Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

Hi all to busy today to post will get on much later when and if I can I will leave you with a couple of points

Originally posted by ANOK
Without NIST's hypothesis, the plane impacts are irrelevant. The aircraft impacts alone did not cause the collapses.

The plane impacts are irrelevant really

As for scale models scale models are POINTLESS and CAN'T simulate the real forces of this event scaling down of material sizes etc wont work it so flawed on many ways.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The plane impacts are irrelevant really

Sure. Why else that huge delay between the impact and the initiation of the collapse?

As for scale models scale models are POINTLESS and CAN'T simulate the real forces of this event scaling down of material sizes etc wont work it so flawed on many ways.

We have to build 1:1 replicas and fly real planes into them to settle this argument, like I said.

Because model scaling is some obscure and little understood kind of magic.

What about a 1:2 replica, like the BOK Tower? Would that do? Or is it too small as well?

Originally posted by ANOK

I have been here doing this for nine years, do you really think there is anything I haven't debated here already a million times?

it's called intellectual stonewalling. people who refuse to admit they are wrong do it everyday

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The plane impacts are irrelevant really

Sure. Why else that huge delay between the impact and the initiation of the collapse?

As for scale models scale models are POINTLESS and CAN'T simulate the real forces of this event scaling down of material sizes etc wont work it so flawed on many ways.

We have to build 1:1 replicas and fly real planes into them to settle this argument, like I said.

Because model scaling is some obscure and little understood kind of magic.

What about a 1:2 replica, like the BOK Tower? Would that do? Or is it too small as well?

Please read up on this.

Square-Cube Law.

Sqare-cube law
Taken from the above page

This is why large vehicles perform poorly in crash tests and why there are limits to how high buildings can be built

Have you never seen in old movies when models are used in place of the real thing say a vehicle or building is blown up it looks so false or when a model aircraft crashes the result is never like a real crash.

Or if models provided realistic data why do car manufacturers have to crash test FULL size vehicles and not models.

That's why some on here work from the armchair and others here do the REAL thing!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008
Are you saying the twins were too tall? Or just too tall for mortal and uninitiated men to understand because within these orders of magnitude, laws unknown govern the physical realm?

I think not. I think you're just dropping some term you caught up to show off how much more intelligent and knowledgeable you think you are than I am, in a desperate attempt to evade my questions.

I know my matchbox cars don't crash the way real vehicles do. But I also know the same physical principles rule in a 400 meter tall building as in a Jenga tower. If you have reasons to object, please offer them.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Columns fell over? Really? Which columns would that be? The massive core columns that were continuous for the whole 110 stories? That were box columns of almost 4" thick steel that tapered up to about one half inch at the hat truss?

Wait, wait, the core columns were actually just one long column stood on end over 1500ft long? Really?

Have you ever actually watched the collapses, ever?

The core collapse is something that has also never been explained. The 47 core columns would not vertically collapse from floors dropping. If they needed the support of the floors they would have fell over, as you say, but they didn't did they?

We have seen it. Many times. I know I have. Also, I sent you an explanation many times that visually demonstrated how the core columns fell "vertically" as well as video of the core columns falling over too. There is video! I am surprised that you willfully ignore everything that is presented to you that answers or clarifies your questions.



Multiple angles, core columns falling over and tilting over. Stop pretending to be blind and look.

This video shows how the core columns can appear to fall vertically:

It would have taken a massive force to cause the core columns to break apart and fall vertically. Far more force than lightweight floor systems could provide. It would not be logical to design a building were the floors could do that.

edit on 5/14/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Nope. Gravity is plenty. Plus the above video demonstrates the mechanism that would create the illusion of falling "straight down". The floors just held the walls together and the core columns up. Once they came down, that was it.

Originally posted by Akareyon
I can tell you from experience right now however that it is extremely hard to balance 5 Jenga blocks upright on top of each other -- and nearly impossible to do so with 10 Jenga blocks. But this is not what the outer frame of the WTC was like. It was quite stable on its own, subtropical storms and earthquakes absent.

I predict it to be pretty stable, depending on the thickness of the paper that is used. The perimeter columns on their own were not stable at all. They needed the floors for stability also.

Essentially, you're asking me to build something that collapses on its own, if not held upright by the "hands of god". If that is what you are saying the twin towers were build like, you're opening a rusty can of vile worms straight out of hell. Because that is not what architects do. Architects build things so they remain upright.

Not at all. I predict it to be reasonable stable, especially when you tweak paper thickness and distance between blocks, like you suggest below. When you put a tray on top you should even be able to place heavy objects on it.

