900 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Good points Boo.

What I've always been curious about, and never seen ANY numbers on it, was how much fuel either of the Boston flights were carrying.  Nowhere have I seen those numbers, OCT sites or truther sites.  Nobody knows.  No claims made on either side.

Yes we can assume this that and the other, for a BOS--LAX flight, but we don't know.  This number is important because it ultimately determines the gross weight of the aircraft, which determines the energy of the impact.  Minus, of course, the fuel burned from takeoff to impact.

That said, the towers DID absord the energy of the strikes, as designed, and did stand for an hour or so, as designed.  Then for some bizarre reason collapsed in the opposite order of how they were struck.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 September 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Good points Boo.

What I've always been curious about, and never seen ANY numbers on it, was how much fuel either of the Boston flights were carrying.  Nowhere have I seen those numbers, OCT sites or truther sites.  Nobody knows.  No claims made on either side.

Yes we can assume this that and the other, for a BOS--LAX flight, but we don't know.  This number is important because it ultimately determines the gross weight of the aircraft, which determines the energy of the impact.  Minus, of course, the fuel burned from takeoff to impact.

Why did you omit the weight of passengers and cargo? At least we know there was fuel in both aircraft when they struck the WTC buildings because the engines were still running.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 20 September 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Good points Boo.

What I've always been curious about, and never seen ANY numbers on it, was how much fuel either of the Boston flights were carrying.  Nowhere have I seen those numbers, OCT sites or truther sites.  Nobody knows.  No claims made on either side.

Yes we can assume this that and the other, for a BOS--LAX flight, but we don't know.  This number is important because it ultimately determines the gross weight of the aircraft, which determines the energy of the impact.  Minus, of course, the fuel burned from takeoff to impact.

That said, the towers DID absord the energy of the strikes, as designed, and did stand for an hour or so, as designed.  Then for some bizarre reason collapsed in the opposite order of how they were struck.

There really isn't anything bizarre about the fact that the South Tower collapsed first when you compare the amount of mass above the impact zones of each building.  The damaged structures in the South Tower were trying to hold up significantly more building than the damaged structures in the North Tower.  12 stories for WTC 1 (North) and 29 stories for WTC 2 (South).

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

False.

You have personaly been corrected on this before.


The information has been available for years.

Why are you repeating the same tired misinformation?

By the way, I just want to clarify that when we previously discussed this, I'm pretty sure that this was the link you provided.  That link doesn't discuss the speeds.

The link below does reference the speed though, and I don't recall having seen it before, so thanks for that.

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

A study, dated February 3, 1964, found: -

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

http://www.historyco...a022793skilling

NIST NCSTAR1 pg.6 corroborates the above: -

"An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.”

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

The reason that I would like to see the actual analysis is to determine whether or not they stopped looking at the problem right after impact.  I suspect they probably did, which could explain why they may have predicted building survival.  The actual buildings survived the impacts after all.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

By the way, I just want to clarify that when we previously discussed this, I'm pretty sure that this was the link you provided.  That link doesn't discuss the speeds.

The link below does reference the speed though, and I don't recall having seen it before, so thanks for that.

The past discussion where I posted that link, first began with your promotion of a 911myths webpage, which itself mentioned the 600 mph impact case, which you acknowledged: -

• “the link does mention that according to NIST there were documents uncovered which supposedly discuss the consideration of higher speed impacts”

During our conversation that followed, I also said: -

• “a number of prior analysis were carried out separately taking into account an airliner travelling 600 mph”
  
• “higher speed impact referred to by the Port Authority”
  
• “911myths is wrong about 1) only a lower impact speed being considered”
  
• “The link mentions the 600 mph impact case described by the Port Authority and NIST”

I don’t think you have any grounds to claim ignorance on basis that the speed was not previously discussed or referenced.  It was not for lack of my trying to get the point across.  Perhaps rather thoughtless and pointless responses to the information, such as your post #616, were distracting you.

It’s similar to the problem Swanny has (because him and I have been over this exact subject more than once also).  The issue is that both of you will quickly disregard or forget anything in opposition to your position, quite subconsciously I’m sure, and repeat the same mistakes down the line.  Unfortunately it applies in all discussion, not only this example.

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

The reason that I would like to see the actual analysis is to determine whether or not they stopped looking at the problem right after impact.  I suspect they probably did, which could explain why they may have predicted building survival.  The actual buildings survived the impacts after all.

None of the analyses mentioned by the WTC engineers are available.

I suspect you are very wrong in your suspicion that, “they stopped looking at the problem right after impact”.

I will explain why...

There appears to have been more than one airliner impact study carried out by the WTC design team.  The first was the 1964 paper mentioned by the Port Authority and NIST, assuming a higher impact speed of 600 mph.  The second was mentioned by Leslie Robertson, assuming a lower impact speed of 180 mph.

Before I go on, there is an important note to make regarding the WTC engineers.  Leslie Robertson appears to have been contracted to the design project in 1966.  John Skilling was a part of the design project from its inception in 1962.  It follows that only Skilling took part in the 1964 impact study.

The above explains why we get these statements from Robertson: -

''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's ["600 mph"] statement more than three decades later.”

