Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3, continued from: 9/11 Events- New thread

But do they also give quantities for the core and perimeter columns, i.e. with an explicit energy value ? And I mean not the connections.

You obviously don't know f*** about 9/11, and are some stupid conspiracy theorist. I can't stand people like you. 9/11 was a terrible incident, and it disgusts me that you think it was an inside job. You have no actual proof, and you are obviously delusional. The current American government may be corrupt, be it would never make a decision which would cause the deaths of so many civilian American citizens. It has never done so in recent times, and never will.

How could a missile have imitated an aircraft? And what would be the point of flying two aircraft into the Twin Towers if it could be blamed on a bomb? There are accounts from everywhere of the incident, and they all contradict your story. You were probably watching "Why the Earth is Flat" when it happened. The NESARA was suppressed, but destroying the WTC would have been a very stupid decision to help suppress it. In conclusion, you are being paranoid. You seem to believe everything you see on the Internet. If you continue to act like this, no one will ever respect you or your ideas.


- Gehn

This post has been edited by Gehn on Dec 18 2007, 09:15 PM

The NIST report gives the summarized loads on each of the four walls and on the core for specific floors. In addition, the report states that the aggregate DCR of the core was about 0.5 and in a briefing mentioned that the aggregate DCR for the exterior walls was about 0.2.

That is enough data to determine that the DCR for the surviving core columns when forces to also bear the loads of the walls above the failure level was about 2--3, vastly more than the critical load for failure by buckling.

This post has been edited by David B. Benson on Dec 18 2007, 09:40 PM

Hi einsteen!

Ignore the connections at your own risk, hehehe.

The core was nothing BUT 'connections'.

Without all the steel 'wickerwork' which was fixed on SHEER VERTICAL COLUMNS, there would have been nothing to stop everything sliding right to the ground even AS BUILT.

And hwen the planes hit the place like a big bomb, and fatally (eventually) compromised the 'integrated (read 'inter-CONNECTED) design/structure, then the inevitable happened as the UNcontrolled fires and heating/cooling weakenings/distortions and resultant failings/load-shifting sent the whole INTEGRATED-CONNECTION-DEPENDENT structure into a mechanical/thermodynamical 'death spiral' of events that led to collapse.

In any serious analysis, ignoring the WEAKEST LINK factors of INTEGRATED-SUPPORT and INTEGRAL CONNECTIONS that FAILED under the circumstances would be just a wee bit too 'politically/vestedly/ingenuously' EXPEDIENT, I think.

Cheers all!

RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Dec 18 2007, 10:14 PM

Yes, tried that general location. I started from Varick St. and moved incrementally east to roughly the location I've marked.

There isn't much play in the lateral placement (azimuthal angle wrt tower) because 101 Ave of the Americas (the bldg next to green arrow) has to occupy a certain portion of the left side of the frame. Could move back some distance and reduce the view angle accordingly, there is some clear area further back from that vertex, as well.

I need to fix the aspect ratio problem first, which is not a big deal, just haven't gotten around to it. I think I made the view angle for vertical the same as horizontal, but the image is 3:2, which would explain why the floor heights appeared to be way too short, despite reasonably careful dimensioning. And a good match on the horizontal.

What will help is to get a scaled facade on my mock-up of 101 Ave of A; this will further clarify the minimum view angle by checking window sizes. Getting the location from rendered scene geometry is backwards, as I've said, but the rules of physical optics are obeyed so it's not as ridiculous as it might at first seem.

I posted this before a while back. It's a blend of a rendered frame and one from the real video:


http://i5.tinypic.com/8ayf2p2.png

You can see it's not perfectly aligned on either building, but much closer than my first pass, trust me. Even the moire patterns almost match. The next pass will probably be much better. Once the best match in all dimensional respects is obtained, then I'll vary the camera position and view angle about that ideal until a sensible uncertainty range is defined.

Interesting 300 foot tower demolition:

The tower drops a few floors, but the "crush-up" is arrested and it topples over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgE9S3bV6QM&NR=1

This post has been edited by lozenge124 on Dec 19 2007, 03:38 PM

But Lozenge...think about the scale. It will always be arrested for a scale 1 inch below the wtc scale, but for the wtc scale, it will ba a 100% total complete collapse, probably with a symmetrical debris zone ejected in all directions, no toppling at all, even no symmetrical initiation zone is needed. The wtc was a one off construction, Think about it ;-)!

This post has been edited by einsteen on Dec 19 2007, 05:29 PM

Anyone in the mood for a wtc7 smearogram 29.97 frames/second


http://i6.tinypic.com/7w9ius5.jpg

If the collapse of the left part of the penthouses means that the structure is already broken, then the value that Shagster and I arrived at independently is an indication of the E1/M ratio of a broken building. I'm wondering how this fits with the initial movement of the top of the building. The difference between g and a_wtc7 could say something about that value also.

