NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

Originally posted by seanm


I'll stick to reality, if that is OK with you.

Here, this may help you understand better:

911myths.com...

I'll stick with reality too...from your first reference.



And without running off to your website, but of your own mental strength - could you please explain the white elephant this paper refuses to address in their theory that the entire upper portion of the building pivoted about a "hinge" on the 80th floor?

That would be - what about the central core columns? Could you please explain to me how the top 20+ floors pivoted about a "hinge" on the 80th floor while all the core columns allegedly??? stayed vertical?

Seems like it throws a kink (or maybe a straightener) in the works.

[edit on 10-31-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by snoopy

Have Val or Griff published anything with their arguments? Why not? If this is how most engineers seem to think (more of your hypocrisy) then what's the problem? Ryan just posted on here through proxy. His paper was published and peer reviewed. Can you point out the faults in his work? While even he admits it's more than possible for there to be flaws, I don't see Grif or Val pointing them out, just as I don't see them making such publications. So 200 experts and not a single peer review. But I am ignorant...

First off, I've "published" calculations and arguments on this topic for 2 years right here. It doesn't have to have a white background to qualify.

Second, I have pointed out flaws in Ryan's statements.

Third, deciding you are going to present yourself as a self-appointed SME on a subject doesn't make you such - Ryan is no more qualified to review this topic than I am. I qualify with 16 years of design, design analysis, fatigue analysis, stress analysis, large-scale and benchtop testing and empirical data reduction and interpretation, and metallurgical background.

Ryan seems to be a mouthpiece in my opinion. He made a joke of himself in my eyes. I've pretty much pointed that opinion out and given him two separate requests to make his seemingly ludicrous statements become legitimate through support of technical references. He hasn't taken the offer yet.

[edit on 10-31-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall

First off, I've "published" calculations and arguments on this topic for 2 years right here. It doesn't have to have a white background to qualify.

Second, I have pointed out flaws in Ryan's statements.

Third, deciding you are going to present yourself as a self-appointed SME on a subject doesn't make you such - Ryan is no more qualified to review this topic than I am. I qualify with 16 years of design, design analysis, fatigue analysis, stress analysis, large-scale and benchtop testing and empirical data reduction and interpretation, and metallurgical background.

Ryan seems to be a mouthpiece in my opinion. He made a joke of himself in my eyes. I've pretty much pointed that opinion out and given him two separate requests to make his seemingly ludicrous statements become legitimate through support of technical references. He hasn't taken the offer yet.

[edit on 10-31-2007 by Valhall]

If you look at the earlier part of the argument you will see that I am talking about having a peer reviewed publication. Have you? Now I am not the one making claims of credibility, but the person I am talking to is. By saying that the people on ae911 are somehow all qualified while dismissing the experts who don't share that view.

And the truth of the matter which even you cannot disagree with is that no one from ae911 has been able to have a publication that is peer reviewed (legitimately) making an argument in engineering terms.

Do you agree with the argument that the persons posting is correct because there are 200 members of ae911? Do you feel that is a valid scientific argument? I don't. But apparently it's because I am "ignorant".

Your opinion o Ryan is noted, but that's all it is. However the person I was replying to was trying to voice his opinion as facts and using the membership count of a conspiracy group (one that has been very dishonest) as proof of his opinion being fact.

Bottom line again: Stating there are 200 members (including dead people) on ae911 is not a valid argument.

Val, here's a paper that discusses the hinge issue you are addressing to Sean:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

I think that should help some.

Originally posted by snoopy
Val, here's a paper that discusses the hinge issue you are addressing to Sean:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

I think that should help some.

Since you apparently found the answer to help me in that paper, and I have now did a cursory read that leaves me still seeking how the core columns reacted during the pivot, could you please help me by pointing out the exact section in that paper that will help me understand what the core columns were doing while the top of the building was pivoting to a 25 degree angle?

Apparently I'm having a weak reading moment.

Are you suggesting that the cores should have remained intact and that the top should have toppled over? That the core columns should have been able to support that?

Originally posted by snoopy
Are you suggesting that the cores should have remained intact and that the top should have toppled over? That the core columns should have been able to support that?

Are you saying it states what happened to the core columns? Because I can't find it. Did you find it?

You said that paper should help me with this...I'm not finding the help. Please direct me to the correct section.

No it doesn't specifically address it. It's merely crude calculations that shows how the tilting of the upper section can give the results of both dropping and tilting. The core columns weren't made for a lateral load, so the tilting I would imagine would make them more likely to buckle.

But perhaps the calculation could just be replaces with "Bomb" as some would like here.

According to NIST the tower was tilted 7-8 degrees to the east and 3-4 degrees to the south. Greening says no more than 2 degrees.

