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

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall


A beam in bending is in compression on the shortened side and tensile on the lengthened side.

2- your thoughts assume that there was no buckling of the "beam", and that it still is serving as a fulcrum.

The fulcrum point is at the west wall

Do you see your problem yet?

In your first post, you state correctly that if a beam bends, it is in compression on one side, and in tension on the other. This assumes that the center section of the beam is serving as the fulcrum.

In your second post, you have moved the fulcrum all the way to the outside (west wall). One side of the fulcrum would be in compression - the 2 floors. So the tension MUST be on the opposite side of your stated fulcrum..... which lies outside of the west wall now.

There an therefore NOT be any tension, nor ANY lessening of weight on the west wall. Impossible.

Originally posted by bsbray11

None of your points address what I wrote.

You're wrong. By ignoring all of those things, you aren't creating a realistic model of the collapses.

I wasn't trying to. I was addressing your point of how if it lost 80% of its weight, that the weight would get progressively less. I proved you wrong.

In case you aren't aware, all of those mass/displacement/time things are integrally related in the formulas. You can't just make up each number, they have to all fit together.

Yes, I know. Again, I was addressing your wrong thoughts on the matter.

So to reiterate, the little mathematical model you just offered to demonstrate a point diverges grotesquely from real scientific laws.

You admit that you can't debunk what I just put down. That menas that it indeed follows real scientific laws. Otherwise, you would have spelled it out. Everyone will notice that you didn't even try.

And I asked questions that showed its flaws along those lines.

No, I proved you to be wrong, and rather than answer, or try and prove me wrong, you side stepped by diverting to other garbage. Your evasion is noted for all to see now.

The bottom-most floors (everywhere the "collapse wave" has yet to reach) are experiencing less and less loading upon them as so much mass from each floor is blown outwards.

No. The columns will be experiencing less and less loading as the mass is blown out. The floors and their connection will be experiencing an increasing load as the mass descends. As proven by my statement that you admittedly cannot debunk.

That's just ONE thing that you are failing to consider, along with all of the other things I asked in my last post.

No, I considered discussing it, but since you're attempting to divert from your failure, I decided to focus on that.

Actually, I think I also see where we may have our wires crossed. I have been saying that the floors will be experiencing an increasing weight. It is a fact that in order for them to be experiencing a decreasing weight, then more weight must be lost outside the footprint than is gained as it falls.

I think what you are saying is that the *columns* will be experiencing less mass as it is lost outside the footprint. While correct, it is NOT what *I* have been talking about. Think about the differences in what we're discussing before you respond.



[edit on 25-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 25-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by LightWonder
Why would anyone still be posting in this thread? I mean 20 pages? CMON! NatGeo is bs, FAT BS, and we who are aware of the truth know this... so why a thread like this still getting attention.. did a dis-info agent stir up a good distraction here or what?

To answer your question, I would say people are still posting to try to figure out exactly what happened to these buildings, without using false information and assumptions. It's easy to say "those buildings were controlled demolition'ed" or "the fires did it", but if you don't have any information to back it up, you're not going to convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

Now, I've seen enough to convince me that 9/11 was not a simple terrorist attack, but a planned false flag event to further a geo-political/economical/military agenda. I can appreciate that others think differently, and if someone could show me convincing evidence that could change my mind, I would happily to do so (although changing your mind is never easy, I'd admit).

I am not posting on here to convince others that I'm right, but rather to see if they can inform me of something which I have missed, which could change my mind. But if I can help someone else change their mind, then that's great, but that's not why I'm here.

Like you, I don't buy the OP simulation, nor do I put much faith in the NIST 'collapse initiation' theory. But that doesn't mean I don't want to know exactly what happened.

Now, I wish I could post the video which details the early collapse of the antenna, but can't at the moment, unfortunately . Maybe later when I can get access.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I wasn't trying to. I was addressing your point of how if it lost 80% of its weight, that the weight would get progressively less. I proved you wrong.

I never said that in the first place (that the mass would have decreased per floor), but your theoretical model is completely off the wall and so your point is moot.

You didn't even try to describe what exactly was falling or how. So why you would want to talk about that, as it applies to your model, when it clearly does not at all, is beyond me. Really man, I am not joshing you, you didn't prove squat by adding those numbers together.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Really man, I am not joshing you, you didn't prove squat by adding those numbers together.

It's cuz we were talking past each other and not listening. I totally hashed up the quote function in my previous post too, so that doesn't help.