“To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.  Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

And yet from Skilling we hear this: -

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building.  There would be a horrendous fire.  A lot of people would be killed.  The building structure would still be there.”

Of course the 600 mph case had nothing to do with the reality of what Robertson did – he was not on the design team at that time.  The statements between the two engineers are not contradictory, but actually discussing different study cases at different times.

Anyhow, your suspicion is refuted by the comment of Skilling above.  Or do you really think the WTC head structural engineer was so stupid as to not include the impact damage before his fire analysis?  I think not.  Skilling's prior quote in the article even mentions, “an airplane hitting the side”.  How would the fuel have gotten there if not for the initial impact?  Given this, I think it safe to say that the 1964 study analysed both a 600 mph impact and fire scenario (in which additionally, no fireproofing could have been considered, yet the structure would still only suffer local damage).

I’ve been over all of this many times with various people and I know where the discussion goes next – you will attempt to dispute validity of the 1964 results.  There are arguments in opposition to this, not least that NIST’s own 2005 results would have agreed with the earlier study the day prior 9/11.  However, this is beside the point and I’m not interested in going over all that again right now.  The single point I wanted to highlight here is that your statement...

“Yes they considered the possibility of an accidental crash of a 707, lost in fog for example, but not a targeted and intentional attack at maximum velocity.”

.... is incorrect.

It makes me worry in how many other areas you repeat misinformation as fact even after it has been addressed.

[Q24]

booNy, addressing your post #337 as promised...

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

The problem with Gage's interpretation is that he erroneously includes the upper portion of the lower block as part of the upper block when collapse initiates.

His lower red line is around what floor?  The 90th or so?  I'm not sure, I'd have to look very closely and count, but it is most certainly not where collapse initiated.

The actual collapse initiation was at about the 98th story, as we can clearly see here:




So his whole claim about the upper block being destroyed 4 seconds into collapse is complete nonsense and based on either intentionally misleading or misinterpreted evidence.  Of course the floors immediately below the 98th are destroyed in short order, they were damaged by the impact of the plane and ravaged by the subsequent fires.  This is the 'cutting through butter' reference that I have been talking about.

It isn't the upper block being destroyed, it is the top layers of the lower block being destroyed.

Surely you can see this Q24?

Whilst the visible external failure occurs at the 98^th floor, the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region; the 94^th-96^th floors.

Gage correctly places the lower red line to represent the lower block at the lowest point of impact damge.  The upper red line and moving green line obviously represent the roofline of the upper block and collapse pregression which are also correct.  It is similar to in this picture: -





The video clip Gage commentates on shows that both the upper block and debris layer (which you say are co-joined to comprise a single mass) are telescoping down into the tower and being destroyed, in a time where the lower block (beneath the lower red line) is suffering negligible damage.

How very interesting that suddenly you want to characterise damaged structure at the collapse progression front as a part of the lower block, rather than joined with mass of the upper block.

So no I don’t see a problem – the upper mass is deteriorating faster than the lower mass, which is the whole point.

Which leads nicely back to your animation...

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

The first error at the initial impact is so rudimentary, depicting the bias mentioned,  not even adhering to the official theory and completely ignoring the whole discussion we’ve had on this thread.  booNy, at the initial impact I can see the lower columns buckle.  Where is the buckle of the upper columns?  How typical and grossly biased that you only focus on getting those lower floors to collapse (and also humorous, considering that even Bazant states damage to the first two opposing storys at impact is equal).

I explained that with the text that accompanied the visualization provided by the graphic.  Did you read and digest the text?  If not, I suggest that you give that a try.  I'm not going to repeat it here as the redundancy isn't essential.  You can scroll up or page back to read it.  If you have questions related to the explanations already provided I'll be more than happy to try to answer.

I read all of your text at the time of viewing the animation and have wasted my time re-reading it.  Nowhere do you explain why the upper columns in your animation do not fail at the initial impact, as even Bazant states they do.  You are correctly including conservation of momentum but failing to apply the equal and opposite force involved.  You will need to correct this before the animation can be taken seriously or discussed further.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 20 September 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Q, quick question as I'm swamped currently and need to pull together in my head all the recent comments.  Am I assuming correctly that you disagree with the portion of the NIST FAQ that essentially states that the stories of the WTC could handle up to 6 stories falling on it (I think it was 11 additional stories if it was static)?  Thanks also to you and Boony about the clarification on the NIST and Bazant studies and how they together comprise the 'official theory'.

I have no problem with that statement from NIST.  I don't have much problem with NIST's statements in general (well, except a couple of individual statements from Sunder and Gross that rile me).  Most of the time it's more about understanding premises the NIST study is based upon, i.e. exactly what their simulated inputs prove, than needing to challenge the results.

Why do you ask?

I don’t think the lower story is going to “handle” or “arrest” the upper mass from the collapse initiation.  It’s an impossible task once a fall initiates and so long as the upper block remains rigid/intact.  It is another situation altogether once we accept that the upper block must deteriorate approximately equal and opposite to the lower block.  Wtih deterioration of the upper block, Bazant's theory is rendered void and there is no official theory to explain the collapse progression.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I have no problem with that statement from NIST.  I don't have much problem with NIST's statements in general (well, except a couple of individual statements from Sunder and Gross that rile me).  Most of the time it's more about understanding premises the NIST study is based upon, i.e. exactly what their simulated inputs prove, than needing to challenge the results.

