not designed to loose columns and still stand. If I remember correctly, a building's safety is designed only to withstand fire, and that is for 2 hours? This is correct, right Griff?

Correct. Fire rating is for 2 hours. As far as the concrete, that is still debatable. I have seen photos where it appears there was concrete encasing at least some columns. I still haven't had a chance to really look at the drawings that were leaked yet. That might shed some light on that.

It was designed to withstand Hurricane force winds intact, not cut and missing supports. I understand and have read a fw different KE reports and how some feel that he displacement of energy during the fall was not enough to continue to collapse. However, this is not a normal building, it is unique.

I have an excercise for you Esdad, if you're up for it. Can you find out, using physics, why the building was so unique that it allowed no resistance to the collapse etc.?

IN a solid concrete structure, you are building floor upon floor upon floor. WIth the WTC, you have an outer frame, with the floors, fo lack of a better word, placed and then bolted in. There are numerous points of weakness that are evident because of the unique design. I am jsut trying point out someting that I think is crucial since it was not built like other common structures.

I think this is where you are getting confused about the uniqueness. The layout of the floors was that it equates to a simple beam that is fixed at both ends. Here is a link to some common beams. The WTC floor trusses (beams) would be the same as the second example in the link. The fixed-fixed beam.

structsource.com...

The uniqueness in the design was that they used a tight core structure instead of spread out columns. But, in engineering terms, I believe it wasn't as unique as some would like to portray (not you Esdad).

I agree that is was the architecture of the building that was unique so I am sorry if it appears I am misleading, i am not attempting to. It was designed well enough to withstand an airliner hitting it at 500 mph, but it was not designed to redistribute those loads after losing core and perimeter columns.

Here is your KE math which explains the collpase.

link

Hopefully this will help Slaps.

Originally posted by esdad71
Here is your KE math which explains the collpase.

link

Hopefully this will help Slaps.

Quoting Bazant KILLS your argument... even the NIST has dismissed his paper.

- Bazant released his paper TWO DAYS after 9/11... that is not much research time.
- The paper WAS NOT peer reviewed.
- He supports the "Tower Meltdown"/"Pile-driver" collapse and his report was "dismissed" by the NIST even.
- His mechanism for collapse requires even 800c heating of all colums in the collapse initiation zone.
- He does not agree with you about airliner impact:

“The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)”

- He relies on the fireproofing "disappearing".

Bazant has been ruled out by EVERYONE on both sides of the fence EXCEPT for himself and you...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]