Originally posted by snoopy
No it doesn't specifically address it. It's merely crude calculations that shows how the tilting of the upper section can give the results of both dropping and tilting. The core columns weren't made for a lateral load, so the tilting I would imagine would make them more likely to buckle.

But perhaps the calculation could just be replaces with "Bomb" as some would like here.

According to NIST the tower was tilted 7-8 degrees to the east and 3-4 degrees to the south. Greening says no more than 2 degrees.

So basically you are saying no. Don't beat around the bush. Just answer the questions like she does.

Originally posted by snoopy
The core columns weren't made for a lateral load

The core columns WERE designed for lateral loads, or else they would've been knocked over every time the winds picked up in NYC. Think about what you're saying.

so the tilting I would imagine would make them more likely to buckle.

Tilting and buckling are two unrelated things here. Tilting is from torque but the buckling you're looking for is from compressional loading.

According to NIST the tower was tilted 7-8 degrees to the east and 3-4 degrees to the south. Greening says no more than 2 degrees.

NIST is much closer to the mark.






You could line up the protractor edge with the corner of the building if you could rotate it. That would at least put you in the ball park.

Really the angle should be greater if you were just looking at it from a purely profile view, looking North.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Well, I have to say, snoopy, that you saying to check that out and it will "help" me is a bit dishonest. Bein's it doesn't say anything to address what the core columns were doing while the tower's upper floors were pivoting like a Pez dispenser's head.

So I'm assuming you are envisioning the core columns as a bunch of little wet noodles sticking up like asparagus sprigs in the middle free to just bend and sway like a dandelion in the wind.

I'm going to leave my question up so that maybe one of you smart alecs can come back and explain to me what the group of core columns, which were bound together as a unit, were doing while ol' blockhead bent over to tie his shoes. Because your mythbuster paper didn't address it, and neither did that other little jewel you threw up here.

bsbray,

It seems on a thread in the past I pulled the picture from the NIST report into Solidworks and it was around 22 degrees.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by snoopy
The core columns weren't made for a lateral load

The core columns WERE designed for lateral loads, or else they would've been knocked over every time the winds picked up in NYC. Think about what you're saying.

so the tilting I would imagine would make them more likely to buckle.

Tilting and buckling are two unrelated things here. Tilting is from torque but the buckling you're looking for is from compressional loading.

According to NIST the tower was tilted 7-8 degrees to the east and 3-4 degrees to the south. Greening says no more than 2 degrees.

NIST is much closer to the mark.


You could line up the protractor edge with the corner of the building if you could rotate it. That would at least put you in the ball park.

Really the angle should be greater if you were just looking at it from a purely profile view, looking North.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by bsbray11]

LOL at the remark about winds. Yes they were designed for lateral loads as wind and hundreds of thousands of tons of building are one in the same. Think of the collapse as a light downward breeze. Just because they are straight to begin with does not mean they are going to stay straight and compress down. Again, with the tilting there will be a lateral load, and not to mention the weakening from heat we can assume.

And even a profile view isn't going to get you 25 degrees is it?


By buckling I mean that when the building tilts the load from the now collapsed columns is going to shift to the still intact ons and cause them to buckle as they are over loaded.

Originally posted by snoopy

If you look at the earlier part of the argument you will see that I am talking about having a peer reviewed publication. Have you? Now I am not the one making claims of credibility, but the person I am talking to is. By saying that the people on ae911 are somehow all qualified while dismissing the experts who don't share that view.

Are you asking me if I've published on the WTC collapse in a peer reviewed publication? Or are you asking me if I've been published in a peer reviewed publication period?

No to the former, yes several times to the second.

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I have to say, snoopy, that you saying to check that out and it will "help" me is a bit dishonest. Bein's it doesn't say anything to address what the core columns were doing while the tower's upper floors were pivoting like a Pez dispenser's head.

So I'm assuming you are envisioning the core columns as a bunch of little wet noodles sticking up like asparagus sprigs in the middle free to just bend and sway like a dandelion in the wind.

I'm going to leave my question up so that maybe one of you smart alecs can come back and explain to me what the group of core columns, which were bound together as a unit, were doing while ol' blockhead bent over to tie his shoes. Because your mythbuster paper didn't address it, and neither did that other little jewel you threw up here.

And I'm assuming you envisioning the core columns as made of magical material that does not bend or buckle under any kind of load from any direction and acts as a magical pivot which show hurl the top portion of the building off to the side.

So why don't you publish a paper on it and submit it for peer reviewing? Clearly you feel you are so vastly superior to everyone else. Heck, people like Ryan and Greening make fools of themselves. Yet you don't seem to have been able to step up to the plate. Why is that?

Please Einstein, impress us with your grand wisdom!

