Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

Originally posted by Valhall

And just because my statement is on this board versus a paper doesn't decrease my expertise in this area.

True. But it also does NOT indicate any REAL expertise either. Call me cynical, but I tend to choose the opinions of those with demonstrated expertise over those with self proclaimed expertise. And since the gunsmith considered himself to be an expert on these matters, I think I'll not give your opinion much weight either. Sorry.

I don't agree that creep played into at all. And that conclusion is based solely on the evidence provided in the NIST report - nothing else (well, and my experience).

Huh? NIST provides evidence that some steel saw 250C. Zheng et al provide a paper that shows that creep to failure can occur at 250C after 1 hour if loaded at 50-70% of cold capacity.NIST provides evidence that load redistribution reached higher than this. Indeed, NIST showed that at just 150C, 250C, and 350C...yield dtrength decreases by 12%,19%, and 25%. I fail to see where you've put this all together to reach your conclusion.

The floor truss connections were failed in a downward motion on the outer walls, but the floor truss connections on the core columns were not.

While NIST doesn't really mention the direction of the seat bending in a nice table format like it does for the ext columns, Appx C: wtc.nist.gov... has a whole bunch of photos, and most of the seat ends, or corners, are indeed bent down. Start on about page 419, or 133/258 of the pdf, and see for yourself.

Which would be indicative of the core columns and floor trusses falling together, while the floor connections fell away from the walls (or vice versa if you please).

Which would be a wrong assessment if you agree that the photos show the seats bent down.

Please explain how this happened. What was causing the core columns to fall downward and take the floor trusses with them? The problem of column strength indeed comes into play when you get to the core columns, so I would like to see your response to this.

My response is, I believe that your assessment of no downward bending of the seat, and therefore the core columns and floors fell together to be wrong.

So, if you've changed your mind, do you still sgree or disagree with my honest opinion that collapse progression depends on the strength of the floor connections, since anything that falls will be "caught" by the floors?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I don't buy that the fall was "so perfectly uniform". And 16 seconds is a considerable increase over freefall, so that points to substantial resistance. The guy doing the calculating is using an equation that will inherently produce a "perfectly uniform" curve. If you had measurements as the fall happened it would, on a macro level, track this curve. But on a micro level would have steps in it of resistance.

No no no. You cannot tell me that you have the correct answer because you derived it with faulty data. You also cannot tell me that the resistance should have been so microscopic. Well, you can tell me those things, I just do not buy it. I know he used a curve equation, that was my point - he is using skewed data to prove a point. If he is using that curve to calculate that end time, then he has to use the curve trend. Not only do we have no idea how far off that curve it would have been, we have no reason to believe it would follow that trend; especially as rubble piles up creating even more obstacles to keep the fall from being uniform.

First of all, I can tell you whatever I please. I didn't use faulty data. What I'm pointing out is that an entirely different approach from what this guy did resulted in the same general time for the tower to fall.

I didn't say it was "microscopic" I said on the micro level (i.e. getting down to a true trace of the velocity broken down to the fraction of a second would show that it was hurky-jurky - not constant.

We have every reason to believe that with the stepwise discontinuities that our eyes can't pick up that overall it would follow the general acceleration curve. Because that's what it was doing...accelerating with stepwise instances of deceleration. It would following the overall trend.

I did not say it was falling at free fall speed, did I? I am talking about the perfect lack of resistance. You "extrapolated" a time, he used an equation. You both used those methods to find out what time something happened out of sight. He had no reason to assume the trend continued, especially since it should have been predictably erratic and without the endpoint, you have no data set from which to extrapolate.

I have to say that 16 seconds or not, the fall is uniform and perfect in its acceleration. Then again, you both came up with 16 by pretending to have all the information you would need to get that time.

1 - you have no proof it exhibited a "perfect lack of resistance".
2 - On the other hand - contrary to your false accusations - there is several videos available in which the fall can be timed and since it was greater than freefall (i.e. by at least 30% or more) to state it showed a "perfect lack of resistance" is not only assinine...but truly stupid looking.

More importantly, if this fall time is correct then does that not contradict NIST? If they were wrong about that, then all their work had to be a lie in order to reach the same conclusion.

So is the NIST report a lie or are you wrong?

You haven't read any of my posts on this issue, have you? Seriously.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I can't find any complete papers online that are free, so you'll have to visit your library to read it. I did....

Maybe a university or college library but our public libraries around here are most likely not going to carry a technical article from 2003 unless it's already published online for free.

So you read this paper, but you somehow missed his methods and how he was able to make his case, or you just forgot? At any rate you know I'm not going to take it for granted or change my mind about anything until I do see it for myself. I just hope he used something more than formulas to make his case, ie some lab experiments as is traditional for anyone reviewing traditional materials science.

Originally posted by Valhall
First of all, I can tell you whatever I please.

Yes, I did acknowledge that but I am glad you felt like reminding me that what I had said is true. Anyway -

I didn't say it was "microscopic" I said on the micro level (i.e. getting down to a true trace of the velocity broken down to the fraction of a second would show that it was hurky-jurky - not constant.

