Introduction Of Heiwa, Planes should not collide with towers Options

[DoYouEverWonder]

Heiwa,

I would estimate that 90% of this forum is behind you.

Anyone with a 4th grade education would recognize that the buildings were brought down from the bottom-up.

The planes were nothing more than a distraction…

Why wastes your time…

Actually, it wasn't just a bottom-up CD. These were the tallest buildings and the Towers had structural features that were exploited. The Towers were like three cubes one on top of the other. The destruction of the top cube was initiated first, then the bottom cube and then middle one. In the top cube was the hat truss that held the core together. Once the hat trusses were blown up, fuel air explosives in the elevator shafts would force the core columns out like peeling a banana.

They even controlled the direction of the collapses and both buildings were tilted to fall into the plaza. Made it a lot easier to clear the perimeter streets, which were mostly reopened in a day or two.

[SanderO]

DYEW,

That is an interesting theory / conception of the structure of the twins and how they were deconstructed. I would take exception that the hat truss " held the core together".

This is not incorrect but not accurate either. All the bracing and steel *held the core together. The main purpose of the hat truss was:

To provide an effective wide end place for the very tall antenna load which would not only represent a large concentrated load on the 3 columns in the center of the core...but would see enormous lateral loads from the wind. You can't support a telephone pole.. or a flag pole.. very high aspect ratio items without a proper foundation pinning the end.

The hat truss also distributed the axial antenna loads to as many as 23 core columns and 8 points on the facade. This enabled a reduction of size (cross section) of the 3 columns which were directly below the antenna... and that would mean saving beefing up 38 - 36' sections... and marginally, if at all increasing the columns supporting the hat truss.

The hat truss since it acted like an end plate and was connected to the 32 points noted above... if columns were destroyed.. and some were.. from the plane damage / initiating event... the hat truss was the structure which facilitated load redistribution to remaining columns.

Ironically it was load redistribution which led to the core failure at around the location of the plane damage/initiating event to the core. As loads were redistributed.. the remaining columns were seeing their factor of safety reduced. When the factor of safety or the remaining columns slipped below 1 from continuing multiple causes... the core failed... and we saw a rapid onset of the collapse as a crushing down at the location of the plane strike / initiating event.

Once the enormous mass was released on to the intact floor below the place strike zone... the mass overwhelmed the floor system and everyone beneath it crushing and fracturing them... mechanically rendering the floors to *sand* and concrete dust.

I don't know that we can determine that the hat trusses were blown up.... but they did not do well as the tops crashed down. Like most steel frames subjected the forces that they saw.. the would come apart at their weakest points.. the joints/seams.

There is very little if any evidence which indicated explosion damage to steel.. at least I haven't seen any. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. This could have been removed to cover up such things. But we can't conclude there were explosions which blew the hat truss apart.. without hard evidence of this.

[SanderO]

Anders...

Let see...Go to any load table for the components of the composite. You know that the load tables which you may use in your own work were determined with empirical testing.

A section of steel which has an ASTM A36 designation has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi. A36 steel is made to spec with a specific set of additive metals to the alloy.

The same applies to the concrete used for the floor slabs. The strength is determined by the admixtures, the amount of water, the time of curing, the type and amount of aggregate and reinforcing for tensile stress with steel... wire mesh or rebars if required.

Concrete used in construction is sampled both at the time of pour and after curing for testing. One is a slump test at pour time and the other is a cylinder which is then subject to compression testing.

The WTC floor concrete floors outside the core was designed to support minimum 58 psf. This was a 42% strength reduction negotiated by PONY, with LERA, and the NYC DOB which as a code requirement of 100 psf. The strength reduction applied to the ENTIRE composite... not JUST the concrete.

As you may know a composite is only as strong as its weakest component. Under stress, the weakest element fails first... and this may or may not result in failure of the other components. If the trusses were to fail first.. it is unlikely that the floor slabs would not shatter and fracture. On the other hand it is possible for the concrete to be shattered... and the trusses to remain. After all the trusses were self supporting before the concrete was poured.

The floor system at the twin towers likely experience progressive... top to bottom failure - shattering, fracturing, crushing, grinding and pulverization from mechanical interactions.. millions of them in a very short span of time.. turning the 4" slabs to sand sized particles and dust.

I'll split the $1,000,000 prize with a worthy cause like OWS... Thank you.

[amazed!]

Yes, the planes were a distraction and an excuse.

An excuse to build DHS and TSA and all their budgetary glory for federal bureaucrats.

[SanderO]

Amazed...

We agree on that... whatever happened.. whomever caused 911... it was the excuse to step up the oppression and hegemony of the national security state.

[Heiwa]

As you may know a composite is only as strong as its weakest component. Under stress, the weakest element fails first... and this may or may not result in failure of the other components.

Exactly! If you drop a weak top part C on the stronger bottom part A of similar structure (A supports C and A is therefore stronger than C) you can be sure that elements of top part C fails first ... and that's it! A arrests C.
That a weaker assembly of elements can crush a stronger assembly of elements is not possible according to the Björkman axiom, which pls Google!