Originally posted by snoopy


By buckling I mean that when the building tilts the load from the now collapsed columns is going to shift to the still intact ons and cause them to buckle as they are over loaded.

So a group of 30 some odd thick-walled columns, bound together, bent over?

And then what did they do? Because if you'll note in the videos, the big ol' block up there corrected itself. Did they spring back up? Tell me about that part of it please. Because it's my understand that a buckled column pretty much stays buckled - it doesn't spring back straight.

And where did these springy buckled columns go when the big ol' block thingy on top started falling?

This is very interesting.

Hey Snoopy,

I'll give you this much. IF I were to publish a paper on what I suspect happened during the collapse, it would INCLUDE a discussion of what occurred with the core columns.

You tards haven't presented one yet that deals with the magical, springy, unbuckling ones you fantasize about. So I'm not sure where you're getting this wealth of knowledge of these fantasmagoric columns - your mythbuster buddies didn't tell you so you must be winging it.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by snoopy


By buckling I mean that when the building tilts the load from the now collapsed columns is going to shift to the still intact ons and cause them to buckle as they are over loaded.

So a group of 30 some odd thick-walled columns, bound together, bent over?

And then what did they do? Because if you'll note in the videos, the big ol' block up there corrected itself. Did they spring back up? Tell me about that part of it please. Because it's my understand that a buckled column pretty much stays buckled - it doesn't spring back straight.

And where did these springy buckled columns go when the big ol' block thingy on top started falling?

This is very interesting.

Ah so now because of that they act as one single solid object? That one side can't be weakened without uniformly weakening the rest? Yeah and you are accusing other people of fairy tales? Perhaps it was against steel bendy straw?

Those papers you mock and pretend are a joke show the principles involved. But again, why don't you do the work? You seem to thin you somehow know more than everyone else. Let your ego live up to itself now. Clearly no one else is capable right? So it's on you. Impress us with your brilliance and let us pick at your work. Let's see how easy it is to take pot shots instead of actually presenting an actual theory.

Yes it must be a real challenge for you sitting on a forum of people who don't share such expertise. I bet that makes you feel really smart. But again, if you're going to continue to criticize everyone else's work, why don't you do the correct work instead of taking pot shots? Or how about discussing it on forums with other engineers instead of laymen?

Where did I say the side of the building couldn't be weakened? Why are you talking about the side of the building again when I'm trying to get you to explain to me what happened to the core columns? Are you trying to change the subject?

You can't even understand the seriousness of the conversation we're having and you've shown that now. You just stated those papers show the principle of the collapse. THEY DO NOT...AND THAT WOULD BE MY POINT.

Let me give you the abstract of what you're missing:

A paper that does not address the behavior and reaction of the core columns before and during the collapse DOES NOT address the collapse at all.

PERIOD. So sean's buddy can show off his prowess at figuring angular velocity and displacement, and yours can show off their prowess at drawing figures (SANS THE CORE COLUMNS), but they really don't explain the collapse because they left out the key problematic element - the core columns.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]

Just to summarize on a nonpersonal level. Here are the required components for a complete collapse analysis for the towers:

1. Must match macro behavior/displacement as recorded in photographs and videos.
2. Must explain the behavior of the core columns at impact, pre-collapse and during collapse.
3. Must explain the data produced in the NIST:

a. Floor truss connectors on perimeter columns failed in a downward motion.
b. Floor truss connectors on the core columns did not.

4. Must reside within the data constraints of the NIST report:

a. Structural columns saw a max temperature of 650 F or less.
b. Structural columns did not see elevated temperature in (a.) above for the full duration of time between impact and collapse.

5. Must NOT engage in fantastical claims that creep can play a significant role in the failure of a thick-walled column under the conditions presented in 4.a. and 4.b. above unless you can also produce at least one supporting technical paper that has repeatable empirical results that prove otherwise.

6. Must analyze the complete structure as a multi-nodal, multi-element structure with three major substructures that are interdependent on each other and must have matching boundary conditions to the bordering substructures: those would be - core columns, floor trusses, perimeter columns. A paper that treats any of these three substructures independent of the other 2 is worthless.

and 7. must not violate any other test data presented in the NIST report.

What does that mean for this conversation? You have the right to throw up any white paper you find but be forewarned that I will not engage in any serious discussion or debate of an analysis that does not meet the 7 requirements above. Because the analysis is not only incomplete, it's worthless until those requirements are met.

With all that said, and with all the tit-for-tat completed, none of this current discussion undoes what has been revealed in this thread:

NIST has admitted they will remove critical statements from the report because they don't want to be bothered with trying to answer questions about them. AND, they cherry picked the damage models they chose to report on based on whether those damage models would meet their a priori assumptions or not.

This distraction from those revelations won't change the fact that NIST has been woefully negligent and criminally dishonest in their conduct.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by Valhall]