Why do you ask?

I don’t think the lower story is going to “handle” or “arrest” the upper mass from the collapse initiation.  It’s an impossible task once a fall initiates and so long as the upper block remains rigid/intact.  It is another situation altogether once we accept that the upper block must deteriorate approximately equal and opposite to the lower block.  Wtih deterioration of the upper block, Bazant's theory is rendered void and there is no official theory to explain the collapse progression.

Thanks Q, I was asking just to give context and to make sure I understand the things we do agree on.  I do not accept at this point that the upper block must deteriorate approximately equal and opposite to the lower block, I don't understand what you are doing with the force of the middle debris layer moving downward, I believe that's the point of current contention in our conversation.  I will try and give you a proper reply this weekend sometime to your last response to me where I can flesh out where I think our differences are.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

The past discussion where I posted that link, first began with your promotion of a 911myths webpage, which itself mentioned the 600 mph impact case, which you acknowledged: -

• “the link does mention that according to NIST there were documents uncovered which supposedly discuss the consideration of higher speed impacts”

During our conversation that followed, I also said: -

• “a number of prior analysis were carried out separately taking into account an airliner travelling 600 mph”
  
• “higher speed impact referred to by the Port Authority”
  
• “911myths is wrong about 1) only a lower impact speed being considered”
  
• “The link mentions the 600 mph impact case described by the Port Authority and NIST”

I don’t think you have any grounds to claim ignorance on basis that the speed was not previously discussed or referenced.  It was not for lack of my trying to get the point across.  Perhaps rather thoughtless and pointless responses to the information, such as your post #616, were distracting you.

Of course the claim was mentioned, but it wasn't substantiated with anything that could be considered... well...  substantial.     The link you recently provided actually lends credence to the claim, so good job for that.  It is unfortunate that we don't have access to the details of the study or studies in order to fully evaluate them for accuracy and completeness, but at least we can confidently conclude that someone at some point did some kind of study after which they concluded that a 707 traveling at 600 MPH impacting with the towers wouldn't knock them over.  Beyond that, we don't really know much.

This of course seems to match with what happened on 9/11 by the way.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

It’s similar to the problem Swanny has (because him and I have been over this exact subject more than once also).  The issue is that both of you will quickly disregard or forget anything in opposition to your position, quite subconsciously I’m sure, and repeat the same mistakes down the line.  Unfortunately it applies in all discussion, not only this example.

If you're trying to point out that I'm not perfect and I am fully capable of making mistakes all I can say is...  I don't disagree.  I've made mistakes many times and will undoubtedly do so in the future as well.  And so have you and so will you.  There is a reason for that, and it is called being human.

As for your accusation that I would quickly disregard or forget about anything that was supposedly in opposition to my position;  It is unfounded.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

None of the analyses mentioned by the WTC engineers are available.

I suspect you are very wrong in your suspicion that, “they stopped looking at the problem right after impact”.

I will explain why...

There appears to have been more than one airliner impact study carried out by the WTC design team.  The first was the 1964 paper mentioned by the Port Authority and NIST, assuming a higher impact speed of 600 mph.  The second was mentioned by Leslie Robertson, assuming a lower impact speed of 180 mph.

Before I go on, there is an important note to make regarding the WTC engineers.  Leslie Robertson appears to have been contracted to the design project in 1966.  John Skilling was a part of the design project from its inception in 1962.  It follows that only Skilling took part in the 1964 impact study.

The above explains why we get these statements from Robertson: -

''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's ["600 mph"] statement more than three decades later.”

“To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.  Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

And yet from Skilling we hear this: -

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building.  There would be a horrendous fire.  A lot of people would be killed.  The building structure would still be there.”

Of course the 600 mph case had nothing to do with the reality of what Robertson did – he was not on the design team at that time.  The statements between the two engineers are not contradictory, but actually discussing different study cases at different times.

Anyhow, your suspicion is refuted by the comment of Skilling above.  Or do you really think the WTC head structural engineer was so stupid as to not include the impact damage before his fire analysis?  I think not.  Skilling's prior quote in the article even mentions, “an airplane hitting the side”.  How would the fuel have gotten there if not for the initial impact?  Given this, I think it safe to say that the 1964 study analysed both a 600 mph impact and fire scenario (in which additionally, no fireproofing could have been considered, yet the structure would still only suffer local damage).

I'm not going to say that you are wrong (and I wish you'd provide me the same courtesy) because you may very well be interpreting the statement correctly.  It is also possible to interpret the statement regarding fire as being directly impactful on loss of life (people burning to death from the horrendous fire) rather than an analysis of the fire's impact on the building's structural integrity.  Please notice that I'm not claiming this is definitely the case, only raising the possibility.  Either interpretation is possible, though I would consider your interpretation more likely considering Skilling's position.  Unfortunately, we can't know from this quote alone.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I’ve been over all of this many times with various people and I know where the discussion goes next – you will attempt to dispute validity of the 1964 results.