Refer to this, and tell me if it's true.

"Actually, I think I also see where we may have our wires crossed. I have been saying that the floors will be experiencing an increasing weight. It is a fact that in order for them to be experiencing a decreasing weight, then more weight must be lost outside the footprint than is gained as it falls.

I think what you are saying is that the *columns* will be experiencing less mass as it is lost outside the footprint. While correct, it is NOT what *I* have been talking about. Think about the differences in what we're discussing before you respond."

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Refer to this, and tell me if it's true.

That is specifically what I was referring to. The two numbers you added together had nothing at all to do with floors or columns of ANY building.

What you said you thought I was trying to say, I was using as only 1 example of the extreme limitations of your calculation.

aw, geez. i lost a post.

according to the debbies, the building crept slightly of axis, and then the core columns acted as hinges.

how does that explain this, the "knuckle" (complete with puff of white smoke):



why would the building fail in two unrelated areas at once? the building had barely started moving when the "knuckle" appears behind the white smoke expulsion.



and, for joey canoli, the logically challenged, here is how long it takes the tower to fall with ALL support removed. in other words, freefall, BUT, not freefal through a vacuum, freefall through a stack of floating floors. conservation of momentum slow the collapse from the oft quoted 9.2 seconds, up to 11.6 seconds.



and, that's without using any energy to crush concrete into tiny, tiny pieces of dust, nor break any welds or bolts, nor push anything off to the side, nor break everything in the building into a fine powder.....

hinges and syringes do not explain this, either:



"faster than freefall" is not possible in a gravity driven collapse. that ejecta coming out is actual proof of demolition.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Valhall


A beam in bending is in compression on the shortened side and tensile on the lengthened side.

2- your thoughts assume that there was no buckling of the "beam", and that it still is serving as a fulcrum.

The fulcrum point is at the west wall

Do you see your problem yet?

In your first post, you state correctly that if a beam bends, it is in compression on one side, and in tension on the other. This assumes that the center section of the beam is serving as the fulcrum.

There is no "fulcrum" on a beam in bending. I wish you would stop using it. Apparently I can't tell what the hell you even mean by it. This is not a lever. The west side of the building is being pulled due to the listing top - that results in a tensile force - i.e. a tensile stress which will decrease the compressive stress of the load due to bearing.

IN OTHER WORDS, if it weren't for the west wall (actually the west half) of the building, the top would go on over. That's about as elementary a way I can put it to get you to understand what's going on when the top is listing over. The west half of the building is resisting the list.

So please drop the word "fulcrum" because it makes no sense really.

EDIT: In a attempt to try to figure out what you mean by fulcrum, I am assuming you mean the fixed point along the plane of tilt. That would be the west wall. How do we know it is? Because the west wall is intact (i.e. it is not ripped open from the tilt). If the west wall failed in tension during the list, then we would say it was a fixed point more central to the building and that would change the number of floors in compression on the east wall. For instance, if the fixed point was occurring about the centroid of the tilt plane it would half the floors compressed on the east wall - i.e. 1 floor compressed on the east wall, 1 floor gaped on the west wall...But this is not the case.) Hence, the fixed point on the plane of tilt is the west wall. Which NECESSARILY puts a tensile force acting on that wall...else the gaping tensile tear that did not happen.

[edit on 9-26-2009 by Valhall]

I've created these two drawings (at the 7 degree list) to show what I'm trying to say. The first is what was witnessed for WTC 2 as viewed from the outside of the building (in other words - this matches what was seen on the east wall and on the west wall -but not necessarily what was happening inside. Note that there is no failure of the west wall in tensile load in this configuration.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2fc32e5c20e.jpg[/atsimg]

This is if we say the "fulcrum" is at the center of the building and there is no tensile load on the west wall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bed70abee16b.jpg[/atsimg]

which would mean there WAS tensile load but it failed in tension. This did not happen (because there was no tear on the west wall during the listing prior to collapse).