And flying planes into the weak tops of skyscrapers will just kill the pilot, destroy the plane and cause some local structural failures to the skyscraper. The US NIST institute, National Institute in Support of Terrorism, of course believes the opposite and encourages terrorist pilots to collide with skyscrapers.

Crazy, isn't it?

[SanderO]

Anders,

Of course you simplify and misrepresent what happened.

Even if there was no plane damage... and someone had exploded enough of the columns on the 95th floor...collapsing the 15 floors above... this would have as much as 50,000 tons of mass descending not on the columns of the 94th floor... but on the floor itself.

But if it were possible to gather up all that mass.. 15 floors and place it on top of the columns of the 94th floor... you are absolutely correct... the columns would not collapse.

This is not what happened... and you know it.

The 50,000 tons of material came down on the 94th floor which was designed to support 58 PSF = 58#x 30,000 = 870 tons...

A floor designed to support 870 tons is no match for even half the 50,000 tons.... and since all the floors were the same except the mech floors.. this mass would destroy every floor one after the other including the stronger mech floors.

I win the Anders $1,000.000 challenge... I'll have a friend in Holland receive the payment.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 12 2011, 07:58 PM

[elreb]

The following link is not Apples to Apples comparison but simply an example of how real collapses are investigated.

http://failures.wikispaces.com/Harbour+Cay+Condominiums

(IMG:http://failures.wikispaces.com/file/view/Harbour_Cay_Condominium_(3).JPG)

[elreb]

An excuse to build DHS and TSA and all their budgetary glory for federal bureaucrats.

Amen to that brother!

[amazed!]

SanderO

I forget if we've discussed this before, but what do you suppose Willie experienced and witnessed down there?

[Heiwa]

Of course you simplify and misrepresent what happened.



The 50,000 tons of material came down on the 94th floor which was designed to support 58 PSF = 58#x 30,000 = 870 tons...

Are you sure? Just demonstrate it and make a video of it. Then check is in the mail!

[SanderO]

Anders,

Before the lowers sections disintegrated... from whatever mechanism... the top sections of both towers somehow got destroyed... We can leave that aside for the time being. By destroy I don't mean *disappeared*, but rather dissociated.. much the way a demolition destroys a structure... the destroy structure is taken apart. One could explode it to kingdom come.... with the mass being blasted away and in its fractured state land some distance for the explosion. Or you could dismantle the structure by a series of smaller explosions attacking the integrity of the frame. With the frame destroyed... the floors and the roof., the walls and the contents have no support and would drop down by gravity. I suppose you could also slowly take the structure apart... stacking it up piece by piece on some floor... no explosives.

The bottom line here is unless the top sections of the twin towers were made to disappear... or the mass was blasted far from the foot print... gravity would see all or most of the mass bearing down on the top floor of of the intact lower structure. As noted that floor was designed for a static load of about 900 tons. Even with a factor of safety of 3 or 4 (not likely) when the equivalent of 4 floor masses...(FOS 3 for example)... landed on the top undamaged floor...(as it did) that floor would fail.

As already stated if you could some how add this mass as an AXIAL load to the columns of the intact structure, the tower would not fall, the frame would not fail... all the mass would be concentrated loads applied axially to the columns. That is impossible.... and you know it.

The mass.. enough mass came down on the top floor of the undamaged lower section... it did not disappear... it did not MOSTLY go outside the floor foot print... it was broken apart as it landed on that floor... it came down on it as a series of dynamic loads... the assault lasted about 3.75 seconds for tower 1 and the assault destroyed the entire footprint of the 94th floor... caused the columns above to lose their bracing and descend... all came down as a destructive dynamic load which the 94th floor could not support. It broke apart... And the same exact conditions were then presented to the 93rd floor. This proceeded (repeated) downward at the rate of about 100 feet per second more or less and no floor had the strength to arrest this gravity driven mass flow...

The planes or whatever kicked off the event were not of sufficient destructive force to destroy enough of the frame to have it all break apart. We saw that. Other factors then began to work at weakening the frame until it could not support the floor mass... they then came crashing down... leading to the gravity driven progressive floor collapse.

There is no other possible outcome if that much mass is coming down on a 58 psf floor system. We don't know what the precise mix of the core weakening factor were. But we can see that it took place.. the tops broke apart... the loads were freed from the column support below and gravity did what it does... pull the mass toward the ground.

It's all visible in many of the videos of the event. Open you eyes.

Are you sure? Just demonstrate it and make a video of it. Then check is in the mail!

[amazed!]

SanderO

Do you think Willie was making that up? Or do you think some transformers or decaying baby diapers exploded?

[Heiwa]

It's all visible in many of the videos of the event. Open you eyes.

When I watch any video of the 911 one-way crush downs I just see Hollywood CGI at work. Why is that? Because no structure of any kind can destroy itself as shown - a fountain of smoke and debris - according the laws of physics. To me it is obvious fakery of normal Hollywood standard.
Actually every electronic video/photo of the 911 destructions are fake. Imagine the planning behind that. Of course all videos/photos were taken before the real destructions and then smoke/debris were added and parts of buildings removed using standard photoshopping.
So you failed the Challenge, 0!