Why would I try to dispute the validity of the 1964 results?  More importantly, how could anyone either support or dispute the validity of the results when we do not have the original analyses to work from?  The study could be complete, or it could be incomplete.  The methods used could be effective, or they could be ineffective.  The results could be accurate, or they could be inaccurate.  We will probably never know unless the original calculations are discovered and presented for critical review and/or validation.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

It makes me worry in how many other areas you repeat misinformation as fact even after it has been addressed.

I certainly don't try to do this and I don't much appreciate your insinuation about it.  If you do happen to find an occasion where I have done this, please do point it out so that I can correct it if needed or defend it if the accusation is unwarranted.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

booNy, addressing your post #337 as promised...

Thank you for responding to the post, though you haven't actually addressed the inaccuracies I've raised.  All you've done is restate Gage's original error as though it wasn't an error.  Unfortunately, it is an error.  The only question I have is whether Gage is being intentionally misleading with his description or if it's an honest mistake on his part.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Whilst the visible external failure occurs at the 98^th floor, the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region; the 94^th-96^th floors.

Gage correctly places the lower red line to represent the lower block at the lowest point of impact damge.  The upper red line and moving green line obviously represent the roofline of the upper block and collapse pregression which are also correct.  It is similar to in this picture: -





The video clip Gage commentates on shows that both the upper block and debris layer (which you say are co-joined to comprise a single mass) are telescoping down into the tower and being destroyed, in a time where the lower block (beneath the lower red line) is suffering negligible damage.

How very interesting that suddenly you want to characterise damaged structure at the collapse progression front as a part of the lower block, rather than joined with mass of the upper block.

So no I don’t see a problem – the upper mass is deteriorating faster than the lower mass, which is the whole point.

Which leads nicely back to your animation...

Listen to Gage's description of the visual.  Here's a transcript:

"Let's look at the North Tower as it comes down.  Now we're told that this upper section between the two red lines drove the rest of the building down to the ground.  But as you can see, it itself is telescoping.  It's being destroyed in what can only be termed as a controlled demolition.  A miniature controlled demolition if you will.  In the first four seconds it is completely destroyed.  There's nothing left to drive the rest of the building down."

Anyone who states that the area between his red lines is the upper block is mistaken.  I'm not aware of anyone who makes this claim except for you and Gage.  Bazant and NIST don't.  Swanny doesn't.  I don't.  Can you please point me to anyone at all who acknowledges a gravity driven collapse that makes this claim?


Take another look at the picture you used in an effort to support your point of view.  Do you notice the yellow section which is clearly described as "Lower Part A" and the green section which is clearly described as "Upper Part C?"  Whoever created the image appears to be indicating the lower block and the upper block with these color coded designations.  (edit) I haven't taken the time to compare your image with the actual collapse initiation by the way.  After posting it almost looks like your image is depicting the upper and lower sections inaccurately to me, but I'd have to do more comparisons to be sure.  It looks more accurate than Gage's image, but still has the upper block just a little bit too large. (/edit)

Maybe we need to define these terms.

Upper block - The part of the building which begins to move downward at collapse initiation.
Lower block - The part of the building which is impacted by the downward motion of the upper block after collapse initiation.

Do you disagree with these definitions?


You state that "the internal core failure must be within the impact and most severe fire region; the 94^th-96^th floors."  How can we possibly know that?  We can't see the inside.  We can't know if this is true or false.  Unless I'm mistaken, the initial failure was primarily in the South perimeter wall and Southeast corner; hence the direction of upper block tilting.  Where exactly within the core there was failure is purely speculative.  You may be correct in your assumption, but that doesn't mean that it must be where core failure initially occurred.  Besides, if that was where core failure initiated, we should see dramatic inward bowing of the exterior wall in that same region because the walls were tied to the core by floor trusses and if the core were falling where you indicate it would pull the corresponding area of the perimeter tube in the first few seconds of collapse.  This doesn't happen.

All we can make reasonably definitive measurements about are what we can see, and we can clearly see the downward motion of the upper block begin at the 98^th story.

The upper block is the top 12 stories.

As such, we aren't seeing any telescoping or destruction of the upper block in those first moments of collapse.  We are seeing the actual upper block crushing through the top several floors of the lower block like butter.

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

I read all of your text at the time of viewing the animation and have wasted my time re-reading it.  Nowhere do you explain why the upper columns in your animation do not fail at the initial impact, as even Bazant states they do.  You are correctly including conservation of momentum but failing to apply the equal and opposite force involved.  You will need to correct this before the animation can be taken seriously or discussed further.

I guess you didn't get to the end of it then.  Here, I'll quote the relevant bit for you:

booNyzarC, on 19 September 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

4. The survival of the upper block throughout collapse within the model.

As mentioned above when discussing your first complaint, the initial floors that failed were heavily damaged and weakened by fires.  Even though neither NIST or Bazant use these words, the upper block would have cut through the first 4 or 5 floors like a cold knife slicing warm butter.  By the time it had collapsed through these floors it would have accumulated the mass of those floors which would provide a shield against impact forces delivered during subsequent collisions.  Even if we assumed that the columns between floors 99 and 100 buckled and deformed upon the initial impact, every impact following that takes place on the bottom side of the compressed central mass because that's the direction gravity accelerates the unsupported upper block.

This is not in defiance of Newton's third law, it is in complete congruence with it.

