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

Originally posted by esdad71
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.

It would be impossible for the loads not to have been redistributed. And if they weren't, then by definition, the loads would not be supported, and the building would have immediately began falling.

What Demartini said was accurate. All those perimeter columns bolted together and linked with spandrel plates were like a big equivalent to screen netting. You can punch a hole in it, and the planes did, but it doesn't cause the whole thing to fall, because the loads are simply redistributed around the missing columns.

That's where the safety factor comes into play: since the columns were over-engineered, they could easily hold more than their expected design loads, and thus the additional loads that were redistributed to them could be safely handled. Thus the buildings didn't fall.

And again, assuming only a safety factor of 2, both buildings could have lost the same amount of columns that they did from the impacts a second time, and still have stood. You say the buildings shifted in their foundations, I seriously doubt that. The foundations were still intact even after they both had collapsed, and had to be torn down and excavated.

I understand what you're saying about kenetic energy. When I really looked at the collapse, I thought that it's possible after a single floor collapse that maybe it would start a chain reaction and each floor after that would in turn collapse as well.

But, the WTC's were design at 3 seperate structures stacked atop one another (kinda like a Megatron) to form one building.

I would think there would be at leat 1/100 of a second delay in the collapse SOMEWHERE - especially at the points where the top structure meets the structure below. No delay in the collapse at all. Almost as if the floors below had no support whatsoever (like the steel beams had been cut in half at a 45 degree angle).

and is that melted stell on that beam?!



[edit on 6-4-2007 by tyranny22]

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.

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

NEVER does this karate chop knock down the vertical supports. it only cracks the boards/blocks, whatever.

are you supporting the pancake theory? are you comparing a steel mesh to a stack of blocks?
most importantly, has the top board lost 50% of it's strength?

Hey I dont post here very often...but I have been a lurker for years. I just wanted to say though a place like this web site where people such as Griff and dad can debate and talk over ideas and thoughts about 911 in the manner you guys have, (No one called for any one to be fired from ABC yet :-p) seriously gives me hope for the future. It shows that some people still care about issues that actually impact our lives, not just what Sanjaya (sp?) had for hair last week. Thanks and even though im a "conspiracy theorist" I appreciate both sides of the argument. Keep up the good work. One way or another I have to believe well get to the bottom of this.

Why do some bring up the airliner impacts as if they were playing a major part in the collapse or damaging the building, they hurt a small percentage of the integrity, face it, they didn't do the damage you wanted them to, get over it.

It simply comes down to the Inner Cores still being structurally sound for the most part, prior to the initation of both collapses.

At the point of both collapses, it seems as if the Inner Core and Exterior Columns fall with one another.

Furthermore, because the Inner Core was structurally sound, it would reduce, by a great amount, the energy available to pulverize the floors below.

But we didn't see that happen, as I said, they both fell with one another almost simultaneously.

What happened to the core? With the design of the building, saying fires did it or the exterior columns/trusses (sorry buds, if the bolts couldn't hold the trusses to the outer columns, they couldn't hold it to the inner core), there's now way you can have the core just destroy itself.

Stop being ignorant and think.

Originally posted by billybob

NEVER does this karate chop knock down the vertical supports. it only cracks the boards/blocks, whatever.

are you supporting the pancake theory? are you comparing a steel mesh to a stack of blocks?
most importantly, has the top board lost 50% of it's strength?

You have voted billybob for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Very good point. . .

2PacSade-

I am not relying on someone, I gave you a link. I asked you for some numbers and have not gotten any so I thought would throw some out there. I understand that it has been 'debunked' and NIST does not have to dismiss it, as it is not a part of their investigation.


How about this, it is good reading.

link

Why do we not see any bowing or deformation of the perimeter columns further down the building as the KE is transfered to them?

Are you referring to twisted beams and portions that did not collapse? They were there.



This pictures shows how it was pushed out at the bottom, which woulkd mean all the floors were collpasing and the momentum on impact at the bottom bowed them out.

How is only one floor crushed at a time when the KE should be "pile driving" the entire height of the columns all the way down to the bedrock?

Because time only allows one floor at a time to be destroyed/

Why is there no delay introduced from the resistance offered by the intact floors? That is, why is collapse speed maintained or even accelerated?

I need to do alot of math for that one, would you not agree?

Originally posted by esdad71
Why do we not see any bowing or deformation of the perimeter columns further down the building as the KE is transfered to them?

Are you referring to twisted beams and portions that did not collapse? They were there.

You have not read what I asked. Read the original question. I think you are making IRRELEVANT posts in this thread on purpose.

I asked three questions at the beginning of this thread... in your ten posts you have addressed none of them directly.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad71
I am not relying on someone, I gave you a link. I asked you for some numbers and have not gotten any...

link

Oh, jesus... Greening. Dude pick a crappy "theory" and go with it. Get this CRAP out of here. WE HAVE ALL SEEN THEIR non-reviewed "publications". I am looking for ORIGINAL THOUGHT DAD... something you are proving to be QUITE INCAPABLE OF in this thread.