On the micro level is what microscopic means. It does not mean that you need a microscope or that it is your biology class onion skin. I thought that you seemed worth reading for a little while but then you just went all wrong. It simply means to be seen on a micro level.

You did use faulty data. You calculated the final result of something using a data set that is missing the last few variables. Basically you decided that 3+3+x=anything you want and then you go back and decide what x should be. If you used a curve, you could have extrapolated but then you would still be assuming a uniform curve against all laws of physics. If you extrapolated any other way, you just plain made stuff up.

I have a feeling you do not understand how I called you on this exactly but I have to assume that is why you think your math is correct.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Huh? NIST provides evidence that some steel saw 250C. Zheng et al provide a paper that shows that creep to failure can occur at 250C after 1 hour if loaded at 50-70% of cold capacity.NIST provides evidence that load redistribution reached higher than this. Indeed, NIST showed that at just 150C, 250C, and 350C...yield dtrength decreases by 12%,19%, and 25%. I fail to see where you've put this all together to reach your conclusion.

NIST also states that they found no evidence of structural columns being at 250 C for the entire duration from impact to collapse. They also only found limited instances of 250 C...period.

In addition - and above all that Zhengy boy may have to say on this - NIST couldn't make collapse initiate at any temperature under 750 C, even though they had no evidence to back taking their model to that temperature. They just kept jacking the temperature until they finally got failure initiation and called it good.

I believe I stated in my old post that 250 C will result in a 15 to 17% yield strength decrease - so obviously we're in violent agreement there.

While NIST doesn't really mention the direction of the seat bending in a nice table format like it does for the ext columns, Appx C: wtc.nist.gov... has a whole bunch of photos, and most of the seat ends, or corners, are indeed bent down. Start on about page 419, or 133/258 of the pdf, and see for yourself.

I have - you are mistaken.

So, if you've changed your mind, do you still sgree or disagree with my honest opinion that collapse progression depends on the strength of the floor connections, since anything that falls will be "caught" by the floors?

I agree that NIST used the failure of the floor connections at a temperature in excess of 750 C - for which they had no empirical data to support - to say that's what caused the collapse.

Originally posted by Lillydale


You did use faulty data. You calculated the final result of something using a data set that is missing the last few variables. Basically you decided that 3+3+x=anything you want and then you go back and decide what x should be. If you used a curve, you could have extrapolated but then you would still be assuming a uniform curve against all laws of physics. If you extrapolated any other way, you just plain made stuff up.

I have a feeling you do not understand how I called you on this exactly but I have to assume that is why you think your math is correct.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Thump! LISTEN

No, I didn't. I used one video to extrapolate and estimate a collapse failure (that estimate is not what I am presenting here). I found a second video that had THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING, and it substantiated the collapse time. My estimate produced 18 seconds. The video of the full collapse showed 16 seconds. Others who have viewed the same video have speculated as short as 14 seconds - but no shorter than that. It doesn't matter - let's say it's 12 seconds! That's a 33% increase in time over freefall. THAT IS NOT FREEFALL.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would love to discuss how exactly he determined that.

Sorry, it was Zheng in 2003.

I can't find any complete papers online that are free, so you'll have to visit your library to read it. I did....

So on this board I have produced all the links that back all the statements, and I have produced calculations to back my statements, and you're going to say you reject I have any authority to speak because you've read a paper you don't even have in front of you and can't produce a copy of?

That's rich.

[edit on 9-21-2009 by Valhall]

Each level of the structure was designed to uphold everything above it, and more, for the lifetime of the building.

Once initiated, the destruction resulted in a pulverized ejection of building material which formed a cascading fountain of debris, so once part way down, there was nothing "falling" on the remaining structure. Half way through the progression of destruction, there was about half less building above the remaining half, yet the pulverization continued, unabated, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground.

I think that those who defend the official story, are insane.

Originally posted by Valhall

I have - you are mistaken.

Mistaken how?

Just a few examples from the NIST report, since you say that you're using their info:

1-figure C-2, pg 419: ...seat was bent. i say the corners look bent down. What do you see?

2-figure C-5, pg 421 (a).... seat was bent. I say the whole seat was bent down, as evidenced by the gussets underneath being bent also. You?

3- figure C-5, pg 421 (b) ... seat was bent. I say the whole thing was bent down, again evidenced by the gusset plates. You?

4- figure C-8 pg 424 (b) ...... seat was slightly bent. I say bent down at the corners, with one gusset plate bent also. You?

Originally posted by Valhall

So on this board I have produced all the links that back all the statements, and I have produced calculations to back my statements, and you're going to say you reject I have any authority to speak because you've read a paper you don't even have in front of you and can't produce a copy of?

Yes.

You can always choose to purchase it if you want. Your choice to search for the truth or "da troof".

I now also base my rejection of your expertise based on the discussion of the core seats. I fail to understand how you made that statement.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

I have - you are mistaken.

Mistaken how?