In light of these observations I think it is highly unlikely that the columns between floors 99 and 100 would universally fail within the model.  Some of them may, but the severely damaged columns below would fail earlier.  Supposing that they did though, it still wouldn't change what happened afterwards.

If you disagree with this assessment, perhaps you can describe why.

Edited by booNyzarC, 21 September 2012 - 11:12 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 19 September 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I think simple viewing of the tower collapse footage, where Gage commentates on destruction of the upper block, tells us the correct answer far more effectively than any of our arguing over it – there’s no disputing reality.

There's a helluva lot of disputing Gage's perception of reality.  Just my impression, but I think he sounds like a clown as soon as he starts in with mixing Newton with 'damage';  Sir Isaac said absolutely nothing about 'damage' in his laws, and you know that assessing how much damage a building takes involves much more than determining the magnitude and direction of all the forces involved, which is daunting and complicated enough.

Quote

I’m not sure where you get the idea that structure needs to move higher to cause damage to the upper block.  Whether the upper block moves downward or the lower block moves upward (which it is obviously the former) to cause the impact makes no difference to the equal and opposite force involved.

What part of the mass of the compressed middle layer is acting as a force on the upper block, except as resistance to the mass of the falling upper block itself?  Once any part of the mass of the compressed middle layer is in motion downward, there is a force that the lower block must withstand that the upper block doesn't.  What have you done with that downward force that exerts itself on the lower block only?  How does that equate to equal upper and lower forces to the upper and lower block?

Quote

The motion of the lowest affected story is not downward due to gravity but always due to the ‘greater than gravity’ momentum of the upper block.  This means that the upper block is always acting on the lower stories.

The lowest affected story has mass, the lowest affected story has motion no matter what the cause, it thus has a force that is pushing downward only.

Quote

If the columns immediately below any area of the upper block break (now having the strength of aluminium foil as per your analogy), thus relieving force on the upper block, then force is likewise reduced on the lower block...

And then what happens to the upper block and the mass of the story where the columns break?  They are accelerated necessarily downward by gravity, if they now have nothing more than the strength of aluminum foil temporarily trying to support them.  

Quote

...which is now only in contact with/supporting the same mass it’s held up for three decades (in fact a lot less, because in that moment is is actually no longer supporting the load of the upper block), until the upper block closes the gap and once again exerts pressure, in doing so itself suffering damage.

There is no reason to invoke anything along the lines of 'same mass it has held up for three decades' in any of this discussion; this is not a static model, masses are in motion.  It's not just the mass it has to hold up, it has to withstand the force of this mass in motion.  It is not just the upper block that closes the gap, it has to be the middle debris layer also.  The upper and middle layer close the gap, until pressure is exerted again by the structure of the lower block, that force being balanced somewhere towards the lower part of the middle mass as the lower block resists against the combined mass of the middle and upper blocks in motion towards it, thus even though the upper block does likely suffer some damage, it cannot be equal as long as the middle mass is in motion also.

Quote

I also don’t see why the entire mass of the lowest affected story should begin downward movement – as we have been over previously, if the upper block connection breaks in any impact, rather than the lower block connection, then the lower steelwork remaining (retaining its original connection/strength) will provide a ‘shield’ to the lower block which the upper block must be impaled upon to reach the next story.  You only need view the WTC1 core spire for evidence this occurred.

I don't see why specifying the 'entire' mass is relevant; any mass in motion is downward and must be resisted by the lower block.  Let's leave impalement out of it for now, that requires another extremely complicated analysis to understand its effects, and focus on this shield.  Here's what you said earlier:

Quote

If we accept the core structure (which consisted of continuous columns and open elevator shafts and stairwells, i.e. limited “floors”) then the opportunity for freefall, where the upper block in isolation builds a ‘debris shield’ and suffers reduced force at subsequent impacts, is removed – the intermediary structure throughout collapse providing as much of a ‘shield’ to the lower block as the upper block and resulting in overall equal and opposite damage to the blocks.  This is what I propose.

I don't think literal 'freefall' is necessary, and it's not just stories of the upper block that are creating this shield, it is the stories of the lower block also.  This shield does provide some protection to both the upper and lower blocks, with the exception of the force of the movement of the shield itself.  Another analogy.  Let's assume you and I are the same mass, and I get a running start and collide with you; I think we both agree under this scenario that, in general, you and I sustain the same damage.  Now exact same scenario except I'm holding a 100 lb steel shield in front of me as I run toward you.  The shield absorbs some of the forces for both of us, but you have to experience and suffer the additional force of this heavy shield in motion; I do not, I'm never going to experience anything more than the force of my own mass whether the point of contact with my body is your body or the back of the shield.  If you can withstand the force of both my mass and the shield's mass and the motion is arrested, I did not need to experience any of the force of the movement of the shield in full compliance with Newton, the shield itself is also withstanding these opposite forces of your resistance.  You experience the force of my mass plus the shield's mass; I experience the force of my mass being brought to a halt, and no force from the mass of the shield.

Quote

No because I don’t believe the entire lowest story should enter immediate downward movement upon contact with the upper block – sometimes the more severe damage/breaking connections/buckling will occur in the upper block – please see above.

Not in the simplistic model within which we are discussing Newton, this has to do with impalement I believe.