[edit on 9-26-2009 by Valhall]

So, why is this so? This is so because of the east wall and floors on those "two floors" that failed in compression. They are no longer part of our "beam in bending". The east side of our "beam in bending" has now moved westward toward the core columns, as such (an approximation at best bein's we couldn't see inside the building, but probably fairly realistic) the "beam in bending" becomes thinner than the overall building cross section because the failed portion of the east floors no longer participate in the bending. Basically, a fairly accurate representation would be to take from the east side of the core columns over to the west wall as the "beam in bending". So this is a crude representation of that scenario - and most likely far more representative of what was happening inside the building. Note that this means there is some drooping (albeit possibly exaggerated in my drawing) of the top of the building. Please note in this drawing that the west wall (under tension) has been slightly elongated (again, exaggerated and arbitrarily chosen by me to illustrate the loading situation).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec7dd54afc43.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 9-26-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by billybob
aw, geez. i lost a post.

according to the debbies, the building crept slightly of axis, and then the core columns acted as hinges.

how does that explain this, the "knuckle" (complete with puff of white smoke):

Also note the stream of molten material gushing from just below this knuckle sonn after it starts to move.

Originally posted by john124

Not to also mention, those of us who understand science, will also understand that:

a). The collapsing mass increases after each floor collapse, thus increasing force, and kinetic energy of falling matter.

You have forgotten the resistance of each floor.

Originally posted by john124
b). The collapse was never at freefall accelerations as truthers often suggest.

The nett collapse time is within a couple of seconds.

Originally posted by john124
c). The resistance of materials below acting as an opposite reactive force decreases as time progress. (Obvious - since the mass below decreases!)

The mass below does not decrease, I believe you mean the force above increases.

Originally posted by john124
The supports did not survive the burning jet fuel, office equipment and melting aluminum from the plane itself, and was never designed to.

What point are you making about "melting aluminum"?

Originally posted by john124
g). Nothing was exactly symmetrical in the collapse at all.

You have the absolute right to your opinion, the video's show otherwise, the pyroclastic flow of particles for both buildings is quite symmetrical and obvious.

reply to post by Karilla


okay, i guess it's not totally clear.
there are TWO "knuckles", then. the "predictable" one, with all the fire at the bottom of the fire affected floors, and then, the MUCH more mysterious one, halfway up. it's circled in some of those videos.
there is NO structural damage up there, but we see a flash and a puff of smoke on that corner, and then, the falling "cap" develops a kink at that location.

valhall, a GOOD debbie will tell you the core columns were soft, and once the building shifted only slightly off the vertical axis of the columns, they all acted like hinges.

so, why the upper hinge in the falling cap, debbies?

[edit on 26-9-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Karilla

 

okat, iguess it's not totally clear.
there are TWO "knuckles", then. the "predictable" one, with all the fire at the bottom of the fire afffected floors, and then, the MUCH more mysterious one, halfway up. it's circled in some of those videos.
there is NO structural damage up there, but we see a flash and a puff of smoke on that corner, and then, the falling "cap" develops a kink at that location.

valhall, a GOOD debbie will tell you the core columns were soft, and once the building shifted only slightly off the vertical axis of the columns, they all acted like hinges.

so, why the upper hinge in the falling cap, debbies?

Well, apparently it's customary to completely ignore some one else's questions as well bein's my basic question (irrespective of the dance WTC 2 did) is WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CORE COLUMNS IN THE FLOORS ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE.

Nobody seems to want to touch that one still.

reply to post by Valhall


they "telescoped", according to some of the logically challenged.

according to the GOOD debbies, there was a crush-down, crush-up dynamic, where for each successive downward movement, the floor above was crushed as well, creating an accumulating dense mass. because of the tilt, the upper core "accordioned" as a series of hinges.

what these good debbies then ignore is that this now partially fluid clutter, as in avalanche zone, would act as a cushion because it is now mostly inelastic, and would allow the "cap" to ride gently to the bottom, and sittin on top of the pyramid shaped pile that's not there because all the debris is in the sublevels.

debbies kill me with their endless sense of humour.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by Valhall

 

they "telescoped", according to some of the logically challenged.

according to the GOOD debbies, there was a crush-down, crush-up dynamic, where for each successive downward movement, the floor above was crushed as well, creating an accumulating dense mass. because of the tilt, the upper core "accordioned" as a series of hinges.

