physics of 911 show impossibility of ´collapse´

Momentum Transfer in WTC1

gordonssite.tripod.com...
gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.htm

Author:
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Summary:

This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortening phase that would not allow the collapse to continue under the constraints of this paper. ´´

´´A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.´´


"The demolition of the WTC towers was achieved using a four phase attack. These attacks weakened the tower structure, initiated the collapse, progressed the collapse, and finally completed the collapse.

I intend to show that the demolition was achieved by means of a process which involved four distinct phases. These were as follows;

+ Phase one weakened the structure by attacking the central core structure, disassociating the entire structure at a level below that of the impact [Plane 1]

+ Phase two initiated the collapse of the perimeter structure by attacking the four corners of the towers on two storeys. [ Plane 2 and Plane 3 ]

+ Phase three progressed the collapse by disassociating the floor to perimeter column connections and two vertical lines of spandrel plates at each tower corner, and by continued attacks upon the corners as in phase 2.

+ Phase four completed the collapse by attacking the remaining central core structure at lower levels and disassociating the horizontal bracing.






[edit on 7-1-2008 by anti72]

Anyone seen this before? No one debunking?

reply to post by anti72



There is hardly any need to?
No one is taking it seriously enough to even try?
Take your pick.

I will say this though.
Tripod free webspace sites isn't something most would consider as a reputable source for scientific info.

Oh and this strikes me as a highly unrealistic and false statement. It ignores several key factors.

´´A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.´´

[edit on 7-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


So you are basing your theory off of his career in web design (or lack there of) and how much money he was willing to put in towards a website? That's a lot better than analyzing his numbers...

Any reason that sentence struck you as false?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Sublime620]

gordon ross is golden.
his argument is good.
better than good. he is, BTW, a mechanical engineer. the TRUTH of any collapse model worth it's mass in paper, is that "one floor" is not a mechanically viable concept, with regards to the towers' collapse. the towers were a giant steel WEAVE, with adjacent perimeter columns spanning FIVE STOREYS(to up, and two down), not ONE.
the biggest point, that NO ONE ELSE seems willing to consider, and yet, it is paramount, is the elastic response of the intact tower below the damaged area.

newton's cradle, anyone?

reply to post by billybob


Golden because he says what you want to agree with.

To the other guy like I said. It ignores several key factors about falling heavy stuff to put it simplisticly.

And it wasn't just one floor? How many floors were above the impacted floors?

How much did each of those floors weigh?
Does not heavy things accelerate faster than lighter stuff?
Was ANY floor designed to take not only the impact of the floors above it much less the weight?
Answer me those please.

The buildings were DESIGNED to fall into their footprints, rather than cause a dominoe effect and COMPLETELY screw over NYC.

But anyway here is a excert.

Wikipedia: WTC Structural Design

Structural design
As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York, including building codes. Nonetheless, the Port Authority required architects and structural engineers to follow the New York City building codes. At the time when the World Trade Center was planned, new building codes were being devised to replace the 1938 version that was still in place. The structural engineers ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes, which incorporated "advanced techniques" in building design.[45]

The World Trade Center towers included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction, which allowed the buildings to reach new heights and become the tallest in the world. Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced on each side of the buildings. These were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[46] Structural analysis of major portions of the World Trade Center were computed on an IBM 1620.[47]

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[53] The modular pieces were typically 52 inches (1.3 m) deep, and extended for two full floors and half of two more floors.[48] Adjacent modules were bolted together, with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically, so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[48]

The building's core housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[48] The columns tapered with height, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. The structural core in 1 WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC was oriented north to south. All elevators were located in the core. Each building had three stairwells, also in the core, except on the mechanical floors where they were located outside the core.[54]


Schematic of composite floor truss systemThe large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight, as well as live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18.2 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short span area.[48] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4 inch thick (10 cm) lightweight concrete floor slab, with shear connections for composite action.[48]

Hat trusses (or "outrigger truss") located from the 107th floor to the top of the buildings were designed to support a tall communication antenna on top of each building.[48] Only 1 WTC (north tower) actually had an antenna fitted, which was added in 1978.[55] The truss system consisted of six trusses along the long axis of the core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed some load redistribution between the perimeter and core columns and supported the transmission tower.