Quote

Of any structure in the lowest affected story that is moving downward, it is only doing so, not under its own mass or gravity (it is sitting on the intact structure immediately below which has supported it for three decades) but through force applied by the upper block, which therefore itself must be suffering an equal force due to it’s own momentum.

That depends, if our columns have the strength of aluminum foil than gravity does accelerate the lowest affected story downward. The intact lower structure must absorb the force of this motion.  Since there are previously affected (compressed) stories above this lowest affected story sitting between it and the upper block which are being acted on by gravity, than that is for all intents and purposes in a simplistic model part of the upper block mass, and thus the original upper block does not suffer equal force.

Quote

The above changes once we add a large core structure composed primarily of continuous columns and open spaces on the horizontal plain where connections can be broken.  This introduces a vital area of penetration of both upper and lower blocks.

In all, the critical difference you are looking for is simply that between ‘floors and horizontal spaces’ and ‘continuous columns and vertical spaces’ – the first can ‘pancake’ whilst the second cannot.  In addition the first cannot survive indedendently whilst the second can.

I don't think 'pancaking' is necessary.  All that need happen is that the structures compress and become less supported, it does not need to be 'entire' or 'immediate', there is still mass in motion downward that has to be accounted for and that is being acted on by gravity.

Quote

Sorry, I thought you were up to speed with this: -

“I think he [Bazant] is a criminal. You can quote me because I’ve already said that on my web site.  This guy is a Lysenko-type scientist.  He’s presenting a false theory for whatever purpose.  I don’t know why he does it.”
~Anders Björkman, European structural engineer
http://norcaltruth.o...-zdenek-bazant/

"As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant."
~James Gourley, U.S. attorney
http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Ha, please, Q.  Sorry for the confusion, yes, I'm up to speed on the fact that truthers don't hold him in high esteeem.  Is that all it takes, quote wars?  

Quote

Engineer Zdeněk P. Bažant is best known as a world leader in scaling research in solid mechanics . His research focuses on the effect of structure size on structural strength as it relates to the failure behavior of the structure. He also has made outstanding advances in structural stability, fracture mechanics, the micromechanics of material damage, concrete creep , and probabilistic mechanics. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996 and to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, 1 of only 153 members with such a dual appointment. Bažant's work has spanned several engineering disciplines, and he has been honored with numerous awards in recognition of his accomplishments. In 1996, he received the Prager Medal from the Society of Engineering Science (SES) and the Newmark Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineers. In 1997, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers awarded him the Warner Medal, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the engineering literature. He has received four honorary doctorates and will be presented with a fifth this fall from l'Institut National des Sciences Appliquées in Lyon, France. Bažant has authored or coauthored six books and more than 450 articles in refereed journals. In 2001, he received the award of Highly Cited Researcher, which is given by the Institute for Scientific Information to only 250 authors worldwide across all engineering fields. In addition, he served as president of SES and was founding president of the International Association of Fracture Mechanics and Concrete Structures.

Yes, clearly an idiot and criminal, and no match for papers co-authored by professors of Asian religions and literature and dudes with their structural engineering bachelors degree....

Quote

I would still like an answer to the question: how is it that Bazant can achieve what no computer based physics simulation can?

This I'm not up to speed on; what no computer based simulation 'can' or 'has'?

Quote

I’m not asking you to trust an interpretation, simply to read the excerpts of Bazant’s paper provided in my post #310 and realise that as soon as you admit the upper block deteriorates throughout the collapse that the official theory goes in the bin.

No, of course it doesn't, it depends entirely on the extent and the effect of this deterioration, and depends on us taking into account the force of the middle mass moving downward and gravity.

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Q24, on 21 September 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Gage correctly places the lower red line to represent the lower block at the lowest point of impact damge.  The upper red line and moving green line obviously represent the roofline of the upper block and collapse pregression which are also correct.  It is similar to in this picture: -

Take another look at the picture you used in an effort to support your point of view.  Do you notice the yellow section which is clearly described as "Lower Part A" and the green section which is clearly described as "Upper Part C?"  Whoever created the image appears to be indicating the lower block and the upper block with these color coded designations.  (edit) I haven't taken the time to compare your image with the actual collapse initiation by the way.  After posting it almost looks like your image is depicting the upper and lower sections inaccurately to me, but I'd have to do more comparisons to be sure.  It looks more accurate than Gage's image, but still has the upper block just a little bit too large. (/edit)

After taking a closer look and comparing with several WTC1 collapse videos, the markings on your example pic (above) are close enough in my opinion.  Gage's image puts the bottom of the upper block at about the 91^st or 92^nd story.  I honestly don't see how you can support this position Q24.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Of course the claim was mentioned, but it wasn't substantiated with anything that could be considered... well...  substantial.  

That’s what happens when you rely on 911myths to substantiate information instead of listening to Q and doing your own fact finding.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

It is unfortunate that we don't have access to the details of the study or studies in order to fully evaluate them for accuracy and completeness, but at least we can confidently conclude that someone at some point did some kind of study after which they concluded that a 707 traveling at 600 MPH impacting with the towers wouldn't knock them over.  Beyond that, we don't really know much.

As I mentioned – if it’s details you are after just check the 2005 NIST study which, similar to the above, concluded a 767 travelling at a best estimate speed of near 600 mph followed by the resultant fire would not knock over or collapse the towers.   It’s really easy – all you have to do is ignore where NIST adapted every variable far from the best estimates to favour collapse and made further manual inputs to induce collapse initiation not predicted by their own models to reach the politically desired conclusion.  In doing so you will find corroboration of the 1964 study.  I’m sure we’ve been over it all on this thread already though you haven’t taken it onboard.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

If you're trying to point out that I'm not perfect and I am fully capable of making mistakes all I can say is...  I don't disagree.  I've made mistakes many times and will undoubtedly do so in the future as well.  And so have you and so will you.  There is a reason for that, and it is called being human.

I’m trying to point out example of why it’s futile trying to have a constructive discussion with official story adherents.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I'm not going to say that you are wrong (and I wish you'd provide me the same courtesy) because you may very well be interpreting the statement correctly.  It is also possible to interpret the statement regarding fire as being directly impactful on loss of life (people burning to death from the horrendous fire) rather than an analysis of the fire's impact on the building's structural integrity.  Please notice that I'm not claiming this is definitely the case, only raising the possibility.  Either interpretation is possible, though I would consider your interpretation more likely considering Skilling's position.  Unfortunately, we can't know from this quote alone.

Unbelievable.

There is no ambiguity in Skilling’s statement.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Why would I try to dispute the validity of the 1964 results?  More importantly, how could anyone either support or dispute the validity of the results when we do not have the original analyses to work from?  The study could be complete, or it could be incomplete.  The methods used could be effective, or they could be ineffective.  The results could be accurate, or they could be inaccurate.  We will probably never know unless the original calculations are discovered and presented for critical review and/or validation.

Did you mean to do that?  Ask, why would you try to dispute validity of the 1964 results?  Then proceed for remainder of the paragraph do just that, in calling the results into question?  Personally, I guess I’ll have to take the WTC head structural engineer’s word for validity of the results.  Because unlike official story adherents, I have no motive for prefering him to be wrong.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I certainly don't try to do this and I don't much appreciate your insinuation about it.  If you do happen to find an occasion where I have done this, please do point it out so that I can correct it if needed or defend it if the accusation is unwarranted.

I didn’t say you try to repeat misinformation.  I even suggested that it’s subconscious.  In the end the results are the same: the repetition of misinformation.  And I have just pointed out an example.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Thank you for responding to the post, though you haven't actually addressed the inaccuracies I've raised.  All you've done is restate Gage's original error as though it wasn't an error.  Unfortunately, it is an error.  The only question I have is whether Gage is being intentionally misleading with his description or if it's an honest mistake on his part.

That is becasue I don’t agree there is an error in the argument – the upper block clearly deteriorates at a rate faster than the lower block.  Rather, you are inconsistent in whether you want to include the collapse zone in the upper or lower block to suit your own argument at any given time.

booNyzarC, on 21 September 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Anyone who states that the area between his red lines is the upper block is mistaken.  I'm not aware of anyone who makes this claim except for you and Gage.  Bazant and NIST don't.  Swanny doesn't.  I don't.  Can you please point me to anyone at all who acknowledges a gravity driven collapse that makes this claim?

Unbelievable.

You’ve been arguing for pages that the upper block and debris in the collapse zone act as a single mass to crush the lower block.  Then when we see this upper mass deteriorating at a faster rate than the lower block, you switch your argument to claim debris in the collapse zone is now a part of the mass of the lower block.  Which is partly true, and explains why the upper block deteriorates.  Though I know that as soon as you want to explain the collapse progression, the inconsistencies will come about again and the debris in the collapse zone will be a part of the upper block once more.  Why not just realise we are dealing with a continuous structure; the debris in the collapse zone is no more a part of one block (upper or lower) than it is the other.  I’m sure we’ve been over it all on this thread already though you haven’t taken it onboard.

Sorry, I’ve lost the will to go on with responses to your post (again).

Edited by Q24, 24 September 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 24 September 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Sorry, I’ve lost the will to go on with responses to your post (again).

Translation:

I have no rebuttal for what you've presented because it irrefutably shows that both Gage and myself are incorrect in our definition of the upper block.

Got it, thanks for confirming.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

There's a helluva lot of disputing Gage's perception of reality.  Just my impression, but I think he sounds like a clown as soon as he starts in with mixing Newton with 'damage';  Sir Isaac said absolutely nothing about 'damage' in his laws, and you know that assessing how much damage a building takes involves much more than determining the magnitude and direction of all the forces involved, which is daunting and complicated enough.

Though obviously if the structures are roughly symmetrical to one another and of equivalent construction and material (as the upper and lower blocks of the towers) then the equal and opposite force implies approximately equal and opposite damage will be incurred.  I know I’ve already said this, or something similar, on the thread.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

What part of the mass of the compressed middle layer is acting as a force on the upper block, except as resistance to the mass of the falling upper block itself?  Once any part of the mass of the compressed middle layer is in motion downward, there is a force that the lower block must withstand that the upper block doesn't.  What have you done with that downward force that exerts itself on the lower block only?  How does that equate to equal upper and lower forces to the upper and lower block?

You answer the first question yourself.

The second sentence I don’t understand, unless you assume a freefall drop of the middle layer.  Likewise the second question - I don’t see any increased force (over and above the loads which always  existed since the towers were built) that should exert itself on the lower block only.  The driving force is the upper block.  The additional load must be created by the upper block.  The upper block therefore must suffer damage.  I’m repeating myself.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

And then what happens to the upper block and the mass of the story where the columns break?  They are accelerated necessarily downward by gravity, if they now have nothing more than the strength of aluminum foil temporarily trying to support them.  

The mass of the story where the columns break is insignificant because it is sitting atop the lower structure that has supported the mass for three decades, except at that moment the lower structure is no longer supporting the upper block so in fact is relieved of an enormous load.  The next level of damage does not occur until the upper block closes the gap, where equal and opposite forces recur.  I’ve already said this haven’t I.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

There is no reason to invoke anything along the lines of 'same mass it has held up for three decades' in any of this discussion; this is not a static model, masses are in motion.  It's not just the mass it has to hold up, it has to withstand the force of this mass in motion.  It is not just the upper block that closes the gap, it has to be the middle debris layer also.  The upper and middle layer close the gap, until pressure is exerted again by the structure of the lower block, that force being balanced somewhere towards the lower part of the middle mass as the lower block resists against the combined mass of the middle and upper blocks in motion towards it, thus even though the upper block does likely suffer some damage, it cannot be equal as long as the middle mass is in motion also.

The reason I invoke ‘same mass it’s held up for three decades’ is because you seem to believe that the mass of the broken columns immediately contacting the lower intact structure is somehow overwhelming.  It’s not actually until the upper block exerts its momentum on the lower block that the next lower level is overwhelmed, at which point equal and opposite forces occur.  I feel like a parrot.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I don't see why specifying the 'entire' mass is relevant; any mass in motion is downward and must be resisted by the lower block.  Let's leave impalement out of it for now, that requires another extremely complicated analysis to understand its effects, and focus on this shield.

Because if columns break in the upper block and the entire lower mass does not immediately move then it will produce damage to the upper block, i.e. impalement occurs.  We cannot “leave impalement out of it” – that’s the whole process whereby the upper block suffers damage!  You might as well just ask me to leave my whole contention out of it.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Another analogy.  Let's assume you and I are the same mass, and I get a running start and collide with you; I think we both agree under this scenario that, in general, you and I sustain the same damage.  Now exact same scenario except I'm holding a 100 lb steel shield in front of me as I run toward you.  The shield absorbs some of the forces for both of us, but you have to experience and suffer the additional force of this heavy shield in motion; I do not, I'm never going to experience anything more than the force of my own mass whether the point of contact with my body is your body or the back of the shield.  If you can withstand the force of both my mass and the shield's mass and the motion is arrested, I did not need to experience any of the force of the movement of the shield in full compliance with Newton, the shield itself is also withstanding these opposite forces of your resistance.  You experience the force of my mass plus the shield's mass; I experience the force of my mass being brought to a halt, and no force from the mass of the shield.

I agree with the results as you’ve laid them out but would not call it an analogy.  Why do you constantly and unrealistically imbalance the scenario in your favour?  Once again you have created the effect of a freefall drop and non-continuous structure whilst mounting the shield only on your side (creating an unequal strong vs. weak situation).   Why can’t you just once bring some balance to the opposing sides?

Let’s be err Lemmings... with shields... and we have Lemming friends... and there’s an unstoppable force and an immovable object... and the first, being Superman (representing unlimited momentum and gravity), is going to drive everything (Lemmings and shields) to the left... and he’s going to do it faster than you can run...

What makes you think you will suffer any less impact than me?

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Ha, please, Q.  Sorry for the confusion, yes, I'm up to speed on the fact that truthers don't hold him in high esteeem.  Is that all it takes, quote wars?  

Yes, clearly an idiot and criminal, and no match for papers co-authored by professors of Asian religions and literature and dudes with their structural engineering bachelors degree....

You implied, I think disparagingly, that Bazant stood accused only by myself.  I was just re-pointing out that professionals such as engineers and lawyers also hold Bazant in contempt.  And no one said that Bazant is an idiot... he’s one clever criminal for sure.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

This I'm not up to speed on; what no computer based simulation 'can' or 'has'?

No computer based physics simulation ‘can’ replicate Bazant’s theory – it is impossible – that is why you will find none.

Liquid Gardens, on 22 September 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

No, of course it doesn't, it depends entirely on the extent and the effect of this deterioration, and depends on us taking into account the force of the middle mass moving downward and gravity.

Bazant clearly states that his theory relies on the upper block remaining rigid.

So how rigid do you think the upper block was when the WTC1 core column spire passed right through it?







You keep avoiding these observations based in reality that render theorising irrelevant.  The upper block did not remain rigid or intact otherwise the WTC1 core column spire would not be there.  And again, if the upper block did not remain rigid then Bazant’s theory does not apply.  Perhaps the intact upper block phase-shifted through the lower columns??

I’m afraid we aren’t going to reach an agreement based on theorising alone.  Even in this area of physics where as you have said there should be a definite right and wrong answer, it seems we are stuck in the never ending circle of repeating ourselves and getting nowhere.  I really think such observable reality needs to be incorporated into our thinking; compared and contrasted to validate our theorising.