Well, just to be clear. I believe there was a crush down/crush up for the impacted and impacting floors, and that the mass falling was constantly DECREASING...but that affects the actual floor (i.e. concrete slab and floor trusses) and contents, that's not core columns. Core columns were not playing rock-em, sock-em robots as they went down. And, no...they didn't "telescope" *snicker*.

i was actually one of the first that got "them" to stop talking about this indestructible "cap" or "hammer of thor", by pointing out that the collapse crush zone is fairly homogeneous, and the upper floors can't break the lower floors without crushing themselves.
i am sure they knew this, but it is harder to deceive with such an honest model, lol!

the core issue is a conundrum when trying to explain a natural collapse. the core was MASSIVE, and supported most of the gravity load of the building.
the weakest link, was of course, the floor seats, but the tilt is the issue. i could even agree with the debunkers that once tilted and falling, the floor seats on the low side would take most of the descending masses' force, and would fold like kerry on election day, but the floors seats on the high side of the tilt, would be subject to less and less force as the building tilted.
but, that doesn't explain either the tilt, nor the magical "one floor freefall drop".

what's amazingly miraculous, too, is wtc1's awesome power of telescoping. that tower's core DID telescope, somehow. you can see the cap destroy itself, before the lower floors have even budged. once again, a natural collapse has a hard time explaining, but in all cases controlled demo explains it perfectly.


[edit on 26-9-2009 by billybob]

posted by Curious and Concerned

Now, I wish I could post the video which details the early collapse of the antenna, but can't at the moment, unfortunately

. Maybe later when I can get access.

North Tower antenna was sitting directly on the massive core structure and provides evidence that something caused the core to drop first.



North Tower Roof Antenna Collapse Sequence

Originally posted by bsbray11

That is specifically what I was referring to.

So then we ARE in agreement over what you were saying about the building/columns being progressively less loaded as the collapse progressed. Good.

The two numbers you added together had nothing at all to do with floors or columns of ANY building.

Sure they do. They demonstrate that the strength of the floors, and most definitely NOT the columns is what will determine the rate of fall, accel/decel, etc. You are just denying that I am correct.

What you said you thought I was trying to say, I was using as only 1 example of the extreme limitations of your calculation.

The one you admit that you canot debunk? Maybe it's because it's true?

Face it, any falling weight will be "caught" by the floors, which then must transfer that weight to the columns. I think that we can agree that the floors and their connections were identical throughout the building?

The columns got stronger below, I think we can both agree on that. The columns, however, do not "catch" any material directly at all. So they are irrelevant to any energy absorbtion equation, other than as a best case scenario that could be used in a upper limiting study.

This also explains just why you are so critical of the Bazant model where he used 50%.... You are unable to accept the fact that the column strength had absolutely zero effect on the floors and their connections.

You also do not understand where he justified WHY he used 50%. He gave several reasons why this is accurate, and also justified why more than 50% of the mass can be seen outside of the footprint AFTER the collapse was over.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

That is specifically what I was referring to.

So then we ARE in agreement over what you were saying about the building/columns being progressively less loaded as the collapse progressed. Good.

No, you still aren't getting it. What you said was irrelevant because all you did was add two numbers together. You didn't represent the collapsing buildings. I explained this in more detail originally but now I am getting tired of repeating myself, thus the brevity.

The two numbers you added together had nothing at all to do with floors or columns of ANY building.

Sure they do. They demonstrate that the strength of the floors

You added two 1-dimensional numbers. Buildings are 3-dimensional, or at least a series of 2-dimensional cross sections in a series of calculations. Where is that in your model?

And along those lines, once again..

Where do you consider acceleration/velocity?

Where do you consider momentum?


This is all really simple, but you're trying to make it TOO simple, or in other words, stupid. Are acceleration and velocity relevant to the collapses or not, Jerry? We both know the answer, you are just playing dumb.

Face it, any falling weight will be "caught" by the floors

That's an assumption you make, that has not been proven. Pancake theory, basically. It ignores the entire core structure and the exterior columns just to try to get ANYTHING to propagate downwards.

which then must transfer that weight to the columns

Without just shearing the connections first. Again, an assumption. That is nowhere indicated in your "model."

I think that we can agree that the floors and their connections were identical throughout the building?

Then you would be mistaken yet again. There was reinforcement on the mechanical floors for one thing; as far as the rest, the structural documentation is still out of public hands so you are just guessing based on nothing.

This also explains just why you are so critical of the Bazant model where he used 50%.... You are unable to accept the fact that the column strength had absolutely zero effect on the floors and their connections.

Column strengths had nothing to do with why Bazant couldn't include 50% mass shedding. It increased the total amount of time it took to collapse to something unreasonable when he accounted for all the mass being shed. Are you too dense for that to say anything to you at all?

You also do not understand where he justified WHY he used 50%. He gave several reasons why this is accurate, and also justified why more than 50% of the mass can be seen outside of the footprint AFTER the collapse was over.

Please enlighten me. I only saw 1 reason, and that was because his model didn't work anymore if he used real numbers.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by bsbray11]