Put basically the floors had the most support ALONG THE EDGES. Need I paint the picture for you?


*Edited for a little clean up*

[edit on 7-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Are you going to talk about the paper, or just talk trash about his Tripod page, and our reasons for agreeing with him, and post more links to garbage unrelated to this thread?

a hardy, 'whatever , buddy', to you.

"one floor" references the part of the building being hit. apologists always use the load-bearing capacity of "one floor" in their math. in the real world, the strength of many storeys' worth of vertical columns is available to "strike back"(for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) at the debris falling onto them. this is reflected in gordon's math, and gordon's math shows that the collapse would have been arrested.
the buildings did not fall into their own footprints. 90% of the debris landed outside the footprints. except for building seven which fell into it's footprint.

reply to post by bsbray11

Obviously didn't read it what I typed otherwise you'd know.

Originally posted by billybob
a hardy, 'whatever , buddy', to you.

"one floor" references the part of the building being hit. apologists always use the load-bearing capacity of "one floor" in their math. in the real world, the strength of many storeys' worth of vertical columns is available to "strike back"(for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) at the debris falling onto them. this is reflected in gordon's math, and gordon's math shows that the collapse would have been arrested.
the buildings did not fall into their own footprints. 90% of the debris landed outside the footprints. except for building seven which fell into it's footprint.

obviously. the towers weren´t a house of cards, like the NIST ´report´likes to show. this point seems right. its basic architecture.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Obviously didn't read it what I typed otherwise you'd know.

You linked to a Wikipedia article. I can PROMISE you there is more specific and better information in Ross' article.

For example, you talk about multiple floors as you link to your Wiki article. Did multiple floors break loose simultaneously? If you say yes, then you're the only one. A single floor has to break loose first and even NIST themselves say it takes 6 to fail another floor under dynamic loading. But you still have to start with one. Thus the impossibility. The perimeter columns and core structure do not immediately fail and pile onto a floor, thus all the extra mass of the higher "floors" is completely irrelevant. You have only one floor to start, and that's me being generous, because no one has explained how a whole floor fails simultaneously yet when it's composed of hundreds of independent connections between columns and trusses.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

You linked to a Wikipedia article. I can PROMISE you there is more specific and better information in Ross' article.

For example, you talk about multiple floors as you link to your Wiki article. Did multiple floors break loose simultaneously? If you say yes, then you're the only one. A single floor has to break loose first and even NIST themselves say it takes 6 to fail another floor under dynamic loading.

But you still have to start with one. Thus the impossibility. The perimeter columns and core structure do not immediately fail and pile onto a floor, thus all the extra mass of the higher "floors" is completely irrelevant. You have only one floor to start, and that's me being generous, because no one has explained how a whole floor fails simultaneously yet when it's composed of hundreds of independent connections between columns and trusses.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by bsbray11]

yes, sometimes I´m really surprised what Wiki refers to.
... NIST.., really.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

The buildings were DESIGNED to fall into their footprints, rather than cause a dominoe effect and COMPLETELY screw over NYC.

Sheesh. And I thought they were designed to stand up. My bad.

Share with us, buddy.

Seems to me common sense, but I guess I was wrong.
You know plan for the worst and hope for the best?
If I really need to explain I find it a waste of my time to try.

the reason that you are not going to find many debunking is because when there is solid evidence, you cant debunk it. Take William rodriguez and his testimony for example. There is not one person who will sit there and go "oh he is a liar." If they do, they are the ones with the agenda.

There are many things that truthers put out there for debate, however, supporters of the official story know when to keep thier mouth shut.

the reason that you are not going to find many debunking is because when there is solid evidence, you cant debunk it. Take William rodriguez and his testimony for example. There is not one person who will sit there and go "oh he is a liar." If they do, they are the ones with the agenda.

There are many things that truthers put out there for debate, however, supporters of the official story know when to keep thier mouth shut.

reply to post by Jeff Riff

If they do, they are the ones with the agenda.

Can you not see the fallacy inherent in that statement?

I don't know or care who he is. *checks wikipedia.com*
And he could be a liar.
He is after all a human being and all of us have a capacity for untruth.

That and well upon checking his wikipedia entry I have questions about his motivations.

No agenda other than good ole true skeptism there friend.
I doubt both stories (meaning official and truthers stories).


[edit on 24-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]