[SanderO]

Anders,

This last post was totally nonsense. If you refuse to accept the visual record.. then there is nothing to work with. You reductionist block models are not reality. And there's this:

"I think it's important for both the yayers and the nayers on a given topic to recognize the mutual gaps which sometimes exist in the common language of discourse. If you don't know that Euler buckling exists, it's not even part of your worldview constructions let alone your arsenal of tools for explaining observed phenomena.

If the phenomena you are observing is indeed Euler buckling, and you have no concept of it, you will be at a total loss to explain what you're seeing. I'm not talking about the name for something, I'm talking about the something itself. It may be possible for you to leverage your observation into a true understanding of the phenomena - and then might be tempted to name the effect after yourself not knowing it's taught in undergraduate structural classes.

The issue is - ignorance. I don't mean it in a disparaging sense, just that when you don't know something you are ignorant of it and can't make use of it to aid in further understanding. Many discussions I see are steeped in incredulity at very well understood phenomena and invariably go off course into pointless bickering because one side simply cannot accept that the boundaries of their knowledge on a particular subject may end right where standard freshman coursework begins.

On the other side of the fence, someone who is comfortable with a subject may not approach it with the necessary rigor to differentiate the cases where looks can be deceiving, simply because of a rote familiarity and habit of reaching for the same old tools when solving a problem.

Here, in this thread, the explanations DO come off as "this IS what happened" as opposed to "this COULD be what happened" and naturally that reflects personal confidence of those telling the tale. So long as that is understood, what's the problem? Of the two conditions I've raised in this post, ignorance of well-understood principles of physics and engineering seems to me a much bigger obstacle towards obtaining representational models. If you don't know about Euler buckling, you cannot explain the fall of certain core segments towards the end of collapse. You will resort to some f***king magic to explain your observation, whereas a structural engineer will not only be able to call it for what it is, they will be able to predict the threshold at which it would occur.

Most of what I see here are remedial explanations of very basic engineering concepts which your average person does not know. They cannot be faulted for not knowing; though elementary it is also specialized and there is no expectation the general populace should be conversant. However, if members of the general populace choose to inject themselves into conversations of this nature, it is essential they get up to speed on certain tools and vocabulary such that they are not fatally impeded by their ignorance.

Like discussing disease vectors when you have no concept of the existence of a microbial world, your position will be stilted by what you don't know. It's really as simple as that. Now, you learn the rules, examine things carefully, and it still doesn't make sense - then you may have something, but at least you'll have the means to articulate it in such a way that others will be able to objectively reconstruct what you claim to be discrepant."

[SanderO]

Amazed,

PC crashed last night and wiped out my reply.

I have spoken with William and also Sofia Smallstorm who did 911 Mysteries and interview WR.

I asked WR if he had ever heard a power transformer explode. He said no. I asked him if there wasn't a large electrical power sub station in the sub basement where he heard the blast from. He said there was. He added that he did not say he heard a bomb... he said he heard explosions and wants that investigated.

Sofia said when she interviewed WR he was not sure of the timing except it seemed to occur just before he heard the plane crash.

I say that it is possible that the plane caused an immediate voltage spike which blew several transformers... You can see evidence of this at the very top mech floor in tower 1 as there appears to be black smoke coming from 15 floors above the impact. I think this might be the electrical sub station up there.

The sound of the impact would have taken just over a second to reach WR in the sub basement as sound travels as 1180 feet per sec and this was just below the strike elevation at the 95th floor. But the voltage spike traveled at the speed of light and so WR witness the transformer explosion at the actual moment of the plane strike... but he heard the plane 1 second later... His perception was that the explosion preceded the plane strike.. but they happened simultaneously.

I can't say this is certain. But this may explain what he witnessed.

[elreb]

But the voltage spike traveled at the speed of light and so...

186,282 miles per second...

One foot in a Nano second is as one second is to 31.7 years.

1.017 nanoseconds (approximately) – time taken for light to travel 1 foot.

Sure thing...Andy...

[onesliceshort]

SanderO, post the two transformer videos again.

They caused no damage. So what blew the shit out of those sub basements?

Cheers big ears.

[9/11 Justice Now]

When I watch any video of the 911 one-way crush downs I just see Hollywood CGI at work. Why is that? Because no structure of any kind can destroy itself as shown - a fountain of smoke and debris - according the laws of physics. To me it is obvious fakery of normal Hollywood standard.
Actually every electronic video/photo of the 911 destructions are fake. Imagine the planning behind that. Of course all videos/photos were taken before the real destructions and then smoke/debris were added and parts of buildings removed using standard photoshopping.
So you failed the Challenge, 0!

OMG lol the collapses where really just CGI, Grow up Anders get a life will you? Next you will be saying that Nukes did it,
and that the planes where really just lollergrams.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[9/11 Justice Now]

If you can prove it, I'll give you € 1 000 000:-, which is plenty of US$.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif)