Scientific Forums


Pages: (7) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> ADVANCED PHYSICS WTC NORTH COLLAPSE, SEPTEMBER 2005 PAPER NEEDS ANALYSIS
frater plecticus
Posted: Nov 1 2005, 08:22 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 27-October 05

Positive Feedback: 12.5%
Feedback Score: -5


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


--------------------
SEPTEMBERGATE IS COMING.......

Rocking from decentral brothers
Top
Justin Tin
Posted: Nov 2 2005, 01:40 AM


Unregistered









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?


Top
metamars
Posted: Nov 2 2005, 03:42 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1346
Joined: 11-October 05

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: -5


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:

QUOTE

The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way. Add the fact that the steel was certified ASTM E119 and at least a majority of the columns still had fireproofing. Add the fact that fires burned at most about 45 minutes. Add the fact that on floor 97 at the time of collapse no fires existed on the north and west faces, that 45 minute fires existed on the east face, and that less than 25 minute fires existed on the south face; and one can see the impossibility of 200+ columns being harmed catastrophically by heat of fire.

In fire, the behavior of steel is as follows. It heats up. It weakens. It fatigues. It fatigues more. Failure is gradual. Steel does not go from undetectable, immeasurable fatigue to catastrophic failure like a flick of a light switch. This is corroborated by documented fires of other hi-rise buildings throughout history and by lab tests with steel, including the tests the government has done for its "modeling". Do you have a piece of steel rod and a welding torch? You can try this experiment (please exercise safety). Warm up the steel hot with the torch. Note how stiff the steel is. Now heat it up so it glows orange hot in the middle- put over 2000 C on it. Note how stiff the steel is- it bends. Now let the steel cool so it is only hot again. Note how long it takes to recover from being orange hot. Did it take 30 seconds or less? Now note how stiff the steel is. Feels the same as it was at the beginning of the experiment, does it not? This is very similar to what was happening to steel columns in WTC 1 as the fires burned then burned out.

It is a well known fact that steel is an excellent conductor material. The WTC 1 had a 100,000 ton steel frame. This was like a giant heatsink. When fires heated up steel columns, heat got drawn away from the heat source by the cooler parts of the building frame. A portion of the fire heat is not going to stay local. Add the fact that on average fires did not cover more than 25% of any one floor. Add the fact that fires lasted at most about 45 minutes and one can see how steel members as part of a giant 100,000 ton heatsink were not heating up like the isolated steel pieces in laboratory tests as part of the government's "modeling". What this shows is that the steel in the WTC 1 easily withstood the 45 minute fires as the effective damage by fire was of a shorter duration.

The government has asserted weakening by fire is a primary cause of collapse. From its "modeling" the government concludes fires MAY have heated columns 500-600 C and made them weaken and bow. But NIST commissioned Underwriter Laboratories (UL) to conduct tests on the recovered physical WTC steel and UL found that most columns did not reach 250 C. This corroborates that the building was acting as a giant heatsink, or that fires did not reach 500-600 C temperatures. The government has repeatedly asserted since 2002 that the recovered steel adequately represents the two towers. The government contradicts itself. It is unable to explain why its hypothetical modeling is superior to physical data. The government goes so far as to avoid discussion of this data in its final report and most of its public presentations. It is quite unscientific to ignore irrefutable data that contradicts the theory you are trying to peddle.

However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever. The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL their fire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when they were at their weakest state. After the fires burned out, the columns cooled. When heated steel cools, it regains strength. There is nothing "magic" going on here. Since columns had a factor of safety of at least 2.25 this means that column strength during cooling was above 100% of the building load. Those columns had reserve capacity. 87% of the columns on floor 97 were either untouched by fire or were cooling when the collapse occurred. So how could all these columns fail symmetrically and simultaneously by fire? Science says no way.

If a column's strength fell below 100% of the building load then it would have started to fail. It is averaged that 80% of the perimeter columns had to fail in order for what is documented to be caused by a natural gravity collapse. In the picture data, do you see 189 bent perimeter columns at floor 97? No. Can you observe changes to the building structure from all this failing such as widespread misalignment of floors? No.

In summary, fire could not have weakened the necessary number of columns to failure to create what has been documented. This refutes a natural gravity collapse theory. The government has been unable to reconcile the irrefutable data.
Top
Foxx
Posted: Nov 2 2005, 08:42 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1547
Joined: 19-October 05

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -7


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...

QUOTE
Here is some physics to play with, boys

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htm


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

Response from 'Jay Utah'...

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

QUOTE
Unfortunately engineering, not physics, is what is wanted and that paper is neither. I quite reading when the lay author accepted without question the standard conspiracist interpretation of ASTM E119 UL testing as gospel.

The computations purport to study the structural engineering, but instead they're really just freshman physics equations misapplied. There is not one single bit of actual structural analysis in any of that paper.

Foxx, my company produces engineering FEM solutions for industry, which are used in fire modeling, structural modeling, crash and collapse modeling, and thermodynamics. The reason my company exists is precisely that what your author presents here -- even if it were correct -- is insufficient to study problems like the WTC collapse.

Some notable ignorance:

"When heated steel cools, it regains strength."

But not its shape, and shape is important in a composed structure.