Depending on the stiffness of the paper I'll be using, the "floors" might add some stability to the structure, but still the tower will be prone to torsional forces around the vertical axis.

I don't think it will be an issue.

I can emulate different variables for the "stiffness" by moving the columns more or less towards the center, or by using different paper strengths. Yet, in the long run, this will only affect the number of floors that will collapse before the progression comes to a full halt (except if a stray Jenga block knocks down a column near the base, initiating a classic gravitational collapse by removing the frictional forces that make up the tensile strength (have seen that happen a lot, but we're talking WTC 1&2 here, not WTC 7)).

Can you give an estimate on which paper sheet will put a hold on the falling blocks, which continuously accelerate and gain momentum? Seem to me it will only become harder for the paper to resist the blocks.

]There's another parameter I can alter - I can just zig-zag fold each sheet of paper (like corrugated cardboard) and alternate the alignment of each "floor" orthogonally to simulate the truss structure of the floor slabs.

I don't think this is required. The goal is not to model the WTC towers, but to model the mechanism by which they collapsed.

Because the very moment I'm building, I'm an architect, I want my buildings to remain upright until something bad happens (10 blocks dropping on top). Of course I'll do anything I can to add strength to it. I would be raving mad to allow anyone to dictate conditions under which my building would collapse the very moment I turn my back on it.

You sound creative enough to figure it out. Changing sheet size is another possibility.

Were Minoru Yamasaki and Emery Roth & Sons madmen, building something so unstable it would collapse on its own? Or were they aware of the subtropical storms that would rock the buildings for three decades? If it's the first, what kept the towers upright then? If it's the second, what brought it down?

What do you mean by "on its own"? Planes crashed into it and fires burned. Another way to damage the buildings to the point of collapse would be the use of explosives. I would call neither option "on its own".

I understand you're trying to propose a model for a collapse from top to bottom.

Try for yourself, with different heights and papers. I predict for any structure stable enough to remain upright on its own that the collapse progression will stop after a few floors, depending on the stiffness of the structure. You'll be standing there and looking at a tower with its base intact, a small heap of "rubble" on top of its "crushing zone", and a lot of bricks laying evenly around your room.

Either that, or the whole tower will tilt sideways.

I don't see how for example the 10th sheet is going to stop the falling blocks if the 1st one already was not capable of that, especially when you consider that the blocks had distance to accelerate and gain momentum.

The sheet of paper would very likely not be able to hold the blocks even in a static situation, let alone a dynamic situation.

As for the tower tilting sideways, why would that happen? There is no damage to the bottom of the structure right?

Originally posted by GenRadek
The floors just held the walls together and the core columns up.

I was under the impression it was the other way round: the core and the walls held the floors up, while the floors shifted lateral forces (subtropic hurricanes) from the wall to the core, giving the structure its overall stiffness against torsion. Alas, Wikipedia is so bad at explaining the tubular design!

Now it becomes all clear. Both the outer walls and the core were hanging from the floors, which in turn were... you know, like... floating in mid-air. Once the floors begann to fall, they dragged the rest of the tower with them.

Makes so much more sense now!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by ANOK


So unless you can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns, the NIST report remains an hypothesis, unprovable.

It's a computer animation that really proves nothing at all! I could make one showing the buildings still standing after the top section comes off.

Are you really basing your theory on a piece of CGI?!

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you give an estimate on which paper sheet will put a hold on the falling blocks, which continuously accelerate and gain momentum? Seem to me it will only become harder for the paper to resist the blocks.

Let's wait and see. I doubt that the falling blocks will continuously accelerate and gain momentum. Each "floor" that is crushed will use up some of the momentum to overcome the frictional forces between each sheet of paper and 8 blocks respectively (1 from above, 1 from below for 4 corners).

Were Minoru Yamasaki and Emery Roth & Sons madmen, building something so unstable it would collapse on its own? Or were they aware of the subtropical storms that would rock the buildings for three decades? If it's the first, what kept the towers upright then? If it's the second, what brought it down?

What do you mean by "on its own"? Planes crashed into it and fires burned.

That's what I mean by "on its own". "On request". "By the push of a button." Small input energy, huge energy output. 500.000 metric tonnes went mechanic because of a relatively small and lightweight plane that punched a neat hole in their belly more than half an hour before.

I don't see how for example the 10th sheet is going to stop the falling blocks if the 1st one already was not capable of that, especially when you consider that the blocks had distance to accelerate and gain momentum.

It's not too late to think again: each floor would decelerate the falling blocks, because the energy would be used to accelerate a sheet of paper and at least 4 other blocks.

The sheet of paper would very likely not be able to hold the blocks even in a static situation,

I agree wholeheartedly!

As for the tower tilting sideways, why would that happen? There is no damage to the bottom of the structure right?

Because there are no stabilizing triangles in the structure you're proposing. There's only the friction force of the two faces of each Jenga block that bring any inner tension into the equation, plus some of the tensile strength of the paper. So, the higher the tower gets, the easier it is for the center of mass of each corner column to sway across the floor contact face, which results in tilting and a collapse not unlike the one GenRadek posted. That's what I was trying to tell you. Send me a video of you stacking 10 Jenga blocks upright and you'll know what I mean.

Basic strucural analysis and very simple Euler-Bernoulli beam theory really :-)

Originally posted by Akareyon
Let's wait and see. I doubt that the falling blocks will continuously accelerate and gain momentum. Each "floor" that is crushed will use up some of the momentum to overcome the frictional forces between each sheet of paper and 8 blocks respectively (1 from above, 1 from below for 4 corners).

Correct, but subsequently the blocks will fall another length of the blocks, and accelerate and gain momentum again in that distance they fall.

That's what I mean by "on its own". "On request". "By the push of a button." Small input energy, huge energy output. 500.000 metric tonnes went mechanic because of a relatively small and lightweight plane that punched a neat hole in their belly more than half an hour before.

The same could be said for explosives. Although that would require even much less energy to be released.

It's not too late to think again: each floor would decelerate the falling blocks, because the energy would be used to accelerate a sheet of paper and at least 4 other blocks.

And would accelerate again over the distance of a block due to gravity. Not to forget other blocks that will undoubtedly have joined the initial 10 blocks. In this model the floors themselves would not be of huge help as paper doesn't fall very well.

The sheet of paper would very likely not be able to hold the blocks even in a static situation,

I agree wholeheartedly!

Then I am curious how you can think there can be such a static situation after some time into the collapse. It will still be just one sheet, holding at least 10 blocks, and probably some papers.

Because there are no stabilizing triangles in the structure you're proposing. There's only the friction force of the two faces of each Jenga block that bring any inner tension into the equation, plus some of the tensile strength of the paper. So, the higher the tower gets, the easier it is for the center of mass of each corner column to sway across the floor contact face, which results in tilting and a collapse not unlike the one GenRadek posted. That's what I was trying to tell you. Send me a video of you stacking 10 Jenga blocks upright and you'll know what I mean.

Basic strucural analysis and very simple Euler-Bernoulli beam theory really :-)

edit on 14-5-2013 by Akareyon because: because.

I don't think this will be an issue with just 10 stories. The papers should provide more than enough stability. Card houses also rely on horizontal cards for stability. It is actually very similar to the mechanism by which the WTC towers gained their stability. They also did not have stabilizing triangles.

Originally posted by -PLB-

The papers should provide more than enough stability.

(Flat) Paper bends easily.

Card houses also rely on horizontal cards for stability.

True.

It is actually very similar to the mechanism by which the WTC towers gained their stability. They also did not have stabilizing triangles.

Yes, they had.

edit on 14-5-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by -PLB-

The papers should provide more than enough stability.

(Flat) Paper bends easily.

Card houses also rely on horizontal cards for stability.

True.

It is actually very similar to the mechanism by which the WTC towers gained their stability. They also did not have stabilizing triangles.

Yes, they had.

edit on 14-5-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)

Thats is why I suggest to use thicker paper or smaller paper. Maybe even envelopes. That photo mainly shows cranes used during construction. The perimeter columns and most of the core didn't have stabilizing triangles.

The old floors held up the columns nonsense. I thought that would come up. How many times has this been debunked?

The floors connected the outer columns to the core, it doesn't mean they held them up. A bridge connects the two banks of a river, the banks of the river would not collapse without the bridge. You have a comprehension problem.

Lightweight floor truss systems do not brace columns. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have a clue about building design.

The core was self bracing.

But again you fail to understand that those massive core columns would not break apart from collapsing floors, simply not enough energy in a floor system to do that.

If people really think that happened they are extremely naive, and obviously have never worked in any kind of engineering.

And also before you can claim floors systems pulled the core apart, you have prove that floors could have dropped in the first place.

So how do sagging trusses pull in columns, and not break the flimsy connections PLB showed me?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified


Are you really basing your theory on a piece of CGI?!

well the physics one was pretty interesting especially when they showed the fuel showering through the structure- really got inside the event. the first one I thought was a very good representation of what most probably went down. I would like to see one done in conjunction (maybe split screen) with actual footage while showing what is going on behind the dust and smoke. I would like to see more of the first video showing the outer wall sections breaking off in large chunks as the debris from the upper section merges with the debris being impacted by it and of course showing a standing core after the initial collapse like we see in the video.