Good one, einsteen. Cracked me up, you did.

lozenge124:

Thanks for the video, I always appreciate interesting collapse videos. Nowadays. For some reason.

This post has been edited by OneWhiteEye on Dec 20 2007, 06:26 AM

OK.


http://i2.tinypic.com/8100lkg.png


Not my best work. Very quick, probably not too accurate. NOT TO BE USED TO AID IN DESIGN OF COLLAPSE-RESISTANT BUILDINGS!!!

9 floors = 70 pixels (this is the weakest link)

47 stories, or so they say.

I don't know the floor height of WTC7.

Emporis:
570 feet = 174m
uniform => 12 ft/story max

NIST:
610ft = 186m
uniform => 13 ft/story max

Looks like Emporis might have used (floor height x #floors) to arrive at the total. Assume a range on the uniform floor height of 12 - 13 ft, or 3.66 - 3.96 m, with a possible skew to the low side. I think we can take 3.96m to be the ceiling on the floor height, if you'll pardon the pun.

Columns are
- Tsec: Time in seconds
- Yfl: Position in floor units
- Ymin: Minimum position in meters
- Ymax: Maximum position in meters

Please note I did not propagate the errors associated with the floor height measurement and the data point measurements, which each have to be at least +/- 1 pixel for point placement. So, minimum +/- 2 pixels or more for the scale and +/- 1 for the points, probably much more.

Edit: And, sorry for all the digits, I couldn't be bothered to format it

This post has been edited by OneWhiteEye on Dec 20 2007, 06:40 AM

After removal of the first two records, polynomial fits for the first 4.5 seconds of minimum and maximum displacement, WTC7:


YMin 2nd order term only


YMin 3rd order


YMax 2nd order term only


YMax 3rd order

The second order alone gives a good fit. Here, the coefficients are:

YMin : 3.98
YMax : 4.31

So, 7.96 - 8.62 m/s^2, or 81 - 88% of g.

Of course, it could all be wrong.

At least part of it was wrong. I removed the first two records but did not offset the time to zero.

The 2nd order fit for the first 4.2 seconds gives coefficients of:

YMin : 4.52
YMax : 4.89 (~g!)

The fits are not good, however. The 3rd order fits are good, but who cares?

thanks (I hope it didn't take too much of your time) I will save this page when I'm home. The distance should be known to correct the parallax (that will be difficult), the original video was taken from "the third tower".

I participated in an interesting thread at JREF,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100488

starting at p. 16

The most important post I made was on p. 17, where I quote Graff:

You can see the effect of assuming a rigid impacting upper block on the lower block on Bazant and Zhou's Eqn #1. Taking the limit as h -> 0, you get twice the static load.

Bazant and Zhou also make no allowance for elastic energy leaving the impacted column section under consideration, during any reasonable time period it would take for a buckling to occur. If the supporting object under the column section were an ideal, rigid body, incapable of being accelerated, then it would not allow transfer of energy from the column to itself.

The reality is very different.

> The molten orange flow was probably lead from Uninterruptable Power
> Supplies on floor 81, which use banks of lead-acid batteries.

That is a hypothesis that would have some weight with me if it had experiments behind it. You do not even know that these were actually batteries, as they were never used.


> It *couldn't* have been thermite/thermate, because it has no
> effect on the metal sheathing of the building,

An iron-rich alloy is the result of a thermate reaction. Is it possible that thermate could have melted the steel, producing an iron-rich allow that flowed out of the building? Surely you understand that water can flow over ice without completely melting it. You say you saw "no effect" because you analyzed the metal sheathing? Perhaps some melting did occur. Your opinion does not have evidence to back it up.


> also clearly visible
> on the same videos showing the flowing lead. If it had been thermite/thermate,
> it would've melted straight through the material, and it didn't.

As stated above, this was likely an iron-rich alloy in liquid form.

You appear to be quite unaware of the actual physical evidence that has been recovered. Iron-rich spheres were found by the USGS ( pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04-IMAGE.jpg ) RJ Lee Group ( www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf
) and others.


Of particular interest is the FEMA BPAT report is www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf which shows a picture of melted steel and discusses evidence of controlled demolition like sulfidation. (Sulfidation is a byproduct of a thermate reaction.)


> No possibility of it being thermate. None. Zero. Give it up.
>
> Regarding signatures of accelerants, there was only one accelerant,
> it was called "jet fuel", and there was lots of that present, both
> planes were loaded with it.
>
> Welcome back to reality.

Your inflammatory debate style might make you feel good, but it does nothing to account for the actual evidence.

Perhaps you should also check the melting temperature of steel (2750-2800F) and the open-air burning temperature of jet fuel (500-599F) before you start declaring you know reality.


> An adult is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his
> deliberate actions. Deliberate inactions are deliberate actions.


A scientist is responsible for using the scientific method. The scientific method avoids the confusing lunge and parry style of the debate. Credible hypotheses are those with supporting evidence and which suggest experiments that provide ways to verify the hypotheses.