Note that clouds were not perfect circles and therefore adjustment has to be made to get an easy-to-work-with diameter number.

Computational fluid dynamics is required here.

A floor would not have zero elasticity...

Strain rate applies here.

To simplify calculations we will assume...

The goal is to find out what happened, not to simplify the calculations. Your "expert" is trying to make the problem fit his knowledge, not the other way round.

Earlier it was calculated that the average air temperature on a floor with fire was 148 C at the time of collapse.

I don't see where in the paper this was calculated. And we aren't interested in an "average" air temperature; we're interested in where the air might have been the hottest and if there was any steel in the vicinity. You need a fluid dynamics model for that. 150 C for an office fire is ridiculously low; other tests demonstrate much higher temperatures for similar fires.

NIST used a three-level damage rating: Severed, Heavy Damage, Moderate Damage. We will assume severed equals 100% damage, heavy damage is 2/3, and moderate damage is 1/3.

Where did this come from?

On average, about 15 perimeter columns were severed per floor. This is about 40% of the total severed perimeter columns. Using this percentage we can scale and estimate how many severed columns per floor. We find that the equivalent severed column average is 16 for the perimeter and 3 for the core per floor. This means the perimeter was weakened 7% and the core weakened 6%.

What in the hell is this? This is just the author inventing, on the fly, a completely new model for structural analysis, and simply attaching arbitrary quantities to someone else's data. Then he goes on to claim that this "corroborates" his theory!

The makeup of air has been generalized to keep analysis simple.

But the problem is not simple. The author should be using Navier-Stokes equations, but I rather suspect the author has no clue what those are.

I want to note that in this paper I am not trying to create a detailed, exhaustive model of the WTC 1 collapse. This will have to be done.

And it has been done. And it strongly disputes his findings.

But this does not prevent me from pointing out obvious facts to you using a simpler model.

No. His "simple" model is quantitatively wrong, qualitatively wrong, and bears absolutely no resemblance to structural analysis and fluid dynamics as they has been carried out for a hundred years or more.

There is no video data showing a fatigue period of the columns.

There is photographic data showing the deformation of the towers prior to collapse.

I could go on for hours, but this is just too painful.

That paper is an amateur pile of garbage from beginning to end. It would be difficult to locate a denser concentration of misunderstanding, misinformation, and just plain ignorant assumption. I find it most hilarious that in his references there is not a single reference to any of the standard works on structural mechanics or analysis. Whoever this Wayne Trumpman is, it's a cinch he's never had even the most rudimentary training in structures.




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






--------------------
Hold ON,
Hold on to yourself...
for (the TRUTH) is gonna hurt like hell.


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684&q=911
Send PM ·
Top
Sinclair
Posted: Nov 2 2005, 01:16 PM


Unregistered









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)
QUOTE

WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation

World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ.  But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.  “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.

University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”

NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.

But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models.  “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.

“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.  This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”


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.

Top
metamars
Posted: Nov 2 2005, 03:18 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1346
Joined: 11-October 05

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: -5


QUOTE
I want to note that in this paper I am not trying to create a detailed, exhaustive model of the WTC 1 collapse. This will have to be done.

And it has been done. And it strongly disputes his findings.


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?


QUOTE
"When heated steel cools, it regains strength."

But not its shape, and shape is important in a composed structure.


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.....
Top
JayUtah
Posted: Nov 3 2005, 05:51 AM


Unregistered









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.
Top
frater plecticus
Posted: Nov 4 2005, 08:53 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 27-October 05

Positive Feedback: 12.5%
Feedback Score: -5


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?


QUOTE
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


--------------------
SEPTEMBERGATE IS COMING.......

Rocking from decentral brothers
Top
ProfZinDurham
Posted: Nov 23 2005, 09:50 PM


Unregistered









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.
Top
Schneibster
Posted: Nov 23 2005, 10:02 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 585
Joined: 13-October 05

Positive Feedback: 71.43%
Feedback Score: 2


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.
Top
frater plecticus
Posted: Nov 23 2005, 10:16 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 27-October 05

Positive Feedback: 12.5%
Feedback Score: -5


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

quote ProfZinduram
QUOTE
I think science and math speaks for itself, it does not matter who the messenger is. 


..true..


--------------------
SEPTEMBERGATE IS COMING.......

Rocking from decentral brothers
Top
Schneibster
Posted: Nov 23 2005, 11:28 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 585
Joined: 13-October 05

Positive Feedback: 71.43%
Feedback Score: 2


QUOTE
I think science and math speaks for itself, it does not matter who the messenger is.
I agree.
Top
Schneibster
Posted: Nov 24 2005, 12:14 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 585
Joined: 13-October 05

Positive Feedback: 71.43%
Feedback Score: 2


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.
Top
B_Sharp
Posted: Nov 25 2005, 08:36 PM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 21-November 05

Positive Feedback: 33.33%
Feedback Score: -1


QUOTE (frater plecticus @ Nov 1 2005, 08:22 AM)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtml

Tables of numbers missing proper dimensional units is a waste of an engineer's time.
Top
Guest_joe
Posted: Dec 10 2005, 08:02 AM


Unregistered









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
Top

Topic Options Pages: (7) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use