Just a few examples from the NIST report, since you say that you're using their info:

1-figure C-2, pg 419: ...seat was bent. i say the corners look bent down. What do you see?

One channel with seat intact, seat not bent down.

2-figure C-5, pg 421 (a).... seat was bent. I say the whole seat was bent down, as evidenced by the gussets underneath being bent also. You?

One channel with seat intact, seat not bent down.

3- figure C-5, pg 421 (b) ... seat was bent. I say the whole thing was bent down, again evidenced by the gusset plates. You?

One channel with seat intact, seat not bent down.

4- figure C-8 pg 424 (b) ...... seat was slightly bent. I say bent down at the corners, with one gusset plate bent also. You?

One channel with seat intact, seat not bent down.

Originally posted by Valhall


Thump! LISTEN

No, I didn't. I used one video to extrapolate and estimate a collapse failure (that estimate is not what I am presenting here). I found a second video that had THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING, and it substantiated the collapse time.

Did either video actually show you the moment the building stopped falling? Did either video show you exactly when that happens? Can you see it clearly, without doubt?

If the second video contained "THE ENTIRE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING" then what would you be doing with the first video?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Maybe a university or college library

You're still in college, correct? Do they have a decent mechanical engineering dept?

Since you've alreday stated that you won't believe me, it's pointless to answer your other questions.

Go check for yourself.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


You couldn't even remember the author of the paper, and you can't remember the methods he used. You don't even know what you are talking about when you keep referencing this article, let alone your inability to produce it. I'm not so sure that you even actually read it.

I'm going to look for it myself and try to post it here, though I'm not paying money for it. And if I can't find it, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.


Edit: I think I found this guy's personal home page after only 2 or 3 Google searches, based only on what you said here. Some digging you must have done to locate your own sources, huh? I guess we have to do everything for you here?

www.luxinzheng.net...

Now which article are you talking about?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Valhall


So then you think that NIST is lying about the seats being bent, then provided the photographic evidence to prove that they're lying?

Delusional.......

I've wasted my time with you, and here I was thinking that we could have an intelligent discussion about these issues.

Personally, I think that all the self proclaimed "authorities", that also seem to have at least some technical abilities that you seem to have, should be the ones that are made to stand trial, etc, as you proclaimed the NIST engineers should be subject to.

You show zero professionalism. You should be made to answer for that. Lucky for you, making delusional claims isn't punishable.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

So on this board I have produced all the links that back all the statements, and I have produced calculations to back my statements, and you're going to say you reject I have any authority to speak because you've read a paper you don't even have in front of you and can't produce a copy of?

Yes.

You can always choose to purchase it if you want. Your choice to search for the truth or "da troof".

I now also base my rejection of your expertise based on the discussion of the core seats. I fail to understand how you made that statement.

You're starting to prove to me how you fail to understand a lot of things. You just picked several pictures out and not one of them supported your claim. And you even enumerated them so everyone can see they don't.

For the seats on the core columns:

From the 21 channels with seats, a total of 31 seats were available for inspection...Over 90 percent of the seats were still intact with the majority of these somewhat deformed. Only two seats were observed to be ripped comletely from the channel at the welded joint between the seat and the channel.

Compared to the seats on the external columns:

Both pictorially and statistically, below the impact zone, the majority of floor truss connectors were observed to be either bent down or completely missing.

wtc.nist.gov...

I fail to understand how you can conclude differently than the exact words in the report.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Now which article are you talking about?

This one.

www.sciencedirect.com... 019247120&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4a5ebc41deb25a7233f8aafd6522c795

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by Valhall

 

So then you think that NIST is lying about the seats being bent, then provided the photographic evidence to prove that they're lying?

Delusional.......

I've wasted my time with you, and here I was thinking that we could have an intelligent discussion about these issues.

Personally, I think that all the self proclaimed "authorities", that also seem to have at least some technical abilities that you seem to have, should be the ones that are made to stand trial, etc, as you proclaimed the NIST engineers should be subject to.

You show zero professionalism. You should be made to answer for that. Lucky for you, making delusional claims isn't punishable.

I think you don't know what you're looking at. Because every single one of those pictures showed a seat that was not bent down. I mean there's a ton of other people on here who can explain to me whether I need to turn my monitor by 90 degrees to see something different than what is there, but they are not bent down.

NOR DOES THE REPORT STATE THEY ARE!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This one.

www.sciencedirect.com... 019247120&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4a5ebc41deb25a7233f8aafd6522c795

Your link doesn't work. Neither when I click it, or copy and paste the URL to my address bar.

You obviously don't remember much of anything about this paper if you can't tell whether or not it's on the page I just linked you to. But that doesn't stop you from being arrogant about its conclusions, does it?

Originally posted by Valhall

From the 21 channels with seats, a total of 31 seats were available for inspection...Over 90 percent of the seats were still intact with the majority of these somewhat deformed. Only two seats were observed to be ripped comletely from the channel at the welded joint between the seat and the channel.

Delusional again.

See the enlarged text?

Deformed = bent.