I have a very good understanding of how they were built and now a better visual idea of what I figured happened originally during the collapse. You guys want to argue over bolts but then have absolutely no idea of what was going on inside those structures after those planes hit. What was holding up the core columns that were sliced in two? can you figure how much of the load had to be redistributed and what stresses that put on components not made for that? how can you be so confident there wasn't enough internal distortion to initiate a collapse? that's pretty ballsey.

reply to post by ANOK


the columns held themselves up, the floors kept them level and centered. once those ratios were changed... fuhgetaboutit

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
the columns held themselves up, the floors kept them level and centered. once those ratios were changed... fuhgetaboutit

Yaawwwwnnnn!

So you have evidence of this? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Can you explain how the floors kept the central core central, and why it would completely fail without that support?

Do you really believe light weight trusses could hold the force of massive box columns? No, the floors would buckle if the outer walls, and inner core, were braced between the trusses. The trusses were designed to hold the weight of the steel pan, concrete, and the potential load during it's lifetime, with an FoS of 3 at the minimum.

Did you learn anything about FoS from my earlier posts? It would help you understand this if you did.

You still haven't addressed the central argument here, the NIST hypothesis. Nothing you are arguing is in the NIST report. So I really fail to see any point to your claims.

How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns, and not break the weak, thanks PLB, connections first?

Originally posted by ANOK
The old floors held up the columns nonsense. I thought that would come up. How many times has this been debunked?

The floors connected the outer columns to the core, it doesn't mean they held them up. A bridge connects the two banks of a river, the banks of the river would not collapse without the bridge. You have a comprehension problem.

Try getting up to speed what unsupported length means to buckling. You can read about it on this page: en.wikipedia.org...

Lightweight floor truss systems do not brace columns. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have a clue about building design.

Coming from you this doesn't really mean much.

The core was self bracing.

Probably by the beams yes. But the perimeter columns were not braced. Why didn't they buckle on their own weight? Hint: it has to do with the floor trusses.

But again you fail to understand that those massive core columns would not break apart from collapsing floors, simply not enough energy in a floor system to do that.

Ha, nice assertion there. Anything to back it up except for your thumb?

If people really think that happened they are extremely naive, and obviously have never worked in any kind of engineering.

Odd that about none of the structural engineer on this world subscribe to it then. They must have never worked in any kind of engineering. Wonder who designs buildings then. Did you design all buildings in the world ANOK?

And also before you can claim floors systems pulled the core apart, you have prove that floors could have dropped in the first place.

Are you denying now that the floors dropped at all? Its on like 100 videos from all different angles.

So how do sagging trusses pull in columns, and not break the flimsy connections PLB showed me?

Large unsupported length in combination with decrease of strength of the steel as result of higher temperature, requires not a very large pull force. Explained again, aaaaand, ignored again.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by DeeKlassified


Are you really basing your theory on a piece of CGI?!

well the physics one was pretty interesting especially when they showed the fuel showering through the structure- really got inside the event. the first one I thought was a very good representation of what most probably went down. I would like to see one done in conjunction (maybe split screen) with actual footage while showing what is going on behind the dust and smoke. I would like to see more of the first video showing the outer wall sections breaking off in large chunks as the debris from the upper section merges with the debris being impacted by it and of course showing a standing core after the initial collapse like we see in the video.

I have a very good understanding of how they were built and now a better visual idea of what I figured happened originally during the collapse. You guys want to argue over bolts but then have absolutely no idea of what was going on inside those structures after those planes hit. What was holding up the core columns that were sliced in two? can you figure how much of the load had to be redistributed and what stresses that put on components not made for that? how can you be so confident there wasn't enough internal distortion to initiate a collapse? that's pretty ballsey.

So you're trying to say that we have no idea but you do?!

We would have been a partial collapse long before any kind of global collapse, and all we saw was a global collapse.

Where is your evidence that core columns were sliced in two? What are you proposing 'sliced' the steel in two?

If core columns were sliced in two, where was the initial collapse? We saw no collapse until the global collapse.

How can 10% crush 90%?

You have a lot of explaining to do!

reply to post by ANOK
think of the floors as guy wires


the outer and core columns were just stacked on top of each other and attached in sections come on you should know all this by now, it's been nine years already

are you suggesting the core and outer skin could stand without the floors? how about guy wires?