ADVANCED PHYSICS WTC NORTH COLLAPSE, SEPTEMBER 2005 PAPER NEEDS ANALYSIS

Is there a Physics Maestro in the house, worthy of checking the math on this analysis?

Here is a recent analysis of the north tower. It calculates the air volume of the first floor of collapse and shows that explosives is the only explanation.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtml
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htm


Please post references please, no extrapolating please !
(ONLY MATHEMATICS PLEASE, CAVE DWELLER THEORIES NOT INCLUDED)

For the BASIC PHYSICS ANALYSIS (+CONTEXT) goto....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0

Here is a better read of the paper.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htm
("http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm")

I think every person of science should make the effort to review this paper, even just to read the fire analysis. Using NIST's own data it is shown that it is impossible for fire to cause collapse. It is also shown that the Boeing 767 only caused about 7% damage to the floors. This debunks the core aspects of the government theory. NIST has now suspended indefinitely the release of the final report. I wonder why?

Haven't thoroughly gone through this, but so far:

This is a very interesting read, and goes into a lot of quantitative detail that I was hoping more people on this board would be doing. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Wayne Trumpman shows that you had to have 75% of the columns fail on any given floor to have a collapse of that 1 floor. (What he means, exactly, by "collapse of that 1 floor is something I'm not clear on, and I suspect that is because he is not clear about this.) By carefully studying the fire data, including pictures, he indicates that NIST's computer model doesn't match it's own data, and that collapse of even the first floor (=floor 97) could not have occurred as per NIST. (One of his complaints can't be taken at face value. This is the complaint that no steel that was examined in the lab showed that it had been heated to more than 250 C. However,the question a skeptic would ask is: how do you know that the steel that was examined was from floor 97?)

Trumpman asserts that the WTC structural steel acted as a giant heat sink. I have essentially said the same thing, though, like me, Trumpman has not tried to calculate a heat distribution. (Hint, hint...)

I haven't had the time to study this paper carefully, but the author seems to be conflating the strength of columns with the lateral strength of a floor. He finds that:

"The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306 tons. Add the factor of safety and the building structure could handle multiple times this load. It is estimated that the average factor of safety for a floor was 3.35. This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing."

However, while I'm not a civil engineer, I have argued that the total strength of the columns at a given floor height are likely to far exceed the lateral strength of a floor. (consider the columns on Floor 1 that must support more than the weight of 111 floors - live and dead weight, e.g., while the floor needs to merely support itself and the "live weight", which is office contents, people, etc.)

The columns at Floor 97 had to support not just the live and dead weight of Floor 97, but also an additional 13 floors, which Trumpman seems to ignore.

Thus, I interpret his "75% column failure = collapse" to not refer to merely the lateral floor, but rather the collapse of the columns at that floor. That is fine, since we observe (don't we? ) a complete collapse of each floor, sequentially. Furthermore, the statement "This means a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing." should be understood to mean: "This means that the lateral portion of a floor could handle a total of 11,075 tons before failing, though the columns that supported that floor would likely remain standing."

From his paper:

Acting as the 'devils advocate' I posted this 'analysis' on a well-known gov't supportive de-bunking site to see what response they would have...

Here is the response from 'Jay Utah' (a well-known 'conspiracy-theorist' de-bunker)...

Response from 'Jay Utah'...

--------------------

Seems to me that ol' Jay is avoiding the questions?


The 'Fire Analysis' backs up (in much greater detail) that which I have presented here...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled_Fire01.html

Just to add to the topic of professional/engineering analysis of the official story, I found the article quoted below. The article is copied directly from ‘New Civil Engineer’ (NCE) magazine, which is a magazine for construction professionals & members of the UK Institution of Civil Engineers (established 1818 ), (www.ice.org.uk). Publication date 6th October 2005. (Magazine website www.nceplus.co.uk)

As i see things, Why wouldn't NIST want to go that further step & carry out the thermal and load visualisation models of the towers’ collapse, to arrive at the points of global collapse initiation, and then to correlate these with the available video evidence? As the UK academic suggested, this what you would do to arrive at the fullest understanding of the ONLY 3 FULL SCALE COLLAPSES OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS IN HISTORY

NIST's approach seems to be to release draft reports, wait for the criticsm & then extend the report to deal with the criticsm. Not unusual one might say however the final report of WTC1 & WTC2 has just been released (10/26/2005) and NO REPORT WHATSOVER [even in draft format] HAS YET BEEN RELEASED IN RESPECT OF WTC-7!! ( see http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ for details )

Perhaps it would be useful to get Professors Colin Bailey or Roger Plank to comment on the paper.

For a guy who criticizes Trumpman for a lack of references to standard structural mechanics or analysis, you would think he would back up his claim of "And it has been done. And it strongly disputes his findings." with a reference or two.

Presumably, he is alluding to the NIST report. However, while I haven't read it, my understanding is that the NIST report does no such thing (see Hoffman). Also, I could be wrong, but does the NIST report even try to address the energetics of the expansion of the gas clooud? For that matter, how does the NIST report square with conservation of energy considerations, in toto?

Yeah, and just how much does any real deformations that did occur in WTC 1 or 2 affect the structural strength of the buildings? Jay doesn't tell us, either, but I certainly agree with Trumpman that it was likely to be a minor factor in the impact/fire zone, as well as essentially a non-factor away from that zone.


I would love to see a legitimate computer simulation which grants a plausible local collapse. I don't believe for a second that it would lead to a global collapse (including the columns). Jay Utah can legitimately complain that my physics-oriented calculations, which are devoid of any knowledge of structural engineering (and assumptions about how engineering rules-of-thumb re strength margins of safety translate into physics), are insufficient. However, I don't see either Jay Utah, NIST, or anybody else doing this simulation and releasing the details for peer review.

Strange behavior, indeed, for people who believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale. A legitimate computer simulation should settle the matter, one way or another, don't you think?

Perhaps Utah Jay can convince his company to try and win reopen911.org's contest. But I'm not holding my breath.....

I did not consent to Foxx's posting my comments here, nor do I intent to follow the discussion in two separate forums. Any who wish to discuss my criticsm of Trumpman can do so where the comments were first made. I was not even aware until recently that my comments were being discussed elsewhere.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...6367890&page=58

I do not agree with Foxx's characterization either of me or of the forum in which I typically post. We are not "pro-government". We do not scrutinize conspiracy theories because we defend "the government" but because we are interested in such critical examinations as a matter of course.

I do not -- nor ever did -- intend to comment on Trumpman in detail. To do so would be to validate his approach, which is utterly wrong. The post reproduced here is not intended to be a refutation; it is a dismissal. When Mr. Trumpman can demonstrate that he has received even the most rudimentary training in the analysis of structures, then perhaps I will take him seriously.

Again, I am not initiating a dialogue. Please respond, if you wish, at the link above.

PLEASE IGNORE THE ABOVE COMMENT.


CAN WE HAVE CRITIQUES OF THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS, PLEASE?


Is there a Physics Maestro in the house, worthy of checking the math on this analysis?

I think science and math speaks for itself, it does not matter who the messenger is. Einstein was a high school dropout. If this paper was written by an layperson, i am impressed.

In my first review of the paper it appears Trumpman is correctly using formulas. To write a 20+ page research paper with plenty of math is not an easy task. I will forgive the paper's faults. The main concern i have is the accuracy of the data used. Is the government data accurate? Are the measurements taken accurate? I think the collapse model used for the cloud analysis does cover the major factors. It should be good enough to show the obvious which i think Trumpman has done. I presently have no alternative explanation for that extra air volume.

I think i will need to find some time and take a look at 9-11.

OK, it's at least credible on a 5-minute overview; this guy's better than Hoffman. Let me dig deeper. I'll try to post something on Friday.

After seeing Jay's comments, I have to concur that the author's procedure is likely to lead to an incomplete analysis; but if I criticize it, I'll do so on simpler grounds. Like I said, let's see whether he makes any obvious mistakes. Right off the bat, I note that he gives a figure of 200,000 tons for the weight of the towers- this is half the 450,000 tons I have from four different sources, so we might already be looking at a problem, but I haven't examined how he's used it to see if it's material to his conclusions.

Schneibster and ProfZinduram, thanks for taking the time to look at the paper. I´m still trying to assimilate it.

quote ProfZinduram

..true..

I agree.

OK, right up front, there are some problems.

1. Trumpman assumes that the fires visible from the outside indicate what the fires inside are doing.
We can all see where there might be problems with this approach. Let's see where they are.

2. Trumpman assumes (and this is a much worse problem) that because the fire isn't visible outside, it's "burned out."
This is particularly a problem because the main source of oxygen would have been the outside of the building. What that tends to indicate is that the fire would burn whatever was close to the windows, then as the fuel close to the windows was consumed, move inward. So it is entirely possible (and even probable) that there was still plenty of fire going on, but not as much visible from outside.

3. Trumpman asserts that fires did not burn in any one place for more than 45 minutes, but long experience with office fires indicates that offices can burn for 24 hours or more; there is one in LA that in fact did so.

4. Trumpman presents his thesis in the middle of the paper. While this is not a technical error, it is very, very bad style; most scientists and other technical writers writing to a technical audience avoid this, because it can be interpreted as indicating bias in the selection or processing of the data. I am more concerned that he does not know this than I am about any question as to his integrity; but it does also raise an issue regarding whether he has studied the data in an unbiased manner.

5. Trumpman asserts, "It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons." This is factually incorrect. I have presented no less than four sources that estimate the steel used in a single tower as over 450,000 tons, and I have at least two sources (one of which is Hoffman- never said he was a lousy investigator, just a bad physicist) that say there were an additional 90,000 tons of concrete, for a total mass of 540,000 US short tons, or 489,879.7596 metric tonnes. (By the way, when we're done here, you'll notice that the final mass figure I get here is greater than I did on page 50; the reason is because I determined to deliberately ignore the extra 90,000 tons of concrete in order to make the calculation as conservative as possible.)