I asked three questions at the beginning of this thread... in your ten posts you have addressed none of them directly. Why don't you just answer the three questions?



[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

I answered all of your questions. I have gone to both extremes to show examples of your KE which is what this thread was about. Why do you not post an original though and support your hypothesis with a few facts. If not, you should not post questions that can be answered not to your liking.

Originally posted by esdad71
I answered all of your questions. I have gone to both extremes to show examples of your KE which is what this thread was about.

No, you posted links to old and debunked articles that were never peer reviewed or accepted by anyone.

Answer again then...

1.
2.
3.

Just quote this...

Originally posted by esdad71
Why do you not post an original though and support your hypothesis with a few facts.

How in is asking THREE questions a hypothesis? How can I "support" questions?

You are being totally ridiculous and have attempted to derail this thread about 0eleven or so times now..

Enough already Dan.

"Post an original tough [sic]"... talk about the post calling the kettle black...

[edit on 6-4-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by esdad71
Why do we not see any bowing or deformation of the perimeter columns further down the building as the KE is transfered to them?

Are you referring to twisted beams and portions that did not collapse? They were there.



This pictures shows how it was pushed out at the bottom, which woulkd mean all the floors were collpasing and the momentum on impact at the bottom bowed them out.

How is only one floor crushed at a time when the KE should be "pile driving" the entire height of the columns all the way down to the bedrock?

Because time only allows one floor at a time to be destroyed/

Why is there no delay introduced from the resistance offered by the intact floors? That is, why is collapse speed maintained or even accelerated?

I need to do alot of math for that one, would you not agree?

This is how I know you do not read the posts. I answered them right here. I gave you answers to questions.

Originally posted by esdad71
This is how I know you do not read the posts. I answered them right here. I gave you answers to questions.

Originally posted by esdad71
"Because time only allows one floor at a time to be destroyed"

The INSTANT the top section "collides" with the intact floors there is an impulse, the energy is transfered through the ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE VERTICAL COLUMN yet only the top 10-30' breaks?

Not enough time? sorry... this is not an answer to any of my three questions.

Maybe you mean this:

Originally posted by esdad71
Why is there no delay introduced from the resistance offered by the intact floors? That is, why is collapse speed maintained or even accelerated?

I need to do alot of math for that one, would you not agree?

A question cannot be answered with a question. Just admit you cannot answer the question and let someone else do it.

So again I ask... why don't you answer my original three questions?

Bilybob you have recieved my wats for the first post on this thread !!!

Now lets add even more dust so this plot thickens...

Lets say that the pancake collapse is POSIBLE for argumentations sake.

Then.... after the first (UNEXPLANABLE) floor collapses in all support structures (AT THE SAME TIME) and comes crashing down the lower floor and transfers the inertia of ONE floor the the WHOLE BUILDING (because the lower floor is istill attached to the whole building), why it would give away? WHY IF A 120 TON airplane at 450mph with huge ammount of inertia could not do it?
Why the Buildings took the planes the explotions, and the missing outside grid and columns and they did not even collapse partially?, and then a single floor that surelly has A LOT LESS inertia and weight can bring down a building?

Why if the energy is being trasfered in the axis of force of the building it collapses and a BIG airplane hitting against the axis of force distribution doesnt?

and BTW esdad "agreeance" is not a word, just the same as KE in one fllor collapses a whole building

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

As the floors where hit and gave, they probably broke into many pieces, but most moving with the top floors. What reason would the pieces move perpendicular to the impact, (I know the floors didn't hit perfectly). When the mass contaced the unmovable ground the vertical motion became horizontal. The energy had to go somewhere. The top floors where mostly intact and hit the ground at a very good speed, pulverizing everything under it and itself.

Originally posted by numb99
When the mass contaced the unmovable ground the vertical motion became horizontal. The energy had to go somewhere.

The energy did go somewhere. The siezmographs are a representation of where the energy went. Into the ground. It did turn from verticle to horizontal, but only in the form of transverse waves going through the bedrock. Not comming back up the building and sending things horizontally. My opinion.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by numb99
When the mass contaced the unmovable ground the vertical motion became horizontal. The energy had to go somewhere.

The energy did go somewhere. The siezmographs are a representation of where the energy went. Into the ground. It did turn from verticle to horizontal, but only in the form of transverse waves going through the bedrock. Not comming back up the building and sending things horizontally. My opinion.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Griff]

Hi Griff-

Yet we did see much of the buildings get thrown horizontally as the towers fell. . .

What in your opinion, if not the resistance of the structure, caused this horizontal/projectile motion of debris?

Agreeance is in the oxford dictionary smart guy. You know someone has nothing to say when they atak yur gramer.

Also, I am not even sure what you are talking about in that second sentence.

Originally posted by esdad71
Agreeance is in the oxford dictionary smart guy. You know someone has nothing to say when they atak yur gramer.

Also, I am not even sure what you are talking about in that second sentence.

Agreed. The grehmer thing is "high school". No bearing-

With that we can now join our regularly scheduled thread in progress. . .

2PacSade-