6. Trumpman asserts, "The dead load of a floor was 1,818 tons." He gives no source, and does no calculations. Calculating from the figure above, I get an average deadweight of 4453.45236 metric tonnes per floor; using Trumpman's incorrect figure of 200,000 US short tons, I get 1,818.18 US short tons, so that's where he got the figure.

7. Trumpman asserts, "The estimated total weight of a floor, dead load plus live load, is 3,306tons." I strongly prefer not only a more realistic figure for the total mass of the building, but a more realistic figure (this one is biased in the other direction- it's MUCH lower than Trumpman's estimate of 82psf) of 13psf.

8. Trumpman uses a figure of 200x200 feet for the total floor space on a floor. This gives 40,000 square feet. I prefer the much more accurate figure based on the drawings of 33,000; note that this again is biased the other way, giving us both less weight per square foot, and less square feet. Working this out, I get 429,000 pounds, which is 214.5 US short tons or 194.5911267 metric tonnes. Adding, however, to my much greater figure of 4648.0434867 metric tons per floor, of which 4453t is deadweight and 195t is live weight.

9. Trumpman makes assumptions about safety factors, particularly the meanings of them, that I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with. He does not cite any source; his source apparently is "it is estimated," being as how that's all he says. That is not a credible source. Where? Who estimated it? What were their grounds?

10. Trumpman asserts, "The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%." Who says so? Why? Where did he get or derive this figure? This one, I am even more uncomfortable with than #9 above. Minoru Yamasaki, the architect, stated on multiple occasions that his design was intended to have the core carry most of the vertical load, and the perimeter columns carry most of the lateral load; in other words, the perimeter columns were to handle wind loads, and the core to handle gravity loads. At worst I would expect a 60/40 distribution; keep in mind, making a column stronger to handle more load requires more column, and that means it's heavier, and that means the column below it has to be stronger too, and is heavier too, all the way down the building. To have more reserve capacity in the perimeter than in the core makes no sense, since there is a lot more OF the perimeter than there is core, and it therefore has an inordinate effect on the design.

11. Like most physics novices, Trumpman fails to differentiate between heat and temperature; combined with problem #2 above, his WAGs about how many of the columns would have had to fail based on his unsourced assertions regarding the safety factors (which at least look plausible) and about the reserve capacities (which are not merely unsourced but also unlikely), and the fact that he has never estimated the total heat available from burning the office contents, this is the first fatal flaw in this paper.

At this point, I don't see a point in looking farther.

Tables of numbers missing proper dimensional units is a waste of an engineer's time.

look, just read Steve Jones paper about the towers and wtc. one physicist he cited that there was a one in a trillion chance of the towers falling the way they did without explosives. It is all there in amazing detail, and if after reading that, then either you are stupid, or in denial. I mean if you watch the video of wtc7 falling and don't realize that is a demolition then you are in denial. That would be a blatant violation of the conservation of energy. Also not one building in the history of the modern building ever collapse due to fire. Notice how the plane crash in Iran a week ago got very little MSM coverage. That building did not collapse and it got hit by a plane and was on fire for much longer the the Tc. So I guess they are evil doers, but somehow they figured a way around the laws of physics, and apparently build very strong buildings

Also, we have been trained our whole life that we as Americans are the good guys, that shattering that illusion is downright depressing. Who has time to be depressed anymore. Life is too hectic. That is why I take Ritalin, but that is whole other issue.

It happened, the question is by who, what for, and whether there is a group that is behind this that wants it come out.

Since there is video footage showing the violation of the second law of physics, then whoever planned is either a big risk taker, or wanted it come out.

One can only assume either maybe they will blame Israel causing possibly Armageddon (which the Christians are hoping for) so Christ comes flying from the heavens and dies for our sins again,

Or the NWO who wants a one world govt. Interesting the Jews want a one world govt too as stated that the messiah comes when world peace is achieved.

Or it can just be about oil, and keeping our standing of living. You know how pissed off people get when they have less than they used to have.

I know Micheal Ruppert ties it to the guys on wall street. Supposedly the taliban put an end to the opium trade and that affected the market because of the cash being used to finance stuff,

Then you have the necons who apparently wanted another pearl harbor. It is there stated goal to have a Benevolent Global Hegemony, with the US as the leader.

And don't forget the industrial military complex, who need enemies to justify their existence. And don't forget they tried to do a similar thing so that they attack Cuba. I.E operation northwood.

I for one don't know what is so wrong with a one world gov't as long as it is good. There can't be anymore wars, no armies, no spending money on weapons. I mean humans would have to give up feeling superior to other people, but there is always sports for that.

So maybe this whole 911 thing is for the better, or maybe it Will lead to Armageddon. Or maybe the it will never come out, and it will one more in a long line of false histories.

...........time will tell